Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy: International Micro-Education Policy 9811519471, 9789811519475

Citation preview

Anna Elizabeth Du Plessis

Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy International Micro-Education Policy

Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy

Anna Elizabeth Du Plessis

Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy International Micro-Education Policy

123

Anna Elizabeth Du Plessis Griffith University Mt Gravatt, QLD, Australia

ISBN 978-981-15-1947-5 ISBN 978-981-15-1948-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1948-2

(eBook)

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

For my children, Prieur and Menanté

Foreword

Research Evidence and Policy for Out-of-Field Teaching Out-of-field teaching is a very common phenomenon in schooling systems around the globe, in both developed and developing nations. It is a phenomenon that is by and large ignored in and by education policy. Indeed, there has been a deafening silence about it in policy terms. Until quite recently, it has also been basically ignored in educational research as well. In Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy, the concept of out-of-field teaching is defined as “teaching that falls outside a teacher’s field of qualification or expertise.” This might refer to a secondary teacher being responsible for a subject that they do not have qualifications in or a primary teacher working with a year level that they have not been prepared to teach. Disturbingly, it seems that it is beginning teachers that are most often placed in this situation of being responsible for classes outside their areas of expertise. Out-of-field teaching is differentiated from teaching across subjects where teachers teach across their subject specialisations. Out-of-field teaching would seem to be one factor contributing to poor retention of early-career teachers. Anna Du Plessis’s Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy is an important empirically based and theoretically informed and full-blown analysis of the phenomenon, which proffers possible solutions through more context-aware policies that are deeply informed by both teacher voices, including those working out-of-field, and their actual classroom experiences. Thus, the book adds to her already substantial contribution to research in this area and importantly seeks to speak to policy-makers about necessary policy responses to the phenomenon. She argues these context-aware policies need to be developed and put into effect at system, school and classroom levels. Rightly, in my view, Du Plessis argues that context is different and complex in respect of policies at macro-, meso- and micro-levels; for example, she argues classroom context is different from school context, and so on.

vii

viii

Foreword

As Du Plessis demonstrates throughout this much-needed book, policy today has been substantially affected by what I would call a global education policy field that conceptualises schooling as necessary to the production of both the quantity and quality of human capital thought necessary to ensure the national economy is competitive in the global one. So, at the level of meta policy discourses at least, there has been a convergence of policy imaginaries with a debordering of the policy imaginations of national and local systemic policy-makers. This means a neglect of the specificities of the national, the local and school contexts. It is salutary in terms of policy borrowing to recognise that context cannot be transferred across national contexts; all policy development in different nations is always path-dependent, that is, it builds (incrementally) on what has gone before. At the same time in reforms of school systems, policy today has become much more a top-down aspect of restructured school systems that steers what schools do. In Bourdieu’s terms based on his analysis of the logics of practice of the state, policy assumes the right to assert the universal, that is, policy is a one-size-fits-all construct that enters schools and classrooms with vastly different contexts to be heavily mediated and nuanced by those differences. Policy-makers most often see such infidelity in policy practice or enactment as a deficit. This gap between policy and practice might also be seen as effective mediation of the universality of policy by teacher and principal professional knowledges and judgement, which mediate such polices as they move into practice, or are partially adopted or at times totally ignored. This mediation occurs via deep locally and specifically contextualised professional knowledges and teacher judgements. The concept of policy enactment rather than policy implementation picks up on teacher agency as policy moves from text to practice. Here we might see teachers as de facto policy-makers. It is principals’ and teachers’ professional knowledge and experiences that Du Plessis argues should be the basis of a bottom-up involvement of teacher voices in policy if such policy is to be really effective and to be actually enacted in schools and classrooms. Specifically, she notes, “I argue that policy development benefits from being informed by a close connection to the realities encountered in the field.” That connection, she demonstrates, should not simply be via data, but also from detailed, contextualised knowledge of the lived realities of teachers and their classrooms. This book provides such knowledge. Her argument is specifically about policy regarding out-of-field teachers, but I would suggest good policy should always have such a top-down, bottom-up development approach. Such an approach acknowledges that all policy is always an admixture of evidence (research, data), politics (values, ideologies, discourses) and professional knowledges. The same is the case with pedagogical and assessment practices. Concern with the extent of out-of-field teaching is linked to the pressure on schools and teachers in the current policy context to improve student performance, most often on international and national standardised testing. The instantiation of such testing also frames new modes of top-down, test-based accountability that places more pressure on teachers and often also on students. It is argued

Foreword

ix

persuasively by Du Plessis that out-of-field teachers are poorly placed to achieve these systemic goals and that polices that support these teachers are a necessary complement if such goals are to be achieved. Furthermore, as with most critical scholars, she sees such a narrowed focus as somewhat debilitating of what the purposes of schooling ought to be. So, she asserts that given the systemic logic of contemporary education policy and the reality of top-down, test-based accountability, that such logic, while open to criticism in terms of its reductive effects on the purposes of schooling, demands effective policies regarding out-of-field teaching. She would suggest that the first step in terms of policy would be the recognition of the phenomenon; we know the naming of issues is a first step to the production of responsive policy. Contemporary education policy valorises teachers as the most significant contributing factor to student learning. This is a good thing and reflective of a strong research base. However, it is also a two-edged sword. Such policy valorisation of teachers most often neglects multiple contextual factors, for example, a school’s socioeconomic student intake, which we know have substantial impact on student performance. Teachers thus are constituted as bearing all of the burden of student achievements. Now, and based on the research, we know that of all in-school factors teacher pedagogies are the most significant factor in student learning. We also know that a threshold knowledge of subjects is a necessary basis to effective pedagogies. Such threshold knowledge (professional and discipline-based) is central to pedagogical content knowledge, the capacity to transform subject knowledge into effective pedagogical practices. Research tells us this and is somewhat unequivocal regarding such findings. It is here that teachers working out of field are at a substantial disadvantage in terms of systemic pressures around enhancing student performance and in terms of test-based modes of accountability. They lack the threshold knowledge and thus the capacity for enacting appropriate pedagogical content knowledge. It is noted by Du Plessis from her research that out-of-field teachers suggest they take 3–5 years to develop the necessary expertise. It is in this respect that Du Plessis in this book makes a profound, indeed incontrovertible argument, for specific policies to support such teachers and their work. Thus, she rejects any assertion that teachers are “vocationally adaptable” and that good teachers can teach anything. In Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy, Du Plessis has made a further contribution to our understanding of the lived realities of out-of-field teachers and their teaching. This is its empirical research contribution. Additionally, this research is heavily theorised and Du Plessis creates a theoretical framework for understanding out-of-field teaching. Perhaps even more importantly, this book speaks to policy-makers and proffers research-informed recommendations for effective policies to assist out-of-field teachers. Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy makes a significant contribution to educational research, which I see has having both knowledge production and

x

Foreword

educative purposes. The problem has been named and researched and policy suggestions made. One can only hope that policy-makers are listening to the evidence and then use it to inform relevant and necessary policies. Dr. Bob Lingard Professorial Fellow at the Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education Australian Catholic University Brisbane, Australia Emeritus Professor University of Queensland Brisbane, Australia

Preface

Is there crying in education policy? (Stern, 2012)

The out-of-field teaching phenomenon is a complex, multilayered thing that has been intertwined with the workforce planning and management of education systems globally for decades, and it is likely to stay part of education in the future. Out-of-field teaching is defined as teaching that falls outside a teacher’s field of qualification or expertise, whether in a specific subject or at a different year level. Teachers teach out of field for a variety of reasons, many of which are embedded in enduring workforce management challenges and the changing priorities of education systems that bear down on the constrained resources of individual school contexts. It is clear from research that the combination of factors which surround and give rise to the use of out-of-field teaching practices that it is not confined to particular countries, demonstrating the existence of a global education strategy issue. At present, however, targeted policies to support the effective management of the phenomenon are significantly absent within global education systems, with little or no attention to its effects on classrooms, teachers or students. My contention is that using teachers out of field as unsupported and unsuitably assigned resources to corral workplace staffing challenges has major implications for more than quality teaching and education—a host of other issues are implicated that run to diversity management, teacher and student well-being and social justice in teachers’ work and students’ learning. My concern is what continues to be expected of teachers and their school leaders regardless of the pandemic occurrence of the phenomenon their schools. The absence of fit-for-purpose policy strategies to address the inherent factors that cause the use of the phenomenon results in the various implications it has on school and classroom contexts. The stance taken by this book is the investigation of the widespread and global education phenomenon of out-of-field teaching, with the intention of revealing out-of-field-shaped cracks in education policy frameworks that impact these education systems’ general improvement strategies. Without focusing on location-specific policies regarding the phenomenon, I highlight that two decades of empirical research show that the out-of-field teaching phenomenon has policy

xi

xii

Preface

implications across a range of issues, and I discuss and confront certain inherent factors that occur globally in terms of the phenomenon, such as: • the support school leaders need to receive to effectively manage the out-of-field teaching phenomenon in the learning and teaching environment; • the professional support required for teachers assigned to out-of-field positions (e.g., for the development of their pedagogical content knowledge); • the classroom complexities of out-of-field teaching (including students’ behavioural issues and the management of diversity); • the impact of out-of-field teaching on the wider school community; • the fairness of standard comparison assessments or appraisals of teachers assigned to out-of-field positions; • the assignment of beginning teachers to out-of-field positions; • educational leaders’ (and, by proxy, societal) concerns about quality education; and • teaching workforce stability. I argue that education policies can become powerful resources that support teachers, school leaders and other stakeholders in education by acknowledging the existence and impact of the phenomenon and addressing the need to effectively manage it. Bates (2013) claimed that a “significant flaw of systems thinking is the level of simplification at which policy-makers operate” (p. 38). Governments are responsible for providing quality education to build the prosperity of a nation and for securing the future for the next generation. Developing improvements means that education departments, as systemic organisations, often rely on policies and policy-makers to guide strategies, approaches and decisions. Caena (2014) has examined how policy practices can translate into education reform to make a difference that is “beyond paying lip service to official policy discourse” (p. 311). I argue that policy development benefits from being informed by a close connection to the realities encountered in the field. Policy approaches intended to improve the quality of education that overlook the implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and what it means in school and classroom contexts are headed for an uphill battle. The book prompts critical reflection on this, and questions the fairness of unrealistic expectations for teachers assigned to out-of-field teaching positions. A discussion of deficiencies in existing educational policies unpacks current misconceptions about the lived experience of out-of-field teachers and their students, and describes how targeted policies and education structures can become resources of support. Positioning policies to address and combat this phenomenon means focusing on out-of-field teachers’ needs while demonstrating a context-conscious awareness of teaching and learning as a situated social experience. A clearer understanding of the consequences of out-of-field teaching practices on quality education and educational leaders’ decision-making can have significant implications for policy development (and reciprocally—implementation of policies implicates decision-making at school level).

Preface

xiii

This book is therefore offered as a “think tank” (Lingard, 2016) to reflect on, critically analyse, reassess and position the role of, specifically, micro-education policies in relation to the out-of-field teaching phenomenon (Cuban, 2019a, 2019b; Johnson, 2013). I define micro-education policies as “practice-policy processes that offer a practical resource framework which can be substantively and contextually adjusted to support teachers in challenging and complex teaching situations” such as out-of-field teaching. The empirical evidence offered in this book is supported by more than a decade of specific research into the phenomenon and the implications it has for quality education and the stability of the teaching workforce (Du Plessis, 2005, 2014, 2017; Du Plessis et al., 2018). Literature discussing the phenomenon’s occurrence has stretched over two decades (see Ingersoll, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2006), however, its intersection with policy (Ingersoll, 2003), or any official acknowledgment of the lived experiences caused by the out-of-field phenomenon have been so far limited. Appreciation of the unique needs that occur within specific contexts is captured through a Context-Conscious Understanding Development (C-CUD) theoretical framework (Du Plessis, 2019). The C-CUD theory acknowledges the multilayered, complex teaching and learning space and the place carefully designed policies have in all that comprises such spaces. This position supports the argument in this book for renewed attention to policy development for the phenomenon that embraces questions about (a) the situation or circumstance in which the phenomenon occurs (Lave & Wenger, 1991); (b) who and what are influenced by specific lived experiences related to the phenomenon (van Manen, 1990); (c) how this phenomenon impacts quality education (Vygotsky, 1978); and (d) how, ultimately, this in-depth understanding of the phenomenon can be substantively and contextually strategised (Gadamer, 1975, 1976/2008). Each chapter highlights different aspects of the significant implications of the phenomenon for the quality of education that are consistently overlooked by national and local policy-makers. First, Chap. 1 describes the background of the argument, namely, the need to reassess policies with the out-of-field phenomenon as a significant variable. Chapter 2 positions policy within a context-conscious approach. Chapter 3 offers a view of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon that moves beyond statistics towards the being of out-of-field teachers; this chapter argues that policy decisions and development need to be closely connected to lived experiences in the field. Chapter 4 then discusses truths from the field and the duty of care that policies represent. Following this, micro-education policies (those directed to achieve improvements and education efficiencies) linked to real-life experiences are captured in Chaps. 5 to 10. Chapter 5 reflects on the effectiveness of teachers and classroom management. Chapter 6 discusses the well-being of out-of-field teachers and their students, and the role policies need to engage in to protect dispositions and emotions. The hermeneutic phenomenological exploration in this chapter focuses on the relationship between the lived experience and the subject; this forms specific units of meaning, such as teacher confidence and self-esteem concerns, the outflows of feelings of belongingness and at homeness in subject areas, and issues of trust

xiv

Preface

relationships. Chapter 7 then turns focus to the impact policies have in stabilising the out-of-field teaching workforce. Chapter 8 discusses the out-of-field teaching context and the meaning of policy strategies and frameworks for the teaching and learning space. Chapter 9 acknowledges the challenges for well-developed policy frameworks to manage the impact of the out-of-field phenomenon on the wider school community and observes how these challenges are perceived in schools and classrooms. Chapter 10 then reflects on educational and school leaders’ decisions and the implementation of policies. The chapter prompts a rethinking of policies as resources and investment frameworks for quality education in the future. Finally, Chap. 11 summarises the multilayered implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and offers policy recommendations for consideration in the international arena. My own journey of 26 years in educational settings in three different countries and two different states in Australia has shown me that teachers are very resourceful. With the right support they will go to great lengths to benefit students and parents and stay loyal to their leaders; they want to be successful and make a difference, but they need support—yet, for government systems and school policies to do this effectively, teachers’ needs must be fully understood. Policies need to be developed to serve the teaching and learning context, rather than the other way around; when teachers are out of field, there is little point asking them to follow generically designed policy requirements when they do not understand the specific outcomes pitched at and are already struggling to experience improvements that indicate quality education is being delivered—with or without implementation of such policies. Acknowledging the successes some schools experience in managing out-of-field teachers’ situations confirms that the phenomenon can be managed in an effective manner. I argue that the transformation and effective management of the out-of-field phenomenon is possible with the support of targeted policies. This book challenges educational leaders to confront the issues that develop because of this phenomenon and further aims to provide a position of awareness of the implications of the phenomenon for quality education from which to support educational and school leaders’ review and refinement of school improvement policies that accommodate and support out-of-field teachers’ needs. Mt Gravatt, Australia

Anna Elizabeth Du Plessis

References Bates, A. (2013). Transcending systems thinking in education reform: Implications for policy-makers and school leaders. Journal of Education Policy, 28(1), 38–54. https://doi. org/10.1080/02680939.2012.684249. Caena, F. (2014). Teacher competence frameworks in Europe: Policy-as-discourse and policy-as-practice. European Journal of Education, 49(3), 312–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/ ejed.12088.

Preface

xv

Cuban, L. (2019a, January 3). Donors reform schooling: Evaluating teachers (Part 1) [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/donors-reform-schoolingevaluating-teachers-part-1/. Cuban, L. (2019b, January 5). Donors reform schooling: Evaluating teachers (Part 2) [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2019/01/05/donors-reform-schoolingevaluating-teachers-part-2/. Du Plessis, A. (2005). The implications of the out-of-field phenomenon for school management (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of South Africa, Pretoria. Du Plessis, A. (2014). Understanding the out-of-field teaching experience (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:330372. Du Plessis, A. (2017). Out-of-field teaching: What educational leaders need to know. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Du Plessis, A. (2019). Professional support beyond initial teacher education: Pedagogical discernment and the influence of out-of-field teaching practices. Singapore: Springer. Du Plessis, A. E., Hoang, N., Wang, J., Schmidt, A., Mertens, L., & Cullinan, M., et al. (2018). Invest in the future of education: Building a stable and quality beginning teacher workforce. Critical factors for reform: Evidence from the field (Research report). Australian Catholic University. Brisbane, QLD: Australia. Gadamer, H. (1975). Truth and method (2nd ed., J. C. B. Mohr, Trans.). New York, NY: The Seabury Press. Gadamer, H. (1976/2008). Philosophical hermeneutics (D. Linge, Ed. & Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Ingersoll, R. (1998). The problem of out-of-field teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(10), 773–776. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/137. Ingersoll, R. (1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x028002026. Ingersoll, R. (2002). Out-of-field-teaching, educational inequality, and the organization of schools: An exploratory analysis. CPRE Research Reports, 22. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn. edu/cpre_researchreports/22/ Ingersoll, R. (2003a). Out-of-field teaching and the limits of teacher policy. Report of the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and The Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=gse_pubs. Ingersoll, R. (2003b). Is there a shortage among mathematics and science teachers? Science Educator, 12(1), 1–9. Ingersoll, R. (2006, January). Is there really a shortage of mathematics and science teachers? Paper presented at the Math Science Partnership Conference, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/132. Johnson, C. (2013). Educational turbulence: The influence of macro and micro-policy on science education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(4), 693–715. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10972-012-9333-9. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lingard, B. (2016). Think tanks, “policy experts” and “ideas for” education policy making in Australia. Australia Education Research, 43, 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-0193-0. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York, NY: SUNY Press. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I wish to acknowledge all the teachers, parents and school leaders who have shared their lived experiences, perceptions and expectations for policy in practice with me during the past 15 years. I want to thank colleagues who motivated and encouraged me to share the truths I discovered in the field in a book in order to offer evidence to inform and support an in-depth reflection on educational policy decisions. I wish to applaud my family for being patient listeners. Finally, I want to thank Kylee McDonagh for her advice and critical reading of the manuscript, for her engagement and honesty, and for her understanding of the passion that drove me to share the policy message of this book, which is deeply embedded in the realities of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon.

xvii

Contents

1

Connecting the Dots: Policy Development and the Out-of-Field Teaching Reality in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Current State of Education Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 Connecting Policy-Making to the Field . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3 Connecting Policy-Making to the Teacher . . . . . . . 1.1.4 Connecting Context to Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.5 Towards New Policy Culture and Tradition: Hearing Voices from the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.6 Concurrent Contexts: Policies and Teacher Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.7 Scope of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.8 Assumptions Reflected in Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Micro-Education Policy Focus Areas: A Foundation to Improve Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Teaching and Teacher Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 Student Achievement in Challenging Classroom Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Educational and School Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.4 Workforce Stability Within Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The Policy Sting Hides in the Context… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 The Need to Take Note: “Things Need to Change or I Am Out” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 Identifying and Defining What Needs to Change . . . . . . . . 1.6 Challenging Classrooms: A Hermeneutic Conceptualisation of the Out-of-Field Phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 Education Policies: Serving the School and Education Community? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

1 1 2 5 5 7

...

10

... ... ...

11 13 14

... ...

15 16

. . . .

. . . .

21 22 24 24

... ...

25 27

...

28

...

31

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . .

xix

xx

Contents

1.8

Micro-Education Policy and Education Reform: Changing Lifeworlds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8.1 A Strategic Way Forward: Policy Discourse to Grow, Encourage and Support Teachers . . . . . . 1.8.2 The Policy Objective: From Surviving to Thriving Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 The Appearance of Education: Policy Implementation and Human Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

3

4

Context-Conscious Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Policy and Context-Consciousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Context-Conscious Understanding Development . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Context Impacts Policy Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Acknowledging Social–Cultural Interdependence . . 2.4.2 Policies as Support Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 In-Depth Understanding of Policy Constructs . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 Moving Beyond the Obvious: Fusion of Horizons . 2.5.2 Pre-Judgement Precedes Policy Development . . . . . 2.6 Situations and Circumstances Inform Being: Policy Habitus and the Everydayness of Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Lived Experiences Linked to the Out-of-Field Teaching Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

...

33

...

34

...

36

... ... ...

37 38 39

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

47 47 49 51 52 54 54 55 56 58

...

60

... ... ...

63 64 65

. . . . . . . . . .

Attention to the Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Twenty-First-Century Statistics Informing the Future of Education: Local, Wider Community and National Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Policy Strategies and the Impact on Out-of-Field Numbers 3.4 A Closer Look at Policies, and Beyond: Social Justice . . . 3.5 Numbers and the Image of Quality Education . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.... ....

69 69

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

73 78 81 84 85 86

The Realities Beyond the Numbers: The Policy–Pedagogy Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Aligning Practitioners’ “Truth” to Policy Development 4.3 Evidence and Policy Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

93 93 95 97

. . . .

. . . .

Contents

4.4

Duty of Care: The Role of Policies . . . . . . . . . 4.4.1 Duty of Care and Teacher Performance 4.4.2 The Duty of Care Culture in Schools . 4.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5

xxi

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders Let Down by Policies? Policy Impact Matters! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Micro-Education Policies Support Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1 Micro-Education Policy Matters in Out-of-Field Teaching Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 The Out-of-Field Classroom: Pedagogical Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 The Out-of-Field Classroom: A “BehaviourInflaming” Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 The Out-of-Field Classroom and Contextual Factors . 5.3 The Politics of Out-of-Field Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.1 Micro-Education Policies as a Resource to Development Classroom Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3.2 Policy Approaches to Professional Support: Official and Unofficial… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Out-of-Field Teaching and Teachers: The Role of Policies and Out-of-Field Inhabitancies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.1 The Focus of Policies: Beginning Teachers in Out-of-Field Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.2 The Focus of Policies: Experienced Teachers in Out-of-Field Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.3 Micro-Education Policies: Primary Schools and High Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4.4 Fit-for-Purpose Policies: The Value of Micro-Education Policies for Different School Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Policies and Performance . . . 5.5.1 A Constructivist View of Policies: Performance and Feelings of at Homeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.2 The Link: Performance, Context and Policies . . . . . . 5.5.3 Performance Is More Than Results: Truths from the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5.4 Performance Perceptions, Policy Frameworks and the Wider Education Community . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

99 101 103 106 107

. . 111 . . 111 . . 112 . . 114 . . 116 . . 119 . . 120 . . 121 . . 123 . . 126 . . 128 . . 129 . . 131 . . 132

. . 132 . . 137 . . 142 . . 144 . . 145 . . 152

xxii

Contents

5.6

The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Dispositions and Policies . 5.6.1 Dispositions and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.2 Being Out-of-Field Is an Emotional Journey . . . . 5.6.3 Dispositions: School Leaders’ Role to Scaffold and Voice Real-Life Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6.4 Out-of-Field Dispositions: Students’ and Parents’ Longing for Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

. . . . 155 . . . . 156 . . . . 158 . . . . 160 . . . . 162 . . . . 166 . . . . 167

Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Out-of-Field Teaching: Concerns, Feelings and Social Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 Quick-Fix Decisions? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 Staffing Issues: Finding Suitably Qualified Teachers for Unique School Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Do Policies Notice Lived Experiences as “Truths”? . . . . . . . 6.4 Unfavourable Teaching Environments: Teacher and Student Well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.1 Interdependent Elements of an Out-of-Field Learning Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.2 The Context-Conscious Element and Its Role in Policy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.3 The Micro-Education Policy Approach: Unsuitably and Suitably Assigned Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4.4 The Micro-Education Policy Obligation: Vulnerable Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Managing Challenging Learning Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.1 Out-of-Field Teachers’ and Students’ Well-being: Exposed to School Leaders’ Disconnect? . . . . . . . . . 6.5.2 Student Well-being: Knowledgeable Teachers and Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.3 Teacher and Student Well-being at Risk: The Culture of Out-of-Field Teaching and Learning Spaces . . . . . 6.5.4 Student Respect and Out-of-Field Teachers’ Coping Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5.5 The Well-being of Students Beyond the Out-of-Field Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 173 . . 173 . . 175 . . 177 . . 178 . . 179 . . 181 . . 183 . . 184 . . 186 . . 188 . . 190 . . 191 . . 194 . . 195 . . 197 . . 199 . . 200 . . 201

Contents

7

8

9

xxiii

Policies to Build a Strong, Quality and Stable Teaching Workforce: In Spite of… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Specific Contextual Factors Driving the Teaching Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 The Remote Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Policies Impact the Image of the Teaching Workforce . . . . . . 7.3.1 Rebuilding the Image of Quality Education . . . . . . . 7.4 Policies Impact Workforce Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 Healthy Workforce Partnerships: Challenges, Community Culture, Time and School Funding . . . . 7.4.2 The Out-of-Field Teaching Workforce and Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.3 School Leaders, Workforce Stability and Out-of-Field Teaching Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.4 Beginning Teacher Workforce and Out-of-Field Teaching Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Being in the Out-of-Field Context: How It Influences the Validation of Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 The School Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3 The Out-of-Field Classroom Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.1 Policy and Diverse, Inclusive Classrooms . . . . . . . 8.3.2 Policy and Pedagogical Thoughtfulness in the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3.3 Micro-Education Policies Validate the Reality in Classrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 The Curriculum and Micro-Education Policies: Made to Fit School and Classroom Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 Policy and Ownership of the Teaching and Learning Space . 8.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Wider School Community, the Out-of-Field Phenomenon and Education Improvement Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Partnerships, Policy Frameworks and Expected Achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Teaching Approaches: Improvement Frameworks . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . 207 . . 207 . . . . .

. . . . .

209 211 211 213 215

. . 218 . . 222 . . 225 . . 232 . . 234 . . 235 . . . . .

. . . . .

239 239 243 245 248

. . . 252 . . . 255 . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

257 259 262 263

. . . . 267 . . . . 267 . . . . 270 . . . . 271

xxiv

Contents

9.3.1 The “Messy” Policy Questions: Nowhere to Hide 9.3.2 STEM-Focused Improvement Strategies . . . . . . . . 9.3.3 Beyond the Content Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 Leadership Decisions and the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4.1 Protecting Communities: Notice the Need . . . . . . 9.4.2 Remote and Rural Communities: Context-Specific Concerns and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

273 274 275 276 277

. . . . 280 . . . . 283 . . . . 284

10 Rethinking Policies: The Balancing Act of Building a Stable Workforce and Improving Teachers’ Capacity on an Educational Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Reclaiming the Power of Knowledge in Spite of the Out-of-Field Phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.1 Content Knowledge and Contextual Factors . . . . . . . 10.2.2 Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Contextual Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2.3 The Relationship Between Knowledge and Lived Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Invest in the Future: Grow Knowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 Framing Professional Support, Lived Experiences and Knowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Curriculum and Enacted Curriculum Consciousness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection, Engagement and Insurance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Implications of Targeted Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Policies Impact Educational Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2.1 General Awareness Reflected in Policies . . . . . . . . . 11.2.2 Connecting Policies to Ontological Evidence . . . . . . 11.2.3 Prioritising Teachers’ Quality Professional Learning and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2.4 Preparing Tailored Micro-Education Policies to Develop a Knowledgeable Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2.5 Scaffolding Knowledge and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . .

. . 287 . . 287 . . 289 . . 291 . . 292 . . 295 . . 297 . . 298 . . 299 . . 301 . . 302 . . . . .

. . . . .

305 305 307 308 309

. . 309 . . 310 . . 310

Contents

11.2.6 Policies to Support Out-of-Field Teachers to Assess or Appraise Students’ Work and Progress . . . . . . . . 11.2.7 Inspiring and Intriguing Students to Take Ownership of Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2.8 Protecting Students’ Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 Efforts to Maintain Effectiveness and Positive Dispositions . . 11.3.1 Policies and the Development of Leaders and Leadership Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.2 Advancing Pedagogical Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.3 Policies as Support Resources in Classroom Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3.4 Policy Guidance for Teacher and Student Behaviour: Moving Beyond the Obvious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 Policies Charged with Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.1 The Link: Tertiary Institutions, Employers and Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.2 Teacher Performance Assessment: Fairness and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4.3 Beginning Teachers: Address Learning Needs . . . . . 11.4.4 Accountability in STEM Out-of-Field Teaching . . . . 11.4.5 Accountability Towards at Risk/Vulnerable Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5.1 Paying Attention to the Primary and Secondary School “Divide” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5.2 Improved Communication Frameworks: Strategised Connectedness and Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxv

. . 311 . . 311 . . 312 . . 312 . . 314 . . 315 . . 316 . . 318 . . 320 . . 322 . . 323 . . 325 . . 326 . . 328 . . 328 . . 330 . . 332 . . 338 . . 339

Afterword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

Chapter 1

Connecting the Dots: Policy Development and the Out-of-Field Teaching Reality in Education

In this book out-of-field teaching is defined as teachers teaching subject areas, fields or year levels outside their qualifications or expertise. Out-of-field teaching is a phenomenon that has major implications for quality teaching and student achievement; it is so widespread that strategies and decisions aimed at improving the quality of education that do not consider the impact of the phenomenon run the risk of being disconnected from the realities in classroom contexts. On the other hand, strategies, frameworks and decisions that are closely connected to the teaching and learning environment have the potential to demonstrate the power of policy on the management of the phenomenon with policy frameworks that encompass the macro and the micro of its issues. This chapter, therefore, discusses both the consequences of the phenomenon on quality education and the role targeted policies can have for its more successful management.

1.1 Introduction and Background It has been noted that “the issue of out-of-field-teaching is undertheorized and underresearched in reference to crucial aspects that characterize out-of-field teachers’ professional knowledge and practices” (Schueler, Roesken-Winter, Weißenrieder, Lambert, & Römer, 2016, p. 3254). Any improvement of teaching or education policy, however, needs to be linked to an understanding of “why teaching looks the way that it now does” (Givvin, Hiebert, Jacobs, Hollingworths, & Gallimore, 2005, p. 311). To begin with, the wide variety of elements in schools and in classroom approaches corresponds to that of the cultural beliefs, values and expectations of those environments and their stakeholders, all of which influence the face of teaching. Lingard (2016) has emphasised the impact of social life, culture, language, politics, conflict and policy discourses on education policies globally. However, the reciprocal impact education policies can have within classroom and school contexts is acutely captured

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. E. Du Plessis, Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1948-2_1

1

2

1 Connecting the Dots …

in Carver-Thomas and Darling Hammond’s (2017) statement that by “addressing the key factors that drive teachers from their schools, tailored policy interventions can, over time, stabilize and improve the teacher workforce and better serve all students” (p. 8). I emphasise that the current restricted understanding of the multilayered implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon for the teaching and learning environment is an impediment to developing suitable education policies that can effectively manage its impacts on quality teaching and learning. Several authors (Earl, 2005; Lingard, 2014; Lingard, Sellar, & Savage, 2014) have highlighted that the current turn of governance for systemic education workforce management is underpinned by the evidence of numbers or statistical data. This book, on the other hand, invites policy development to extend itself back into the realities in classroom and school contexts; in agreement with Gulson and Taylor Webb (2018), I assert that linking policies with the global out-of-field issue (Ingersoll, 2001a, 2002, 2006) requires an effort to open up “multiple ways of thinking, knowing and transforming” education (Gulson & Taylor Webb, p. 276). I offer the argument that improving educational and school leaders’ in-depth understanding of the actual lived experiences and quality education implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon will influence the creation of suitable policy frameworks, such as micro-education policies, which can function as practice-policy resources, or enacted policy facts, that support teachers in challenging and complex out-of-field teaching situations and protect the teaching and learning space. In addition, Lave and Wenger’s (1991) notion of the situatedness of learning as being “an integral and inseparable aspect of social practice” (p. 31) further highlights the importance of developing a context-consciousness (see Sect. 2.3) when making decisions about the goals of educational policies, particularly when these policies are often implemented as strategies to guide and direct social practices in schools and classroom contexts.

1.1.1 Current State of Education Policy International governmental commitment to improving student achievement is clearly demonstrated in the attention that published outcomes of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) receive (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2014, 2018). Earl (2005) has described performance and achievement information such as PISA data as a “policy lever,” and elaborates that both accountability and data are the “heart of contemporary reform efforts worldwide” (p. 6). Lingard et al. (2014), too, have emphasised that the OECD and PISA have a “significant influence on education revolution” (p. 716). They also highlight concerns that the conceptualisation of equity has shifted away from the hermeneutic understanding of equality owing to its perception through a predominantly economic lens. Hedegaard-Soerensen and Grumloese (2018) have underlined the impact of certain policy discourses on teachers’ approaches to their students’ learning; popular

1.1 Introduction and Background

3

neoliberal school policies can create an extreme focus on outcomes, performance, achievements and results, with the potential to fuel practices of elimination without acknowledgement of the collateral costs, including those to teachers and students. Cuban (2019a, 2019b) noted that teachers’ effectiveness is measured and rewarded by their students’ test scores. He further underlined that teachers’ professional development programmes become a process of determining which teachers are successful rather than supporting individual teachers’ professional growth. This extreme focus on achievement and performance is stimulated by the current discourse of education policies and flows to affect and direct the beliefs of school leaders and their subsequent leadership styles at school level. Indeed, the current connection of belief that runs between teacher placement policies, the stability of the workforce, and quality education goals is not overemphasised by Schumacher, Grigsby and Vesey (2015), who have claimed that “one bad hiring decision can lead to low student achievements” (p 139). Education policies are developed via address to core requirements that then form the basis for standards that aim to deliver the level of quality education valued in the global education arena. In 2013, the European Commission highlighted these core requirements for teaching and learning, which are reflected in the standards for teachers that are developed by education systems across the globe: • sound knowledge frameworks, including school curricula, theories and assessments; • deep knowledge to teach specific subjects; • classroom management skills; • interpersonal skills; • commitment to critical reflection of individual professional actions; • positive dispositions towards diversity and professional development; and • context and student awareness, and to adjustments as required. Standards then create assessment structures, which form the basis of the large-scale data gathering that policy-makers in turn use to inform their demands that schools focus on high student achievements. There is therefore at present an extreme focus on delivering quality teaching and the fulfillment of achievement expectations without taking pervasive contextual elements such as the out-of-field phenomenon and its long-term effects on teachers and their ability to provide quality education to students into consideration. The ironies of education dialogue are well summarised by Gulson and Taylor Webb (2018): The introduction of new knowledge in education may lead to a narrowing not only of what type of knowledge counts as policy knowledge, but also what techniques and expertise are legitimate. This may lead to the narrowing of conditions of possibility for education policy through the types of questions that are, and that are able to be, asked, what expertise is required to answer these questions, and the authority to deem this relevant. (p. 287)

I am concerned about policy language that aims to improve education to benefit economic growth but which overlooks the contexts and realities of teaching and learning and its human resource capital. Neoliberal discourses run the risk of elevating student and teacher performance and achievement by equating these with

4

1 Connecting the Dots …

quality education. An extreme focus on delivering quality teaching in fulfillment of achievement expectations narrows employment strategies into systemic supply and demand for a “teacher body” in the classroom, a viewpoint that ironically has limited scope to attend to the quality costs (or the human costs) of having teachers without adequate qualifications struggling to meet the set standards. Yet, demands for workforce requirements—such as those inherent in Burgess’s (2015) prediction, that in Australia, 1,761 extra primary school classes will need to be added every year until 2020 to make provision for the increasing school populations—continue to increase pressure on the teaching workforce. The complicated supply and demand issues that are part of teaching workforce management (Ingersoll, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c) often place school leaders in positions where they have no choice other than to take the risk of assigning teachers to positions for which they are not suitably qualified. I argue that the way in which challenging and complex teaching situations are acknowledged and effectively managed can improve the retention of teachers in the teaching workforce. The “think tank” discussion in this book thus aims to create a framework for thought and policy improvement for the phenomenon that is not context-specific and that draws attention to the intersections between globally felt systemic education needs and human capital management, and the classroom contexts and current policies that attend out-of-field teaching practices. The discussion emphasises: • the realities of out-of-field teaching practices, as highlighted by the empirical evidence of stakeholders; • that improvements must address the needs and complications arising in the classroom context; • that teachers enact policy, and their specific contextual and situational needs must be known and acknowledged by decision-makers; and • that policy development can be and needs to be a resource for the targeted support of teachers. Cuban (2019b) has recently highlighted programmes initiated by policy-makers and financial donors in the U.S. that offer financial benefits to effective teachers. He further reported that “educational policy elites have embraced and enacted targeted teacher accountability as the lever for lifting public schools out of the morass of mediocrity” (p. 3). Yet, concern mounts for policy discussions that identify teachers as the “source of school ‘failure’” when, while “pressing for teachers to be held accountable, policy elites have largely ignored other factors that influence both teacher and student performance” (Cuban, 2019a, p. 1) within their learning community. In agreement, I argue that policies intended to benefit the effectiveness of teachers that do not take into account what the out-of-field phenomenon means for this effectiveness are unlikely to succeed. In this book, I emphasise that the out-offield teaching phenomenon is a reality in the field that is deeply connected to factors in students’ achievement and learning successes.

1.1 Introduction and Background

5

1.1.2 Connecting Policy-Making to the Field Decision-making and education policy at systems level mirror the cultures and beliefs of the system. The strategies of centralised and decentralised administrations and their understanding of education accountabilities and policy priorities for quality education impact their focus on and approaches to transformation; these priorities are also ultimately displayed by their choices of goal setting and objectives (Caena, 2014a). Underlying systemic perceptions of the value of teachers’ voices in decision-making is also demonstrated by the strategies and perceptions created by the system, and further describe to teachers what the penetration of the voices of those in challenging positions is likely to be. Yet, in classrooms, as Biesta (2012) has emphasised, part of teachers’ role is in judgments, choices and “trade-offs” (p. 2) which often involve careful negotiation about the value that top-down systemic curricula modification can really add. Cuban (2018) has pointed out that “as gatekeepers to their classrooms, teachers are de facto policymakers” (p. 1), and this becomes especially true in remote schools. The inadequacy of systemic reciprocity between policy and the classroom is not least felt in the out-of-field context, where the missing voice of out-of-field teachers in policy development of any kind is a concern—as the following chapters will demonstrate. Santoro and Kennedy (2016) have underlined that professional standards aim to improve and measure quality and are key strategies of policy reform. Others, however, warn that policies can be preoccupied with a discourse of achievements (Hedegaard-Soerensen & Grumloese, 2018), standards, assessments and learning results, a dialogue that, as noted, has implications for teachers’ approaches to their teaching. A major focus on achievements and results is clear in the professional standards set for teachers across the globe; yet there is a glaring absence of the globally utilised out-of-field phenomenon in education policy frameworks, raising questions of the connectedness of policies to the realities in classrooms. Set against a background of policy frameworks that fail to acknowledge the out-of-field teaching phenomenon, I argue that the effects of standards dialogues reach toward such things as teacher dispositions, turnover, absenteeism and attrition.

1.1.3 Connecting Policy-Making to the Teacher Policies that are disconnected from the truths in the field overlook the intensity of teaching, which is a situated, transformational practice; this intensity increases for out-of-field teachers in relation to, for example, their workload, classroom management skills, and time management responsibilities, concurrent with • teaching a full out-of-field load in a subject for which they are not suitably qualified (i.e., content knowledge has to be acquired);

6

1 Connecting the Dots …

• teaching a full out-of-field load in a year level for which they are not suitably qualified (i.e., pedagogical and pedagogical content knowledge have to be acquired); • teaching a combination of in-field and out-of-field subjects; • teaching in an out-of-field position for a short period because of timetabling, staffing and/or recruitment issues; • teaching a subject or subjects that may be closely “related” to their qualifications but for which they do not have any specific training, expertise or qualifications; or • teaching an in-field subject in a demanding year level (e.g., senior secondary) as a beginning teacher, with only a semester’s training (about 8 weeks) in it from their initial teacher education (ITE). Any unpacking of the deeper layers of the implications of these kinds of teaching positions for the vocational behaviour of out-of-field teachers and what happens in their classroom contexts demonstrates why the phenomenon is one of the key factors that drives teachers away from their teaching positions, frequently after having also adversely impacted classroom and student outcomes. The real-life experiences of these teachers and their students have significant impact on how teachers shape subjects and/or students’ development. Phenomenological pedagogy research scholar, van Manen (2016a), has noted that teachers who …do not have a feel for the subject they teach, may be incapable of forming a style for these subtle and often elusive habit-like features of pedagogy. (p. 121)

Essentially, the way in which teachers embody subjects and year levels affects their management of the classroom; teachers in complex positions struggle to teach effectively as a result of restricted knowing, and this role-disconnection stimulates behaviour management challenges in their classrooms, a situation which is further complicated by the fact that, already contending with dispositions regarding their efficacy and competence, they also frequently struggle to manage challenging behaviour (Conners, 2008; Darling-Hammond, 2010a; Shulman & Shulman, 2007). The value of well-designed policies in these contexts is their potential to proactively influence classrooms before they develop into dysfunctional learning spaces where teachers struggle to manage and students struggle to learn. Placed into a context where Caena (2014b) has claimed that policies are perceived as a global commodity and student and teacher achievements should become high priority in policy discourse, and emphasis by Stern (2012), that the new social awareness of identity politics espouses a focus on individual, personal responsibility, teachers as in loco parentis (i.e., stepping into the role of the parent; van Manen, 2016a) step into a role of ideologically loaded personal responsibility towards students. Yet, in the complexities of the teaching and learning space and the politics of education policy, the intense intrinsic motivation teachers may feel about their ability to discharge their role in identity politics gets overlooked. Caught up in the processes of providing neoliberal policy outcomes (Savage, 2017), educational and school leaders often do not have the scope to observe how policy connects to this responsibility in relation to appreciation for the human capital (i.e., individuals) delivering essential cultural services in the classroom, and how (at what

1.1 Introduction and Background

7

cost) they are fulfilling the need to prepare students for current societal expectations, demands and challenges (Plunkett & Dyson, 2011). In light of this, I wish to turn global policy focus towards the gap in appreciation for individuals assigned to teach in positions for which they are not suitably qualified and the concurrent responsibilities and expectations they need to fulfil. Understanding that teaching and learning are inextricable from the social encounters and lived experiences of the teaching and learning space means acknowledging that this interactional space is greatly influenced by the quality and value of sociocultural interactions (Wagner & Okeke, 2009) provided by teachers performing the role of in loco parentis. This influence should not be underestimated and becomes a concern (as empirical evidence will demonstrate) when layered together with out-of-field teachers’ own (professional) contextual lived experiences. On its own, for example, the impact of restricted subject matter knowledge on teachers’ vocational strength and confidence is significant enough to dislodge their pedagogical reasoning, and this should not be underestimated in policy development. When the specific lived experiences in classrooms have implications for being a teacher, appropriate actions and strategies can only be developed through a clear understanding of teachers’ lifeworlds in those specific classrooms. The hermeneutic philosopher, Hans-Georg Gadamer, whose work provides theoretical foundation for the methodology of the empirical research presented in this book, described lived experience as a “significant whole” made up of different incidences or sets of meaning (1975, p. 60). Understanding the whole through a consciousness of the layers of meaning that create it means opening up “ways of thinking, knowing and transforming” that can give policy development power to be a situated resource (Gulson & Taylor Webb, 2018, p. 276).

1.1.4 Connecting Context to Policy Research demonstrates that out-of-field teaching is a global concern (Ingersoll, 2001a); out-of-field teaching practices are an unspoken reality across both developed and developing countries, across the public and private sectors, and across all age levels of student learning, both primary and secondary. Owing to its widespread nature, the current and potential ramifications of the out-of-field phenomenon on education improvement strategies, in conjunction with the notion that education policies (existing and future) can be resources to support teachers in their endeavours to fulfil quality education expectations, provide an essential nexus for policy reconsideration. Yet, out-of-field teaching is a political “thing” that is not openly discussed despite the ongoing reality of its implications for quality education. Phillips (2005) has shared a concern about “global policy borrowing,” and accentuated that there has been a shift to the “conscious adoption” of policy from other contexts in the global arena (p. 24). This sentiment is shared by Lingard (2014), who noted processes of “externalization” (p. 38) in the reconstitution of societies; he further observed that there is a contextual policy habitus (see Sect. 2.6) within a specific policy discourse. Off-shoring policy work and adopting frameworks designed for

8

1 Connecting the Dots …

other environments suggests a lack of the value of contextual awareness or contextconsciousness (see Sect. 2.3) in policy decision-making. This book raises questions about adopting education policies from the international arena when the evidence which informs these policies does not demonstrate understanding of the shifted contexts where policies are then to be enacted, the experiences of those involved there, or of the implications of the lived truths for that context. Recent research projects specifically focused on the out-of-field phenomenon and its teaching workforce issues revealed gaps in existing policies and the implication these gaps have for education and policy reform (Du Plessis, 2014, 2017, 2018). Education policies often portray a taken-for-granted (i.e., used without attention to its implications) approach towards the specific needs of teachers in out-of-field positions. While quality within the teaching and learning environment is necessarily informed by a variety of strategies and resources, I assert that fulfillment of expectations for quality education hinges on a close link with contextual realities. A clearer understanding of the lived experiences of teachers in out-of-field teaching positions and the implications these have for their students’ development and achievement is a move towards a new policy culture and tradition within the education context and a more effective form of policy implementation (see Fig. 1.1). Gadamer (1975) has highlighted that our intentions to understand the truth open and prepare us for the incident, situation and/or information that calls for our response. In this case, evidence from the field reveals a gap in educational policies and suggests a systemic disconnection from the reality that teachers are the most influential capital for quality education (Darling-Hammond, 2010a, 2010b; Hattie, 2009), and that they need support from targeted, well-designed policy frameworks that demonstrate an understanding of their efforts to offer quality teaching in the classroom (see Fig. 1.1). In this book, targeted policies are defined as well-designed, research-and-evidenceinformed policies that are developed with a responsive, context-consciousness of the realities in schools and classrooms. Policies reflecting a context-consciousness can be fit-for-purpose and can be enacted resources of professional support that provide the much-needed groundwork for confronting the “hidden or suppressed ‘truths’” in education (Gulson & Taylor Webb, 2018, p. 277). Coombs (1982) has identified critical matters in education policy as encompassing: (a) internal strategies for diverse approaches to learning, (b) a consciousness of changing and increasing student needs, (c) deliberate confrontation of socioeconomic educational inconsistencies and inequalities, (d) the progressing of education quality, and (e) a consciousness of education culture and international collaboration as mechanisms to guide education policy direction. In keeping with this, a conceptualisation of the different levels of policy framework (see Fig. 1.1) that need to acknowledge the influence of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on the progression of education quality therefore embraces: internal strategies, consciousness of needs, inconsistencies and inequalities and cultures in school contexts. Policies that demonstrate an appreciation for teaching and learning as a social experience that is informed and transformed by the lived experiences of the context and the embodied knowledge of the teachers will develop, support and protect learning within classroom—and particularly challenging classroom—contexts.

1.1 Introduction and Background

Systemic Context:

Quality education Quality curricula Strategies to ensure success Equal opportunities Accommodate diversity Improve accountability Instil confidence

9

Macro-education policies Micro-analytics of policies

Support and development for: School leaders Teachers Collaboration and engagement with stakeholders and education partners

School Context: Micro-education policies implementation strategies

School improvement strategies Context-conscious decisions School culture development Teacher recruitment and placements/assignments Professional support frameworks

School leaders’ moral, social and pedagogical accountability (engagement, skill, styles and decisions)

Classroom Context: Tailored micro-education policies

Professional interrelationship development (students/teachers/parents) Professional learning and mentoring Quality teaching and quality teachers Student-centred teaching and learning Curricula and assessment guidance Classroom management, climate and atmosphere

Teachers’ pedagogical tact, thoughtfulness and accountability

Fig. 1.1 Conceptualising three levels of policy frameworks: the meaning of the out-of-field phenomenon for each level

This book encourages readers to pause around the question: What is needed at the elite policy level for the complexities of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon to have relevance in education improvement policy and so potentially transform these teaching and learning spaces into supportive environments?

10

1 Connecting the Dots …

1.1.5 Towards New Policy Culture and Tradition: Hearing Voices from the Field My personal experience of out-of-field teaching in both developed and developing countries has given me an insight into the stress out-of-field teachers try to manage and the significant role policy frameworks play when teaching and learning environments become extremely challenging. These teachers’ situations and the contextual factors that are inherent to teaching subjects or year levels outside one’s qualifications or expertise are different from those of specialist teachers teaching in-field. These differences are further influenced by: • how many subjects or year levels individual teachers concurrently teach outside their qualifications, • how long a specific teacher has the responsibility of out-of-field teaching, • what support teachers receive during their assignment to out-of-field position/s, and • what level of teaching experience the out-of-field teacher has. When research evidence demonstrates that out-of-field teaching experiences impact the quality of a teaching and learning environment, the absence of policies, at both school and systemic levels, that specifically and directly acknowledge (and therefore support the acknowledgement of) the challenges of teachers in out-of-field teaching positions means that these teachers are currently unsupported and unresourced, a situation that leaves them feeling anxious, exposed and vulnerable (Du Plessis & McDonagh, 2020). Development of targeted policies to address the challenges involved in the out-offield teaching phenomenon in schools, however, are not possible without collaboration and partnerships between schools, employers and policy-makers. The global culture of condoning out-of-field teaching practices and a taken-for-granted perspective of the role education policies have to play in this field make it necessary to conceptualise the common objectives of education policies in challenging education environments. The reframing of “education policy research and globalisation as dynamic and multi-faceted processes” (Sheehan, 2005, p. xii) creates an opportunity (and, I would add, an imperative) to view policy development as a multiple-perspective strategy. The perspectives presented from lived experiences in classrooms underline the value of an in-depth understanding of teachers’, students’ and school leaders’ lived experiences for policy development because this data explains the story behind the facts of the existing incidence data. I argue that it is this story that can be used to stimulate questions about how policies can be targeted to ensure a socially just teaching and learning environment for teachers in complex out-of-field positions and their students.

1.1 Introduction and Background

11

1.1.6 Concurrent Contexts: Policies and Teacher Performance The educational philosophy of developmental psychologist Vygotsky (1978) defines learning as a social experience within a carefully constructed, socially accommodating environment. As Fig. 1.2 demonstrates, the teacher functions within two influential environments, the school and the classroom. Although the two environments are intertwined, both contexts have a unique set of expectations for teachers and their leaders, and any school improvement strategies, new teaching and learning approaches or policy frameworks are enmeshed with these expectations. Further, teachers’ own dispositions, attitudes, beliefs and teaching characteristics visibly impact the space in which they fulfil their role as teachers; teachers, too, influence the construction of the social context. Concurrently, as already discussed, the teaching and learning culture in schools is influenced by education policies, and specifically, school policies. School improvement policies are therefore influenced by complex dynamic and adaptive systems, and need to be grounded, beyond systemic requirements, in the contexts and societies in which they function. Halász and Michel (2011) have suggested that the national accountability visible in education systems striving for quality education goals implicitly supports innovation at local and school level, depending on the effectiveness of local leadership to align the different goals within education subsystems. In agreement with Cuban (2018, 2019a), however, I emphasise that the way in which top-down education policies are viewed, prioritised and implemented in school and classroom contexts can become detrimental in the construction of a socially accommodating teaching and learning environment. Further, Ball (2003) has directed attention to a “policy epidemic” (p. 215) and highlights the magnitude of policies teachers and school leaders have to incorporate in their everyday teaching processes. The multilayered purpose of the role of education policies as resources to improve and better manage education can also get highjacked by a focus on performativity which Bates (2013) has claimed is a move away from a holistic and humanistic policy focus and towards an outcome-evidence-driven policy framework. Unrealistic and narrowly focused expectations masked within policy frameworks can divide teachers’ attention, and subsequently diminish their attunement to the needs of their students, as well as their perceptions of their professional identity as thoughtful and competent educators—van Manen (2016a, 2016b) has underlined that teachers’ sensitivity to their teaching context and the embodied nature of their knowledge refine their capacity to interpret their teaching experiences. When expectations are continuously unrealistic, teachers’ pedagogical discernment and self-efficacy are at risk; a protracted period of exposure to high expectations and stress can leave teachers with dispositions of frustration, discouragement and incompetence, which can develop into evidence of burn-out (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). Policies that are removed from the realities in classrooms leave teachers, especially teachers in out-of-field positions, feeling exposed (Du Plessis, 2018).

Opportunities to develop as: thinkers, problem solvers, unique individuals (culture, lived experiences) collaborators in their own learning (trust, respect, noticing needs), partnerships between home and school

Meaning of policy for students

Enhancement of: cognitive abilities, professional knowledge pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge pedagogical content knowledge, accountability teaching characteristics, motivation , resilience, self-regulation, professional beliefs

Meaning of policy for being an effective teacher

Trends to improve: effective management of diverse classrooms addressing inequalities within classrooms support for teaching quality

Meaning of policy in classroom context

Fig. 1.2 Conceptualising the goal of policies in education

Context specific policies: School contexts, community contexts and classroom contexts Aim: Policy development to address the needs of school leaders, teachers, students and parents to engage in quality education Objectives

Effectiveness to improve: global connectedness attention to needs of migration generation social/cultural life worlds

Meaning of policy in school context

Context-specific policies: School, community and classroom contexts Aim: Policy development to address the needs of school leaders, teachers, students and parents to engage in quality education Objectives

General policies: Systemic, national and international commonalities Aim: Health and safety priorities for education environments for all stakeholders involved Objectives

Impact quality teaching through education policy frameworks

12 1 Connecting the Dots …

1.1 Introduction and Background

13

I argue that the everyday experiences of out-of-field teachers and their school leaders offer a base of valuable information from which to stimulate the reassessment of existing policies and ground the development of targeted policies that acknowledge concurrent contexts and support teacher performance. The empirical data discussed in this book offer broad responses from the field, from leaders at different management levels (education directors, principals and school leaders) , teachers teaching in-field and/or out-of-field, and parents and carers of students. These different lenses on the out-of-field teaching phenomenon emphasise, not only the concerns, difficulties and issues of the out-of-field experience, but also its positive experiences, all of which can usefully inform policy development. Research evidence shows that leaders with a deeper understanding of teachers’ and students’ lived experiences of the out-offield teaching phenomenon more effectively engage with and manage these complex teaching and learning environments. These positive reports of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon offer stimulus for education policy-makers and decision-makers to further investigate the factors that uphold positive management of the phenomenon, so to inform a new direction for quality education policy decisions. The widespread occurrence of the out-of-field phenomenon, across school sectors and across borders globally, underlines the need for educational leaders to take notice.

1.1.7 Scope of the Problem The out-of-field phenomenon is widespread (Ingersoll, 2001a), however, research findings vary depending on the definition of the phenomenon. The most recent and exact figures of occurrence seem to be a problem, owing to such things as the availability and veracity of relevant data. The Queensland Audit Office (QAO, 2013) underlined that “reliable data on teachers’ qualifications and competencies” (p. 1) are not always available or do not reflect recent figures. Empirical data from a wider context (Smith, 2005) of transnational research projects are fundamental to understanding the phenomenon’s realities in school and classroom contexts globally. Research investigating the out-of-field phenomenon has been conducted in Australia (Du Plessis, 2014, 2017, 2018; Hobbs, 2013; McConney & Price, 2009a, 2009b), Korea (Ee-gyeong, 2011), Norway (Bonesrønning, Falch, & Strøm, 2003), the U.S. (Ingersoll, 2001a, 2003a, 2003b, 2006), South Africa (Du Plessis, 2005, 2010, 2014), ˛ Olgun, Eryilmaz, & Cemalo˘glu, 2013), and the spread of and Turkey (Kan, Cinkir, interest alone identifies it as global concern. Research in the U.K. stated that only 17% of physics teachers in low socioeconomic schools outside London and 52% of physics teachers in affluent suburbs are teaching in their field of expertise (Coughlan, 2018). In Australia, the QAO stated that 24% of teachers assigned to permanent positions teach at least one subject outside their qualifications, while in 2010, 49% of mathematics teachers were teaching outside their field of qualifications (QAO, 2013). Countries with remote and isolated communities experience a more intense impact and set of challenges because of the phenomenon. McConney and Price (2009a,

14

1 Connecting the Dots …

2009b) have highlighted parental concerns about the extent and impact of out-offield teaching on student outcomes in rural and remote schools in Western Australia, concerns echoed in Queensland (Du Plessis, 2014), another state in Australia with many rural and remote schools. So, why do teachers have to teach in out-of-field positions? The answer is complex and lies in the alignment of school principals’ recruitment difficulties, supply and demand problems in assigning available rather than suitably qualified teachers, and teaching workforce issues, such as keeping class sizes at a manageable level and retaining teachers in the teaching workforce, as well as in the phenomenon itself—the purpose it serves and perpetuates. Tendencies to solve problems in the short-term mean that school principals admit that they would assign teachers to outof-field positions just to have a body in the classroom. According to recent research in Queensland, Australia (Du Plessis et al., 2018), beginning teachers (around 15% on average), too, frequently find themselves teaching subjects or year level outside their qualifications because of requests made by their school principals (Du Plessis et al., 2018; Weldon, 2016). The National Teaching Workforce Data Analysis Report (Australian Government, 2014) and a report on teaching and learning by the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee (2013) acknowledged that workplace tendencies to offer more short contracts and casual positions does not benefit the teaching profession. Also in Australia, claims about the low numbers of Year 12 students that apply for courses to become teachers—a decline of 42% since 2006 for secondary school teachers (QAO, 2013)—can only further impact the occurrence of the out-of-field phenomenon. Brennen (2016) has discussed that the Australian teacher shortage prediction is aligned with soaring student numbers, which are set to increase by 26% by 2022.

1.1.8 Assumptions Reflected in Policies Current policies reflect the assumption that teachers are coping and that expectations for them to adapt to unfamiliar and challenging teaching assignments are realistic and acceptable because teachers are vocationally adaptable. Ingersoll (2001a), however, stated that even highly qualified teachers become uncertain, unqualified and self-critical when they are assigned to teach unfamiliar subjects or year levels for which they are not suitably qualified. The teaching and learning environment is certainly fluid, and acceptance of constant transformation within this habitus rests on an understanding that goals and objectives continue to press toward improvement. Teachers themselves acknowledge that school and classroom contexts are fluid or even volatile in some environments (Barnes, 2016; Williams, 2018) because of (a) changing curricula, (b) government cuts to school budgets for support and development, (c) fewer teachers and larger class sizes, (d) short contracts for teachers, and (e) constant change in leadership and/or inexperienced leadership. Yet, Caldwell and Harris (2008) have defined transformation in education as the significant and sustained change that should secure success for students in all settings. They further

1.1 Introduction and Background

15

stated that such successful transformation includes intellectual capital, social capital, spiritual capital and financial capital, combined with excellent management and governance. In keeping with this, in this book, transformation is defined as a process of change to better the effectiveness of the teaching and learning environment, with an emphasis on the necessary search for the types of policy frameworks that will provide teachers with stable and solid ground from which to teach. Continuous processes of transformation and change, such as those required by out-of-field teaching, are challenging, and maintaining stability within school and classroom contexts under such conditions without the support and acknowledgement of well-designed policy frameworks is unrealistic. This book aims to increase policy-makers’ awareness of the interrelationships between the out-of-field phenomenon and teaching quality, student achievement, classroom climate, behaviour management, school culture and education leadership, as well as what education and school policies can mean for the management of these multidimensional factors. I emphasise that upholding quality in education means upholding teachers’ competence, which has “to do with pedagogical tactfulness, [and] having a sensitivity to what is best for each child” (van Manen, 2016a, p. 64). Van Manen (2016a) has further suggested that “good teachers are what they teach” (p. 65), and teachers need to be enabled by enacted resources (i.e., policy) to be present and involved with students and the subject matter they teach. Effectiveness in the classroom involves confidence in pedagogies, self-efficacy, metacognitive ability, and the certainty that support and collaboration are available when needed. Policy discourse can be context-conscious and can become a process of change; policy is not a once-off action. This book takes the position that if policy-makers and decisionmakers listen to and take note of the grass-roots truths of teachers’ voices from the field, this empirical evidence can make significant inroads into the necessary transformational management of the out-of-field phenomenon for the improvement of quality education.

1.2 Micro-Education Policy Focus Areas: A Foundation to Improve Education The focus of change and transformation is fundamental for the improvement of education. Here, four broad areas of focus identify a range of issues that come into play as a result of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon: • • • •

teaching and teacher quality, student achievement, educational and school leadership, and workforce stability within schools.

One of the most fundamental issues of out-of-field teaching is the restriction and strain it places on the various operational aspects of teachers’ knowledge, which

16

1 Connecting the Dots …

must transform for the new and unfamiliar environment of their out-of-field assignment. Restricted teacher knowledges (content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge) have significant impact on the quality of students’ education, the classroom climate, and on internal and external perceptions of schools as effective learning environments. Pedagogic dialogue refers to how teachers see students and acknowledge their individual presence in the learning environment. Bernstein (2000) has highlighted the impact of pedagogic dialogue for the effective structuring of curricula; van Manen (2016a), too, has emphasised the value of a teachers’ pedagogical thoughtfulness within the space where knowledge is constructed and internalised. Teachers’ pedagogical skills to structure and enact a curriculum impacts their effectiveness to tailor knowledge for diverse learning and social groups (Scott, 2008). The lived experiences of out-of-field teachers describe a dislodgement of their pedagogical abilities owing to the strain of knowledge transformation in situ; their pedagogical thoughtfulness gets thin, but this key issue gets overlooked by policy. Targeted improvement policies cannot be isolated from the process of equipping, guiding and supporting out-of-field teachers so they can implement the curriculum as intended; the better equipped teachers are for their specific tasks with sound pedagogical action, the better the chances of schools and students to achieve the success of reaching objectives and future goals (Bondesio & De Witt, 2004). The pedagogical dislodgement out-of-field teachers experience underpins the complex difficulties they experience and struggle with, both to teach effectively, and to build the reputations of their schools as successful institutions. Further, without this success, teachers’ self-efficacy and confidence falter. Teachers’ professional being and lifeworlds need to influence and motivate any strategic plan for policies that build, encourage and support quality education. I argue that microeducation policies built around key foci (such as how to ensure teaching quality, improve teacher quality, or encourage and support student achievement in spite of challenging classroom contexts) can become part of the teaching and learning context and have the potential to provide enacted resources for the out-of-field teaching phenomenon (see also Fig. 11.1).

1.2.1 Teaching and Teacher Quality 1.2.1.1

Out-of Field Teaching and Teacher Quality

Teachers’ professional identity is closely connected to what they teach. As van Manen (2016a) has claimed, “the knowledge we embody has truly become part of our being” (p. 63). Van Manen (2016b) has also emphasised that a “thoughtful educator might be one who can catch a question and deepen it with a quiet gesture” (p. 21). I argue that teacher and teaching quality are inextricable from the attentiveness and careful consideration that are part of teachers’ efforts to develop awareness of students’ needs. However, research indicates that when teachers are assigned to unfamiliar areas of teaching, processes of transformation impact their identity and effectiveness,

1.2 Micro-Education Policy Focus Areas: A Foundation to Improve …

17

notably in executing different roles in the classroom such as mediator, facilitator, counsellor and manager (Du Plessis, 2017; Hobbs, 2013; Ingersoll, 2001a). Further, effective teaching strategies require teachers to have a broad content knowledge and awareness of the subjects they teach (Shulman, 1986), which in turn enables them to integrate concepts and to make inter-subject connections. However, out-of-field teachers admit they see specific topics in their out-of-field subjects “in silos” and plan for “this particular lesson for this day and another lesson for the next day” because of their limited understanding of how specific concepts within unfamiliar subjects link to the real world, or to other similar topics. For this reason (and others), out-of-field teachers find it hard to bring practical experiences to a curriculum that is unfamiliar to them. This can have implications for how these teachers are able to generate and inspire students’ interest and enthusiasm in the subject, a challenge that goes to the heart of teachers’ intrinsic motivation to become teachers in the first place (Gore, Holmes, Smith, & Fray, 2015). Teachers choose to become teachers because they have a passion for a specific subject area or field (particularly high school teachers) and/or because they want to make a difference in students’ lives. However, these motivations are greatly tested when teachers get assigned to out-offield positions. Policy needs to be a robust resource that supports teachers in complex teaching environments to feel confident and believe that they are in control of all the various aspects of their classroom requirements (Frenzel, Goetz, Stephens, & Jacob, 2009).

1.2.1.2

Initial Teacher Education and Teaching Quality

Initial teacher educators suggest that critiques of beginning teaching quality and teacher education programmes need to acknowledge that real-world external factors can destabilise the learning achieved in ITE—for example, class sizes, challenging teachers placements and the “socialising effects of school cultures” (Gore, Griffiths, & Ladwig, 2001, p. 1). The transition to classroom realities not only impacts productive pedagogies and quality teaching but leaves beginning teachers with questions about their capacity to fulfil their role as in loco parentis (van Manen, 2016a). Stepping into this role of being more than a conveyer of knowledge is influenced by teachers’ beliefs and values. Fives and Buehl (2008) have noted that teacher beliefs include perceptions about the value of “pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of children, content knowledge, management and organisational knowledge and knowledge of self and other” (p. 142). These kinds of beliefs influence preservice teachers’ and practicing teachers’ perceptions of what quality teaching and learning encompasses, and of the value of various aspects of their teaching knowledge and ability for that teaching quality.

1.2.1.3

Cooperation, Support and Teaching Quality

Improvement of teacher and teaching quality needs to move towards the cultural and social aspects of the education paradigm. The broad strategies of teacher and

18

1 Connecting the Dots …

teaching quality improvement need to be upheld by smaller details of policy strategies and teacher support through micro-policy frameworks that assist teachers to enact their roles within their complex, micro/classroom situations. Schools and classrooms are about immediate practicalities and are microcosms that follow the scripts detailed by policy frameworks, rather than having the time and resources to develop context-conscious policies themselves, even if they had the authority. The smaller details of policy frameworks and policy decisions need to prompt for sensitivity and context-consciousness when teachers reflect on and reassess or re-evaluate their teaching beliefs because of a specific teaching experience. Micro-education policy frameworks have the capacity to demonstrate awareness of the contribution made to teaching by teachers’ beliefs, values, professional identity and cultural selves. Lived experiences within schools matter because life stories give meaning to the world of teaching and learning. This book asserts that teacher quality is a capacity teachers need to be supported in order to offer quality teaching according to the needs of their students with a context-consciousness (Du Plessis, 2019). Quality teaching needs to be supported by policy resources at classroom level, since, ultimately, it determines the quality and effectiveness of schools (Du Plessis, 2005). In concert with this, the complexity of being an out-of-field teacher and still maintaining the expected quality of achievements and results places demands on these teachers that go beyond their subject matter knowledge and affect the quality of their interrelationships, interactions and intra-actions with leaders, colleagues, students and parents. Classrooms are spaces that mirror social and behavioural structures of society (Gillies & Boyle, 2006; Olofsson & Panican, 2017) have underlined that the socialising aspect of schooling can lessen the imbalances created by social backgrounds and attitudes that are rooted in different ideologies. In this sense, schools and the policies they represent can mould a culture of collaboration, ownership of roles in a context, and group acceptance of procedures. Because of this, I argue that strong micro-education policy frameworks which embrace the social aspects of the education context can be resources that support stakeholder partnerships and empower all parties to work towards the same goal of improved teacher and teaching quality. Sound partnerships operating within welldesigned policy frameworks can offer a broad support network for out-of-field teachers. I further argue that genuine policy transformation and change for teacher competencies involves cultural and behavioural changes in institutions and stakeholders— including, for example, those of universities, teacher educators, employers, schools and school leaders (Caena, 2014b).

1.2.1.4

Power Balances and Teacher Quality

Ball (2013) has claimed that “experts and their knowledges play a key role in determining how we should act and who we are” (p. 15): The possession of knowledge is the power structure. Foucault (1992), also, has underlined that power relations are embodied “fields of knowledge” (p. 4). All school and classroom environments need to offer a stable learning environment where students feel comfortable to explore

1.2 Micro-Education Policy Focus Areas: A Foundation to Improve …

19

learning approaches. This confidence is underpinned by support, security and work environments that are experienced as safe. For example, in order to enhance effective learning, motivate students and stimulate participation, teachers need to confidently include students in classroom planning, implementation and execution of plans (van der Westhuizen, 2004) without feeling threatened that their restricted knowledge of the subject matter or year level will disturb a healthy student–teacher relationship. Power balances are upset by out-of-field teachers’ dislodged and transforming subject content, pedagogical content and pedagogical knowledges, and this becomes obvious to students. Complex and difficult classrooms and behavioural situations can result and these contribute to anxious and dissatisfied teachers and lead to anxious and dissatisfied students (Frenzel et al., 2009). I argue that policies that encourage and structure school leaders’ and teachers’ acceptance and investigation of the lived experiences of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon can assist teachers to develop the confidence they need to manage the effects of the phenomenon in their classrooms.

1.2.1.5

The Demand for Teaching Quality

The demands teachers routinely face to effectively manage challenging and diverse teaching and learning environments was described by one out-of-field teacher from an Australian suburban primary school as an expectation for teachers to be a “kindof superwoman or superman” (Field data: C1). Williams (2018), too, has noted that the task of teachers is becoming overwhelming. The perception of teacher quality and teaching quality is widely discussed in the literature, but in empirical evidence, a principal from an Australian public secondary school in a low socioeconomic environment described an effective teacher as someone who “knows their subject area really well. They work with the highest ability class and the lowest ability class as comfortably as the other. They teach very explicitly” (Field data: G2). This principal further described effective teachers as practitioners that “use a variety of pedagogies to engage students; they are to the point and honest about their expectations.” To “hold knowledge in a way that shows that it is loved and respected for what it is” (van Manen, 2016b, p. 61) describes how deeply rooted knowing what to do and when to do it must be for teachers for them to rise to the challenge of managing their diverse teaching environments with situated, transformational pedagogical practices. Against the background of their restricted and dislodged knowledges, the demand on teachers assigned to positions outside their field of qualifications or expertise to achieve success in the classroom increases. This pressure and expectation, felt by both teachers themselves and other stakeholders (e.g., parents), increases the intensity of out-of-field teaching experiences, compounding the effects on out-of-field teachers’ teaching characteristics, with significant flow-on implications for the construction of healthy classroom climates and particularly students with specific learning needs, an issue that is discussed in detail in Chap. 6.

20

1.2.1.6

1 Connecting the Dots …

Recruitment and Quality Teaching

Goals to improve teaching quality and the policies developed as resources to ensure both the recruitment of suitably qualified teachers into school vacancies and the retention of quality teachers are intertwined. Retaining quality teachers is essential to securing stability in the teaching and learning space and to improving quality teaching. Turning focus to recruitment policies means resourcing school leadership with solid frameworks for staff communication and assignment exploration, as well as teacher development opportunities, that enable leaders to consider staff and staffing as long-term strategy decisions, rather than as a short-term problem solution. According to an Australian School Workforce Report (Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2012), 39% of metropolitan school principals and 42– 66% of remote school principals admitted that they have difficulties recruiting and assigning suitably qualified teachers, and that this and teacher retention and turnover (particularly in challenging or rural and remote contexts) have negative implications for the quality of teaching and education their students receive. Transformation of recruitment, assignment, retention and teacher development frameworks is needed to enable leaders to address these interwoven quality education, quality teacher and quality teaching concerns.

1.2.1.7

Summary

In discussing the remoulding of education policy and practices, Pirrie (2017) has argued for a deeper understanding that “success, confidence, personal effectiveness and responsibility have been stretched like ill-fitting masks over the vulnerability and helplessness that is at the heart of our humanity” (p. 279). The out-of-field teaching phenomenon tries to do this, forgetting that teachers are personally, emotionally and socially invested in being a teacher and their professional identity develops when they experience and reflect on the successful completion of their pedagogical responsibilities (Hong, 2012). Teachers assigned to out-of-field positions do not experience the same embodied knowledge as specialist/expert teachers, and this gap or disconnectedness creates multilayered difficulties inside the complexities of requirement and expectation that comprise the teaching and learning context. These difficulties multiply for the out-of-field teacher themselves, under pressure to concurrently succeed in their professional identity transformation. Out-of-field teaching practices affect teacher dispositions, effective classrooms, behaviour management, leadership styles and the wider school community, and these frame and/or directly impact students’ experiences of learning. Experiences such as these will be shared in the following chapters and underline the urgent need for educational leaders to reflect on policies that will protect and support teachers and their students while they experience the challenges that are part of the outof-field phenomenon. I assert that improvement of student achievement in out-offield classroom environments is dependent on micro-education policies acting as resources that can strategise the specific decisions needed to manage the out-of-field

1.2 Micro-Education Policy Focus Areas: A Foundation to Improve …

21

phenomenon. Policy foci that understand and accommodate the smaller parts that comprise the whole will increase the movement of all the parts towards the ultimate goal. Reducing the effects of the phenomenon on the classroom climate and culture will turn classrooms back towards the safe, stable environments that uphold learning and place student achievements back at the centre of the business of education. I advocate a reassessment of the perception of the role policies can play for the out-offield phenomenon through a fresh understanding of the issues it creates as described in the real-life terms of experiences of stakeholders in the field. The intersection of the out-of-field phenomenon and teaching quality urgently requires policies that will connect strongly to schools and classrooms. In the sense that education change and education activity are necessarily concurrent, however, transformation of this (as any) kind will involve an extraordinary effort both to develop, as well as to maintain effective teaching and learning environments (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2012). Arguably, if the objectives of transformation are not clearly understood or are disconnected from context, leaders and teachers will resist applying them, especially if they are already under pressure and have to add on the accommodation of new strategies. I argue that to get control of the looming spectre of out-of-field teaching for teachers and their students worldwide, education policies require the flexible power of micro-education policies to address the effects on teaching quality that attend the out-of-field phenomenon in school and classroom contexts.

1.2.2 Student Achievement in Challenging Classroom Environments It is clear that there is a pressing need to understand the complexities of out-of-field teaching; even beyond the issues already discussed, other specific mitigating factors emerge in contexts across the globe: for example, how this phenomenon is impacted by class size, language of instruction (whether an out-of-field teacher will teach in their first or second or third language), leadership strategies and styles, sociocultural tradition, community and school culture and the availability of resources for support. All these will be explored in the coming chapters via a policy focus that advocates the need for the development of context-conscious policy guidelines for observing and responding to teacher and student needs in individual classroom climates and school cultures in order to improve conditions for teachers and uphold the quality of education. The out-of-field classroom is a challenging classroom environment. As noted, assignments to out-of-field positions dislodge and overload teachers’ pedagogical effectiveness and their specific dispositions and teaching behaviour/strength, a situation that also cannot help but flow to students and their learning within these contexts. Pirrie (2017) has underlined the need for policy-makers to enter into reflection on and discussions about the connection between “process and mastery in education”

22

1 Connecting the Dots …

(p. 271). The journey towards the goal of mastering concepts is the process of education, but how enjoyable and effective this journey is can determine the depth of the mastering (effective learning) experience. The goal of education is always to benefit students’ learning and achievement while offering content quality and depth. As noted, transformation is an engaged process that entails teachers taking students on a journey from the familiar to the unfamiliar, and back to the familiar, via the mutual endeavour to internalise the unfamiliar. For this process to be effective, teachers need to exercise strong pedagogical interaction within the classroom, and teacher confidence is needed to achieve the goal of managing the needs of all students effectively. As developers of classroom culture, atmosphere and mood (van Manen, 2016a), too, teachers can give students’ construction of new knowledge the wings needed to explore. All students need to be given opportunities to develop either as “thinkers, problemsolvers, collaborators, [and] wise consumers of information” or as “confident producers of knowledge” (Tomlinson, 2015, p. 203) to add value to the new century’s workforce. However, the goal of meaningful learning is at risk when policy fails to support integration, cooperation, functionality and sensitivity in the classroom for both teachers and students, giving rise to classroom situations that stimulate anxiety rather than positive learning and attitudes (McInerney & McInerney, 2006). The complex and challenging classrooms of the out-of-field phenomenon have an impact on students’ knowledge construction and skills development and put vulnerable students at particular risk. I suggest that the recurrent and chronic use of the out-of-field phenomenon takes teachers’ confidence, content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge and the impact these have on students’ deep learning for granted. When no provision for support is made for these teachers in the expectations required of them by policy frameworks (Du Plessis, 2014), attention is drawn to how they can reasonably be expected to continue delivering teaching quality under these conditions. Policy-makers’ understanding of these inherent and essential workings of the teacher in the classroom can have great benefit for the development of micro-education policy frameworks that resource these teachers for the challenges presented by their everyday work.

1.2.3 Educational and School Leadership Research shows that the leadership styles and the behaviour of school leaders regarding the out-of-field phenomenon have a significant impact on out-of-field teachers’ dispositions and their capacity to cope and achieve the expected outcomes (Du Plessis, 2014). Research also indicates that teachers with restricted teaching experience are the ones most likely to be chosen for out-of-field positions, and that this often happens without the targeted support they need to grow their professional identities and expertise by doing well in them. Educational authorities’ uncertainty and misconceptions about the impact of the out-of-field phenomenon on the teaching and learning environment lead to restricted guidelines and frameworks for educational

1.2 Micro-Education Policy Focus Areas: A Foundation to Improve …

23

and school leaders to manage the phenomenon. This situation stimulates questions about what useful policies might look like and further questions about the level at which the necessary policy frameworks need to be developed for maximum benefit. Bates (2013) has highlighted that education reform is linked to the way in which people approach, interact with and make sense of policy. I argue that well-informed, targeted micro-education policy frameworks can guide school leaders’ engagement and focus on local incidences of the phenomenon, and that these to ensure a clear understanding of what really happens inside out-of-field classrooms is gained prior to following any further school policy actions. Frameworks can therefore encourage, and micro-education policies strategise, a process for a context-conscious, in-depth investigation of the specific effects of the phenomenon, which can then better inform communication between different stakeholders and address specific concerns about the improvement of quality education in each classroom. Furlong (2015) has claimed that leadership uncertainty about the phenomenon runs deeper than communication concerning it, an issue that extends to institutional and national leadership levels. In situations where a policy vacuum develops because of the absence of effective leadership, there is an increasing gap between suitable frameworks and the strategies that are used to address the issues presented. As a result, realities in out-of-field classrooms continue to develop—and interfere with other quality improvement programmes leaders try to put in place. School leaders’, specialist teachers’, out-of-field teachers’ and other contextual stakeholders’ understandings of the influence of the phenomenon within the multilayeredness of teaching and learning are often demonstrated in the (dis) connectedness of policy strategies to the realities of the classroom contexts. Disconnected policies are often the result of quick-fix strategies. In noting a “policy epidemic” (p. 215), Ball (2003) has also highlighted the challenges education environments experience because of rapidly developed policies. Without an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon and the lived experiences involved, in-the-moment policy development causes implementation problems and affects the achievement of initial objectives (Ingersoll, 2003a). In contrast, context-consciousness informs understanding and clarifies personal truths. Personal truths are the foundation of the acceptance (Gadamer, 1979) and understanding of being. Developing an awareness of the unrealistic expectations inherent in disconnected policies (Bates, 2013), especially for teachers in complex and challenging out-of-field teaching positions, means noticing, acknowledging and acting on personal truths that are shared. Such action can inform the reassessment of existing policies and the development of new policy frameworks. Ball (2004) has further underlined the potential of policies to impact perceptions of students’ worth, and I add, perceptions of the value of teachers teaching outside their field of qualification or expertise for a school community.

24

1 Connecting the Dots …

1.2.4 Workforce Stability Within Schools Workforce stability is influenced by policy frameworks. A policy scenario where Year 7 is systemically moved from upper primary to junior secondary school, for example, or where curricula changes mean the abrupt omission or addition of certain subjects are both examples of policy-induced transformation strategies that have an impact on the teaching workforce. Systemic decisions such as these mean that teachers with expertise in a specific field need to adjust their teaching and professional identities to unfamiliar fields. In these new situations, teachers are still expected to maintain high-quality performances and achievements. The implementation of change causes tension and pressure, particularly if the expectation is that transformation should be rolled out rapidly. Rapid change means that there is not adequate time for teachers to get involved in professional learning and development prior to being assigned to new learning areas (Du Plessis, Gillies, & Carroll, 2014; Hall & Hord, 2001). Teachers reassigned this way are effectively out-of-field, which results in lived experiences that adversely affect the teaching and learning environment—as noted already, the depth of teachers’ background knowledge or skills in a specific subject has a significant influence on their confidence (Marais & Meier, 2004) and teaching strength. In short, when out-of-field teachers state that it takes them 3–5 years to see themselves as having expertise in their out-of-field subject (Du Plessis, 2014), rapid policy transformation takes on a different appearance altogether. Policies that stimulate this kind of “erosion of pedagogic meaning” (van Manen, 1990, p. 135) make it hard for teachers who are already coping with unfamiliar subjects and year levels to feel at home in their profession, causing them to question their choice of teaching as a career (Du Plessis, 2017). Teaching is already a complex and challenging profession (Buchanan, Prescott, Schuck, Aubusson and Burke, 2013) and support frameworks need to be available to teachers assigned to positions outside their qualifications and expertise if they are to be retained in the teaching workforce.

1.3 The Policy Sting Hides in the Context… The practice of out-of-field teaching has no boundaries: It takes place across countries, cultures and socioeconomic teaching and learning environments. The level of occurrence of the phenomenon may vary according to contexts, however, its effects on teachers and their students’ achievements in these environments is evident in concerns about sustaining quality education for all students’ progress (Grant, 2017). Ingersoll (2003b) has mentioned that federal and state teacher policy initiatives in the U.S. have underlined the need for strategies to ensure classrooms have qualified teachers, and to increase the quantity of teachers (see Sect. 1.6). The policy “sting” hides in teaching and learning contexts where taken-for-granted dispositions about the implications of the phenomenon leave teachers and students to flounder, while an absence of policies targeting the phenomenon continue to

1.3 The Policy Sting Hides in the Context…

25

permit (by ignoring) its embedded challenges. Revealing teachers’ perceptions and experiences of being in the out-of-field world and how these specific incidences are understood by educational leaders, their colleagues and the wider education community can open up questions about the role of policy frameworks for the phenomenon. Teaching quality, student achievement, effective educational leadership and management of the phenomenon, and the phenomenon’s influence on workforce stability are all implicated. A discourse exists in schools that policies represent a “heavy joke to bear.” Through a hermeneutic praxis, a thorough understanding of the causes and outcomes of out-of-field teaching make a clearer lens on the burden that is being placed on teachers to fulfil expectations of high achievements and results in spite of being assigned outside their qualifications. Policy-developers’ consciousness of the realities in classroom and school contexts is foundational to their understanding of the role policies need to fill as professional support resources. It is only natural that the interpretations teachers make within the everydayness of their contexts will inform the skills they develop to cope with their teaching world (Warnke, 2011); policies, or the lack of them, will be part of the influence and interpretation teachers make of their specific contexts. I argue that only truths from the field can take the sting out of the current policy situation and develop new perceptions—that policies can be safeguards for the teaching workforce and students’ achievement development. The “hermeneutic circle” exposes the whole truth through the specific “parts” of out-offield teachers’ and their school leaders’ experiences and allows us to get close to their “truth” (Gadamer, 1976/2008, p. xxx, p. xliv). It remains a concern that out-of-field teachers’ understanding, interpretation and lived experiences are overlooked in the teacher retention policy dialogue.

1.4 The Need to Take Note: “Things Need to Change or I Am Out” Policy reasoning needs to acknowledge research that shows teachers perceive themselves as specialists in either certain subject areas or year levels (Du Plessis, 2014). As noted, the alignment of teachers’ qualifications and expertise with the subjects and year levels in which they teach influences their performance, achievements and experiences of satisfaction in these teaching situations. Intrinsic motivation prompts people to become teachers (Gore et al., 2015); research shows that teachers who lose their love and passion for their subject and or teaching beliefs become disillusioned (Du Plessis, 2019). These effects are stimulated by teaching out-of-field in unfamiliar subjects (Ingersoll, 2001a) or in teaching students in a specific year level for which teachers do not have suitable qualifications of expertise. Stressing the difference here is about acknowledging the scope of the out-of-field phenomenon (see below and also Sects. 3.1 and 6.3).

26

1 Connecting the Dots …

“Grey” policy areas in the teaching profession create particularly complex environments to manage in terms of the “acceptability” of out-of-field teaching practices. For example, primary school teachers are perceived as “generalists” in some countries, and yet evidence from the field demonstrates that primary school teachers interpret their level of expertise according to the years of experience they have accumulated in a specific year level or subject—or, in short, link their professional identity with the expertise they build up in an area over time. Circumstances where pre-primary qualified teachers get assigned to unfamiliar year levels or subjects can lead to complex lived experiences in challenging teaching and learning environments (Du Plessis, Carroll, & Gillies, 2015). These experiences can challenge teachers’ career decisions if they are not managed in a timely or effective manner. In a specific example from the field, a primary school teacher (a “generalist”) who majored in music and had taught only music for 15 years was asked by her principal to teach Year 7 science; despite the nature of her experience, the perception existed that she was qualified as a generalist and should be able to teach the classes; the professional identity transformation required, however, caused major implications for her effectiveness, performance, confidence and satisfaction as she struggled to get to grips with subject matter and the gap in her pedagogical content knowledge (see Sect. 6.5). In other evidence, teachers explained how their passion and intrinsic motivation led them to choose to major in early childhood or the foundation phase in primary schools, and shared that it took them years to accumulate teaching experience and expertise in these fields. These teachers admitted the daunting lived experiences they had to manage when asked to teach in higher or lower year levels. Recent research has placed extensive attention on unsuitably qualified teachers in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) domains (Du Plessis, 2018; QAO, 2013). Statistical information (OECD, 2014; Weldon, 2015, 2016) does demonstrate the influence of unsuitably qualified teachers and teaching on STEM areas—and yet other areas are affected as well, such as geography, language and special education. I argue that primary school out-of-field placements should also be included in these concerns. Out-of-field teachers’ interpretation of their success and competence in a specific teaching position informs their self-efficacy and professional interpersonal relationships and is thus connected to factors of social underpinning in terms of how they manage the teaching and learning environment. Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural learning theory supports the understanding that learning is a social experience where the learner is carefully guided. Consider a situation where a beginning teacher, prepared by her professional aspirations and her ITE programme for a kindergarten/early childhood age group, is assigned to a Year 6 class. Without the support of leadership, beginning teachers, new to the school culture and organisational communication pathways, struggle to get the support they need from colleagues. Recognising the value of professional interrelationships for teachers acknowledges the importance of these to change classroom climates and school cultures through the social interdependence these environments can provide. Entrenched in social encounters, the lived experiences of out-of-field teachers do not happen in a vacuum or secluded

1.4 The Need to Take Note: “Things Need to Change or I Am Out”

27

from the learning and teaching habitus—this embodied context is the space in which knowledge construction takes place for them and their students. Continuous exposure to challenging teaching positions beyond their qualifications and/or expertise leads teachers to reconsider teaching as a career. Further, teachers admit that a lack of understanding, support and engagement of educational leaders will prompt them to move to another school or to leave the teaching profession (Du Plessis, 2017; Du Plessis et al., 2018). Targeted policies are required that address the needs of teachers in these complex teaching positions; the teaching and learning environments they represent; the role of school leaders for these environments; and the student achievements in these classrooms. With these context-conscious truths in mind, policies will then be able to support effective strategic planning of the teaching workforce. Lack of awareness of the impact of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon for the success these teachers experience as they strive to provide quality teaching and learning may be the reason why the most needed questions have not been asked about policies linked to this phenomenon. The specific issues that develop because of out-of-field teaching practices and the interrelationship between targeted policies and effective management of the phenomenon will be covered in the following chapters. International and national statistical information about the phenomenon can only grow in value if it is further clarified by being seen through the lens of real-life experiences and truths from the field. Once the meaning of out-of-field teaching for the lived experiences of teachers is understood against their specific contextual factors, this knowledge can inform and justify micro-education policy development that is context-conscious; targeted policies will then have the capacity to effectively retain these teachers in their profession.

1.5 Identifying and Defining What Needs to Change The out-of-field phenomenon has been part of the global education discussion for longer than two decades (Du Plessis, 2005, 2019; Ingersoll, 2001a) and it is most likely that it will be part of the education environment of the future. Research indicates that the shift required is in improving awareness and changing the existing attitudes and approaches of educational leaders and decision-makers (Du Plessis, 2014, 2017; Du Plessis et al., 2018) so that the strategies they place into the field will genuinely support the effective management of the phenomenon. Such strong governance and close engagement will offer stability, guidance and career direction for teachers in these challenging positions, and, I argue, has the potential to change the appearance of education, so endemic and far reaching are the consequences of the phenomenon. Defining the scope of what needs to change can be informed by conceptualising a teacher’s role as in loco parentis: Parents have understandably high expectations for teachers, and the multilayered characteristics and responsibilities they have make the teaching profession different from other

28

1 Connecting the Dots …

professions. Teachers need to have a sense of passion for their profession and for the students they teach, as well as being an informed other with the moral intuitiveness, self-critical openness, thoughtful maturity, tactful sensitivity, an interpretive intelligence, a pedagogical understanding of the child’s needs, improvisational resoluteness in dealing with young people, a passion for knowing and learning the mysteries of the world, the moral fibre to stand up for something, a certain understanding of the world, active hope in the face of prevailing crises, and, not the least, humor and vitality. (van Manen, 2016a, p. 8)

Such anticipations of teachers emphasise the scope and distinctive nature of the teaching and learning context and the gravity of the role policies need to get to grips with to transform it. Plunkett and Dyson (2011) have noted that teacher employment instability, educational settings and organisational instability are areas that need attention for teacher retention in order to develop a strong and stable teacher workforce. Identifying and defining factors that need to change to meet governments’ goals and expectations for quality education while also addressing the needs of teachers to ensure they can fulfil their role as in loco parentis are important aspects of the challenge.

1.6 Challenging Classrooms: A Hermeneutic Conceptualisation of the Out-of-Field Phenomenon The way that the out-of-field phenomenon is defined by policy and understanding affects the meaning of the statistics offered by research about the occurrence of the phenomenon. At present, there are a wide range of interpretations and perspectives of what should be defined as out-of-field teaching, a situation which has consequences for relative comparison of occurrence data as well as efforts to develop targeted policies to manage the phenomenon. In agreement with Gadamer’s (1975, 1976/2008) theory of deeper understanding through a fusion of horizons, I argue that the analysis of out-of-field teachers’ lived experiences and conceptualisation of the consequences of out-of-field teaching practices can best shape any definition or conceptualisation used inform policy development. I differentiate between the outof-field phenomenon and teaching across subjects (TAS). Teachers teaching across subject specialisations, or TAS teaching, describes a situation where teachers with suitable qualifications teach across a range of subjects. I argue strongly for a clear understanding that out-of-field teaching, distinct from this, is defined as teachers teaching subjects or year levels outside their field of qualifications. Being unsuitably qualified is a fact—this situation occurs when a teachers’ qualifications do not match the responsibilities of their teaching assignment. I argue that this is the same as feeling unsuitably qualified, which most often happens at primary school level, is a state where teachers are qualified as “generalists” but do not feel suitably qualified despite the expectations of their school leaders that they can teach across year levels without needing pedagogical or content support/development. An

1.6 Challenging Classrooms: A Hermeneutic Conceptualisation …

29

example would be a teacher assigned to a teach Year 7 after they had been teaching Year 4 for a time. Yet, in the midst of the very real necessity to construct a definition of what out-of-field teaching practices are and what they are not, I emphasise that the purpose of attending to this matter at all is not to “fix” the “problem” of teachers who are unsuitably qualified for their positions failing in their professional and ideological responsibilities, but to draw attention to the systems that are letting these teachers (and systemic goals) down through workforce management decisions that cannot be wholly avoided but that can be better managed. An in-depth understanding of the experiences of the phenomenon will provide a clear picture of its implications; I argue that any definition for policy purposes needs to be arrived at via critical reflection on questions such as: • What are the consequences of out-of-field teaching practices for effective teaching and learning? What are the implications of these for the development of targeted policies? • What are the ramifications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon for school improvement policies in the current teaching and learning space and for future goals linked to quality education? and • How can policies support the management of a stable teaching workforce amid the growing presence of the out-of-field phenomenon? Or, in short, via examination of How systemic policy development can be influenced by an in-depth understanding of the everyday lived experiences of out-of-field teachers and other stakeholders in out-of-field teaching and learning environments.

The hermeneutic line of questioning used by this book turns focus to the improvement of quality education with appreciation and acknowledgement of unique needs within specific contexts so that renewed attention to policy development can embrace (a) the situation or circumstance in which the issue occurs (Lave & Wenger, 1991); (b) what and who are influenced by specific lived experiences related to the issue (van Manen, 1990); (c) how this phenomenon impacts quality education (Vygotsky, 1978); and (d) how, ultimately, this in-depth understanding of the phenomenon can be substantively and contextually strategised (Gadamer, 1975, 1976/2008). The Context-Conscious Understanding Development (C-CUD) theoretical framework supports this engagement for an epistemological understanding that acknowledges the many concurrent social aspects of the multilayered, complex teaching and learning space (Du Plessis, 2019) and the place carefully designed policies have in all that comprises such spaces. Sociocultural learning theories with foci on situatedness, lived experiences and the hermeneutic circle of understanding allow the complex and detailed assembling of truths from the field (see Chap. 2). The hermeneutic circle of understanding values the whole in terms of the individual parts and is the theoretical basis of my argument that policy strategies to effectively manage the out-of-field phenomenon in schools should focus on out-of-field teachers’ lived experiences. This theoretical stance is capable of creating a fusion of horizons that can really describe the collateral pressure of multiple viewpoints, expectations and contexts on teachers, students, leaders and

30

1 Connecting the Dots …

on teaching and learning. Further, in facilitating the gathering up of a breadth of view, this manner of unflinching hermeneutic gaze then gives power to acknowledge issues of quality education that extend to such matters as the social justice repercussions of out-of-field teaching practices—an issue which often goes unnoticed by educational leaders preoccupied with how improvement strategies are negotiated. The C-CUD theoretical framework therefore allows the development of a deeper understanding of what entails the being and becoming of that knowledgeable other who guides learning, and thus the greater meaning of the out-of-field phenomenon for the fragile classroom construct—as well as for the policies that are supposed to safeguard this space. Goodnow (2008) has claimed international investigations have the potential to expose misconceptions, assumptions and gaps in understanding within specific fields across country borders. An international view or consideration can offer a large variety of stable, valid and consistent information while it progresses new knowledge construction, new concepts and change that will benefit policy-developers and decision-makers in different global settings. In this sense, international research can give clarity about major similarities and differences, but this turns focus to the need to maintain a context-consciousness and to carefully apply critical analysis to international information (i.e., avoid “policy borrowing”) in order to determine when it is appropriate and when it will make an already complex situation more complex. When studied, however, international knowledge and information constructions can be transformed into, for example, teachers’ professional learning and development policies, teacher recruitment policies, policies for teacher supply issues, contract and employment conditions and attention to student-teacher training and recruitment in specific teaching fields. Freebody (2003) has emphasised that research must provide evidence-based information in order to close the gap between policy and practice in education. Kennedy (2014) underlined that “the dynamic political and global influence on teacher learning mean that the pursuit of adequate theory that helps us to understand it is an ongoing one” (p. 695). I argue that research about the out-of-field teaching phenomenon that prioritises statistical occurrence data above the lived experiences of those who are part of this phenomenon does not present the whole truth needed to inform targeted policy development. Overlooking the real-life experiences of out-of-field teachers and their students in the development of policy creates tension between policy and practice. In support, research further shows that school leaders perceive value in a strong alignment between theory and practice, and that this perception influences their decisions about teachers and the support they receive (Du Plessis et al., 2018). Close observation of out-of-field teachers, their students and their classroom contexts in upcoming chapters discusses: • policy support for, and alignment to, the out-of-field teaching phenomenon; • context-consciousness, and how it can influence decisions about the out-of-field phenomenon regarding the workplace and workforce planning; • out-of-field teachers’ career development as specialists or experts; • out-of-field teachers’ dispositions and their pedagogical skills;

1.6 Challenging Classrooms: A Hermeneutic Conceptualisation …

• • • •

31

out-of-field teacher and student well-being; out-of-field teaching practices and school and classroom culture and contexts; school leaders’ need to effectively manage the out-of-field phenomenon; and the influence of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on healthy school communities.

The interpretation of these areas of enquiry will also provide a guide for the weight the concerns need to carry in policy decisions. Interpretation involves epistemological understanding that articulates integration of all the parts into an understanding of the whole thing. Rethinking the kinds of policy strategies that are needed to manage the out-of-field phenomenon involves “our practical immersion in our world” (Warnke, 2011, p. 91).

1.7 Education Policies: Serving the School and Education Community? Societies have high expectations for schools to offer quality education and prepare students for the future, and these exist regardless of the growing out-of-field phenomenon in schools. Owen (2016) has noted the negative effects of teacher weariness on the quality of teaching, as well as growing concerns about teacher burn-out and the pressure on teachers and students to achieve expected results. Teachers have significant responsibilities as in loco parentis to fulfil the expectations parents have for their children, responsibilities that entail preparing students for the world and protecting them from harmful risks to their being and learning in the education environment (van Manen, 2016a). Teachers’ pedagogical thoughtfulness gives them the capacity to adjust their practices according to the “always-changing educational situations” (van Manen, 2016a, p. 187) of classroom contexts. Yet, critically, the restricted pedagogical knowledge of out-of-field teachers diminishes or dislodges their ability to maintain this powerful presence, both in the classroom and in the school community context. Policy decision-makers who overlook or misunderstand the implications of the out-of-field phenomenon are in danger of developing policies that do not serve the school or the interests of the wider education community. van Manen (2016a) has emphasised the relation between pedagogy and politics, of which education policies often reflects a discourse. He noted that policies and politics become “antipedagogical” when this junction “…does not acknowledge that humans can only realise themselves as social beings, because they always stand in relations of influence to others” (p. 211). The institutional culture of schools affects teachers’ and students’ views of the world. School cultures are influenced by the decisions of school principals, leadership style, school policies and the manner in which these are implemented within the school context. Educational policies reflect (or should reflect) the expectations and requirements of federal, state and district educational goals. I argue that systemic leadership awareness of the politics of education policies

32

1 Connecting the Dots …

(i.e., their implicit social meanings and outflows) needs to spark reassessment of the potential of policy as a support resource for quality education and for teachers’ situated actions. Such reassessment will accentuate the necessity to continuously rethink and reflect on the power, purpose and goals of education policies. A disconnection between the culture of the wider school community and its beliefs and culture and that of policies implemented in schools creates tension in the school environment. Rawolle, Wells, Paatsch, Tytler and Campbell (2016) have highlighted that the “tensions between global and systemic settings, local practices and histories” (p. 2) have consequences for the effectiveness of schools and how they serve the community. Policies, therefore (including school improvement policies), need to be themselves considered a reflexive part of the continuous measurement of school effectiveness. Figure 1.3 reflects how well-designed policies can impact the wider education community. Education policy implementation needs to be understood as planning and recording various positions of support, accountability and professionalism. Effective policy implementation is underpinned by healthy interpersonal relationships between teachers, students, school leaders and parents, with a strong collaborative objective to stimulate quality and construct opportunities and motivation for teacher initiative and student learning (see Fig. 1.3).

Ensure Quality Output In: Results Achievement Outcomes Ensure Quality Input In: Teacher Development, Teaching, Sustainable Partnerships

Building a Strong Teaching Workforce

Policy as TheoreƟcal Framework

Fig. 1.3 Policy impact

Policy as pracƟce

1.7 Education Policies: Serving the School and Education Community?

33

Policies are not meant to restrict teachers but should be developed to ensure the teacher in a specific classroom is an excellent fit-for-purpose assignment. Ongoing policy changes and achievement/standards-focused policies that become more and more prescriptive leave teachers feeling powerless. Menter, Hulme, Elliot and Lewin (2010) have underscored how important it is for teachers to have the freedom to apply a variety of strategies in the teaching and learning environment.

1.8 Micro-Education Policy and Education Reform: Changing Lifeworlds Education reforms often stimulate teacher attritions rates because of the challenging and sometimes negative influence of the change process on teachers’ lifeworlds (Lindqvist, Nordänger, & Carlsson, 2014). Reform strategies need to be managed with awareness of the ramifications of policy reform approaches on school climates and teachers’ dispositions. Education reform needs to show acknowledgement of the complex challenges and education problems presented by such phenomena as the global out-of-field teaching issue. Micro-education policy development and its implementation can influence effective education reform via context-conscious conceptualisation of out-of-field teaching practices: First, an understanding of the thing (out-of-field teaching), which has been described in this chapter (see Sect. 1.6); second, Chaps. 2 (see Sects. 2.3, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.7), 3 (see Sects. 3.4 and 3.5) and 4 (see Sects. 4.2 and 4.3) present transnational meaning-making of out-of-field teaching and transformation; and third, Chaps. 5–11 detail constructivism and contextconsciousness (see Sects. 5.5, 6.1, 7.3, 8.3, and 11.1). Figure 1.4 describes a contextconscious conceptualisation of the out-of-field phenomenon and demonstrates the three layers affected by it, as well as the stages in which the impact works both ways—for example, the context impacts the lived experiences of out-of-field teachers but the intense lived experiences also have a significant influence on the contexts where the teachers function. Conceptualising the out-of-field teaching phenomenon is embedded in Gadamer’s (1975) philosophy of meaning-making as being comprised of units of experiences which have an extensive influence on our being and lifeworld. The relationship between the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and well-designed policy frameworks is entrenched in how both can impact learning factors (see Fig. 1.4), remembering that these learning factors relate to specific learning needs as well as their interwoven contextual and physical factors in the home and school environments (Pirrie, 2017; see Sect. 2.1). Lave and Wenger (1991) have included factors such as pedagogy, knowledge and learning as being essential in a given setting for the development of identities in the teaching and learning space.

34

1 Connecting the Dots … Out-of-field phenomenon

The context: Out-of-field position

The individual: Out-of-field teacher

The practice: Out-of-field teaching

Lived experiences that were impacted by being assigned outside of their qualifications/expertise.

Unsuitably qualified for year levels, subject areas or fields (content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge). Professional identity, intrinsic motivation, passion and interest in the specific subject field.

Ineffective alignment of theories and practice. Unsuitably qualified for curriculum, content and pedagogies.

The impact: Quality teaching Student learning School and classroom climate Learning culture Awareness of students’ background, the home

Fig. 1.4 A context-conscious conceptualisation of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon

1.8.1 A Strategic Way Forward: Policy Discourse to Grow, Encourage and Support Teachers Owen (2016) has stated that strategic schools “purposefully and intentionally” work towards “innovative educational practices focused around meaningful and transformed approaches to education” (p. 8) to encourage and support teachers. The out-of-field teaching phenomenon and its inferences in education cannot be separated from strategic decisions about quality education at systemic level. Rawolle et al. (2016) and Ingersoll (2001a) have emphasised that the occurrence of out-of-field teaching practices is closely aligned to the manner in which school leaders and administrators manage schools and teachers. School leaders’ connected interactions with teachers influences teachers’ professional identity development, and teachers admit that acknowledgement and appreciation from their leaders is instrumental in developing their perceptions of self-efficacy. The policies educational leaders and school leaders decide to implement in schools, and how they implement them, therefore, do have consequences for teacher encouragement. van Manen (2016a) has noted that “…we must always situate our reflections about education…in the particular society

1.8 Micro-Education Policy and Education Reform: Changing …

35

and culture in which we live” (p. 214), and I argue that policy, as well as school society and culture, impact how teachers’ professional identity transforms their confidence, teaching practices, decisions and professional interrelationships, and are therefore implicated in strategic policy planning at all levels. Furthermore, school leaders’ mindfulness of the sociocultural underpinnings of teacher identity, teachers’ personal histories and how they take ownership of teacher agency allows them to connect these factors to their decisions regarding school improvement policies and how these are implemented. Strategic micro-education policy development has the capacity to build, encourage and support teachers to achieve their professional potential, but strategising policy development this way entails genuine consciousness of the policy effect. I argue that the macro of education systems and their ideological quality expectations of teaching as a profession can be (and need to be) aligned with managerial decisions at school level. Strategies that work towards the development of a stable and strong teacher workforce need to recognise that they are intrinsically intertwined with the micro effects of these realities. Beginning teacher workforce issues are an excellent example of the “trickling down” of currently inadequate policy decisions (owing, I argue, to a failure of the current policy approach to connect together these issues to inform a whole understanding) on such things as teacher recruitment policies, teacher registration requirements, beginning teacher placements, teacher support and the stability and quality of the teacher workforce. Although beginning teacher workforce difficulties are not a main focus of this book, insight into the workforce issues beginning teachers experience when placed out of field gives clarity and foundation to many of the issues out-of-field teachers raise generally. Weldon (2018) has defined beginning teachers as early career teachers in the first five years of their teaching experiences, while some researchers (USLegal, 2019) make the time frame narrower, and define beginning teachers as teachers with up to three years’ teaching experience. To begin with, despite the fact that out-of-field placements are common for beginning teachers, beginning teachers are particularly at risk when placed out of field owing to the compounding detrimental effects of out-of-field teaching and beginning teachers’ level of experience and developing professional identities. Lave and Wenger (1991) have claimed that teacher identity development is vital to beginning teachers’ careers and that it develops as part of the community in which they practice. Beginning teachers’ professional identity begins to develop during their ITE programmes, but research shows that this identity is greatly challenged during the first five years of their teaching experience. In extreme cases, these challenges can lead to attrition because of an inability to link their learned ITE identity with the professional identity they develop in their teaching context, often due to a mismatch of demands and developing skills. In this context, teacher struggles that centre around confidence dilemmas, stress and attrition are not hard to grasp, and social justice issues of fairness about performance comparisons are obvious. When Ryan et al. (2017) have noted that “the relationship between changes in education policy at federal and state level” (p. 3) in the U.S. influence teacher retention, turnover, stress and burn-out, examples are not difficult to come by. Insight into the ramifications of assigning an

36

1 Connecting the Dots …

ITE-trained kindergarten teacher with very specific professional skills and a fragile professional identity to an unrealistic out-of-field position teaching Year 6 suggests systemic short-term and silo thinking have allowed this teacher to be “set up” to flounder in the early years of teaching and points to the need to review the breadth and sustainability of such decision-making. Policies need to be developed that protect and support beginning teachers against unrealistic recruitment placements and assignments, with a view to protecting the future of the teaching workforce. The absence of policies not only creates situations such as the above—or, for example, the outflow of it, where a class of Year 6 students about to enter high school was exposed to restricted learning from this struggling teacher—but also devalues and discredits the education system for those involved. Questions surface about the future of the teaching workforce and the way forward if a large percentage of beginning teachers are placed in out-of-field positions. I argue that it is the role of policies to prevent scenarios like this. The assignment of beginning teachers to out-of-field positions currently receives little attention in policy development decisions, however, I assert that the issues described apply across the board to all teachers out of field. Education policies that support out-of-field teachers to move from just surviving their teaching to motivating their professional growth and identity development are absent in systems that do not take account of the effects of out-of-field teacher placements on quality classrooms and the teacher. The creation of a strong foundation for the nurture and development of teachers’ professional identity influences how they confidently take ownership of their teaching space and the framework they then use within this space.

1.8.2 The Policy Objective: From Surviving to Thriving Teachers Van Manen (2016a) has claimed that ongoing policy changes regarding certain curriculum domains demotivate and frustrate teachers “who are essentially robbed of their authority as subject matter experts” (p. 213). He further argued that “pedagogical tact” requires teachers to take a strong standpoint against and critically analyse “policies that are pedagogically questionable” (van Manen, 2016a, p. 213). Beltman, Mansfield and Price (2011) have claimed that educational leaders, employers and teacher education providers who prepare, employ and work with prospective and in-service teachers need to pay attention to contextual factors and effectively manage potential risk factors and enhance protective measures to enable teachers, especially new teachers, “to thrive, not just survive” (p. 1). I argue that teachers’ capacity development is a scaffolded process that needs well-structured frameworks which accommodate teachers and school leaders facing the challenges out-of-field teaching practices bring to the school and classroom contexts. Quality and effective teachers need time and support to develop (Du Plessis, 2014).

1.9 The Appearance of Education: Policy Implementation and Human Capital

37

1.9 The Appearance of Education: Policy Implementation and Human Capital Carver-Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2017) have claimed future teacher shortages will become significant in the face of inadequate policy transformation. Strategies to address teacher shortages turn attention to teacher preparation, teacher compensation, teaching conditions and the quality of support teachers receive. However, research shows that teachers rate their constant struggle to maintain their passion for the profession as the most significant reason they would decide to leave teaching (Du Plessis, 2019). This struggle articulates teachers’ intrinsic critical reflection on the image of education as an effective entity, and their part in it, and, I argue, can be a result of misconceptions about the needs and experiences teachers have while assigned to complex and challenging teaching positions (Du Plessis, 2014). Overlooking the needs of teachers as education’s most important resource is a reflection on the hidden agendas of policies (e.g., to conserve resources) and demonstrates that education’s much-needed human capital can fall victim to disconnected strategy and framework decisions. An example is the absence of policies with a specific focus on out-of-field teachers’ continuing professional support and development. The need for these policies for out-of-field teachers is rooted in awareness and concern for the phenomenon’s impact on the quality image of the profession and education. Understanding the kind of support that is currently offered and making a comparison with what is still needed for the future will inform policies that focus on the capacity-building of human capital. Research shows that with targeted support, professional learning and development opportunities, specific leadership environments and commitment, out-of-field teachers can develop into specialist teachers with expertise (Du Plessis, 2017). Pulling focus on the need for policies to embrace the long-term view, out-of-field teachers claim that 3–5 years is a reasonable time to develop expertise in a particular subject or year level. Research further shows that school leaders have a significant influence on out-of-field teachers’ decisions and dispositions and their capacity to achieve the expected outcomes despite being out-of-field (Du Plessis, 2014). However, effective education policies also need to be in place to appropriately support school leaders in this endeavour, to build their capacity to create teaching and learning environments that produce quality education. As noted, research demonstrates that beginning teachers are likely to be assigned to complex and challenging positions—often without the targeted support they need to cope and maintain effectiveness in these environments (Walker-Gibbs, Ludecke, & Kline, 2018). Notably, research further reveals that transformation of out-of-field teachers’ abilities and dispositions is possible in environments where schools value these teachers’ experiences, understanding, awareness and communication needs, and display supportive strategies. School leaders’ styles and skills for managing the consequences of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon in their schools and their level of engagement in these teachers’ experiences are reflected in school improvement policies and often expose the need for targeted leadership development.

38

1 Connecting the Dots …

The questions that direct this investigation of policies are set against a background of a duty of care and fairness towards out-of-field teachers, their colleagues, their school leaders and their students. The following chapters question and explore: • systemic strategies and school policies that do not reflect a sincere understanding of out-of-field teaching experiences for quality learning environments; • the absence of any policies that focus on the specific needs of out-of-field teachers and their school leaders in terms of recruitment and placement policies; • the fairness of assessing teachers’ performances in the same way as expert teachers while they are forced to function in out-of-field positions; • how policies can be developed to protect out-of-field teachers’ well-being through targeted support and professional learning opportunities; • the role of policies to ensure a fair and secure learning and teaching environment in spite of the out-of-field phenomenon; and • how policies can ensure that quality education is maintained within the occurrences of the out-of-field phenomenon. Research presented reveals and confronts the misconceptions about the phenomenon and out-of-field teachers’ lived experiences that cause educational leaders to overlook the need for targeted policies that address the multilayered issues which develop in school and classroom environments, and observes that these misconceptions have significant consequences for the results of current and future education policies (Du Plessis, 2014). Existing misconceptions—such as any good teacher can teach anything—that make no address to the implications of the lived experiences of outof-field teachers mean that school improvement policies and structures are often not negotiated with these teachers. Leaders, education stakeholders and teachers who are willing to enter into discussions will open opportunities to develop a better alignment of policy decisions and the needs of education’s human capital. Such engagement and discussion will allow out-of-field teachers to negotiate their needs, the support they expect, how they need to collaborate and what they experience as unrealistic expectations from educational leaders.

1.10 Summary The out-of-field teaching phenomenon has a unique policy association because of its direct effect on quality education. Jerald and Ingersoll (2002) have claimed that little to no progress was made in the U.S. to reduce out-of-field teaching between 1993 and 2000. They further suggested that the “obstacle is not a lack of agreement that there’s a problem” but that “what’s missing is action” (pp. 1–2). This book offers a think tank approach to taking action in reassessing the existing situation and how policies can be developed to notice, accommodate and support those who are part of the out-of-field phenomenon. Although various research projects have investigated the out-of-field phenomenon, the lived experiences of teachers and the consequences of these for quality education and related policies have not been previously examined; the following chapters offer vignettes, cases and composite depictions of lived experiences

1.10 Summary

39

that are valuable for policy decision-makers. I argue that the challenges educational leaders face to review and develop well-designed policies to accommodate out-offield teachers can be addressed through awareness and understanding of these lived experiences. Research shows that out-of-field teachers can develop expertise with targeted professional support, specific leadership engagement and commitment, and time (Du Plessis, 2014, 2017).

References Australian Government. (2014). National teaching workforce dataset: Data analysis report. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/ntwd_data_analysis_report. pdf. Australian Government Productivity Commission. (2012). Schools workforce (Research Report). Retrieved from https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/education-workforce-schools/report/ schools-workforce.pdf. Ball, S. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065. Ball, S. (2004). Sociology of education: A disputational account. In S. Ball (Ed.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in sociology of education. RoutledgeFalmer: New York, NY. Ball, S. (2013). Foucault, power and education. New York, NY: Routledge. Barnes, N. (2016, June 13). It is not easy being a teacher: My story. EduResearch Matters. Retrieved from https://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?p=1588. Bates, A. (2013). Transcending systems thinking in education reform: Implications for policymakers and school leaders. Journal of Education Policy, 28(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02680939.2012.684249. Beltman, S., Mansfield, C., & Price, A. (2011). Thriving not just surviving: A review of research on teacher resilience. Educational Research Review, 6(3), 185–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. edurev.2011.09.001. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Biesta, G. (2012). Philosophy of education for the public good: Five challenges and an agenda. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(6), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011. 00783.x. Bondesio, M., & De Witt, J. (2004). Personnel management. In P. C. van der Westhuizen (Ed.), Effective educational management (12th ed., pp. 239–343). Cape Town, South Africa: ABC Press. Bonesrønning, H., Falch, T., & Strøm, B. (2003). Teacher sorting, teacher quality and student composition. European Economic Review, 49(2005), 457–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00142921(03)00052-7. Brennan, I. (2016, February 15). Australian teacher shortage fears as student numbers soar. ABC News. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-18/fears-of-looming-teachershortage-as-student-population-soars/7096102. Buchanan, J., Prescott, A., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., & Burke, P. (2013). Teacher retention and attrition: Views of early career teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n3.9. Burgess, M. (2015, November 6). School-age boom combines with retirement-bound teachers to create employment demand. CareerOne. Retrieved from https://www.news.com.au/ finance/work/careers/schoolage-boom-combines-with-retirementbound-teachers-to-createemployment-demand/news-story/64847b026d32a436a8758f97ceb89ad7.

40

1 Connecting the Dots …

Caena, F. (2014a). Initial teacher education in Europe: An overview of policy issues. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/policy/strategicframework/expert-groups/documents/initial-teacher-education_en.pdf. Caena, F. (2014b). Teacher competence frameworks in Europe: Policy-as-discourse and policy-aspractice. European Journal of Education, 49(3), 312–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12088. Caldwell, B., & Harris, J. (2008). Why not the best schools?. Victoria, Australia: ACER Press. Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what we can do about it. Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/productfiles/Teacher_Turnover_REPORT.pdf. Conners, N. (2008). An in-depth study of expert middle school special educators (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University. Coombs, P. (1982). Critical world educational issues of the next two decades. International Review of Education, 28(1), 143–158. Coughlan, S. (2018, August 30). England’s schools face “severe” teacher shortage. BBC News. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/education-45341734. Cuban, L. (2018, April 1). From policy to classroom practice: The macro and micro at work [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2018/04/01/from-policy-to-classroompractice-the-macro-and-micro-at-work/. Cuban, L. (2019a, January 3). Donors reform schooling: Evaluating teachers (Part 1) [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2019/01/03/donors-reform-schoolingevaluating-teachers-part-1/. Cuban, L. (2019b, January 5). Donors reform schooling: Evaluating teachers (Part 2) [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2019/01/05/donors-reform-schoolingevaluating-teachers-part-2/. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010a). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010b). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 35–47. Du Plessis, A. (2005). The implications of the out-of-field phenomenon for school management (Unpublished master’s thesis). Pretoria: University of South Africa. Du Plessis, A. (2010). Continuing professional development and the out-of-field phenomenon: The implications for school management (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pretoria: University of South Africa. Du Plessis, A. (2014). Understanding the out-of-field teaching experience (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:330372. Du Plessis, A. (2017). Out-of-field teaching: What educational leaders need to know. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Du Plessis, A. (2018). The lived experience of out-of-field STEM teachers: A quandary for strategising quality teaching in STEM? Research in Science Education, 1–35. Online publication. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9740-9. Du Plessis, A. (2019). Professional support beyond initial teacher education: Pedagogical discernment and the influence of out-of-field teaching practices. Singapore: Springer. Du Plessis, A. E., & McDonagh, K. (2020). Leadership for well-being: Managing the implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon. Manuscript in preparation. Du Plessis, A. E., Carroll, A., & Gillies, R. M. (2015). Understanding the lived experiences of novice out-of-field teachers in relation to school leadership practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 4–21. Du Plessis, A. E., Gillies, R. M., & Carroll, A. (2014). Out-of-field teaching and professional development: A transnational investigation across Australia and South Africa. International Journal of Educational Research, 66, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.03.002. Du Plessis, A. E., Hoang, N., Wang, J., Schmidt, A., Mertens, L., Cullinan, M., & Cameron, V. (2018). Invest in the future of education: Building a stable and quality beginning teacher

References

41

workforce. Critical factors for reform: Evidence from the field. Research Report. Brisbane, QLD: Australia: Australian Catholic University. Earl, L. (2005). From accounting to accountability: Harnessing data for school improvement. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conferenc_2005/8. Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee. (2013). Teaching and learning: Maximising our investment in Australian schools. Retrieved from https://www.aph. gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_Employment_and_Workplace_ Relations/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/teachinglearning/report/index. Ee-gyeong, K. (2011). Out-of-field secondary school teachers in Korea: Their realities and implications. KEDI: Journal of Educational Policy, 8(1), 29–48. European Commission. (2013). Supporting teacher competence development for better learning outcomes. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/education/experts-groups/2011-2013/ teacher/teachercomp_en.pdf. Fives, H., & Buehl, M. (2008). What do teachers believe? Developing a framework for examining beliefs about teachers’ knowledge and ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 134–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.01.001. Foucault, M. (1992). The history of sexuality: Vol. 2: The use of pleasure. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction and practice. London, UK: Sage Publications. Frenzel, A., Goetz, T., Stephens, E., & Jacob, B. (2009). Antecedents and effects of teachers’ emotional experiences: An integrated perspective and empirical test. In P. Schutz & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers’ lives (pp. 129–152). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Furlong, J. (2015). Teaching tomorrow’s teachers: Options for the future of initial teacher education in Wales. Retrieved from https://gov.wales/docs/dcells/publications/150309-teachingtomorrows-teachers-final.pdf. Gadamer, H. (1975). Truth and method (2nd ed., J. C. B. Mohr, Trans.). New York, NY: The Seabury Press. Gadamer, H. (1976/2008). Philosophical hermeneutics (D. Linge, Ed. & Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gadamer, H. (1979). The problem of historical consciousness. In P. Rabinow & W. Sullivan (Eds.), Interpretive social science: A reader (pp. 103–160). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gillies, R., & Boyle, M. (2006). Ten Australian elementary teachers’ discourse and reported pedagogical practices during cooperative learning. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 429–451. Givvin, K., Hiebert, J., Jacobs, J., Hollingworths, H., & Gallimore, R. (2005). Are there national patterns? Evidence from the TIMMS 1999 video study. Comparative Education Review, 49(3), 311–343. https://doi.org/10.1086/430260. Goodnow, J. J. (2008). The benefits of cross-cultural collaboration. National Research Council of the National Academes, International collaborations in behavioral and social sciences research: Report of a workshop (pp. 47–62). Washington, DC: Author. Gore, J., Griffiths, T., & Ladwig, J. (2001). Productive pedagogy as a framework for teacher education: Towards better teaching. Paper presented at the AARE Annual Conference, Fremantle, Australia. Gore, J., Holmes, K., Smith, M., & Fray, L. (2015). Investigating the factors that influence the choice of teaching as a first career (Report). Retrieved from http://qct.edu.au/pdf/research/ WhyPeopleChooseTeachingLiteratureReview.pdf. Grant, C. (2017). W. E. B. Du Bois, racism, progress, and sustaining quality education. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 53(4), 152–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2017.1369252. Gulson, K., & Taylor Webb, P. (2018). “Life” and education policy: Intervention, augmentation and computation. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 39(2), 276–291. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2017.1396729.

42

1 Connecting the Dots …

Halász, G., & Michel, A. (2011). Key competences in Europe: Interpretation, policy formulation and implementation. European Journal of Education, 46(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14653435.2011.01491.x/full. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon Publishers. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge. Hedegaard-Soerensen, L., & Grumloese, S. (2018). Exclusion: The downside of neoliberal education policy. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116. 2018.1478002. Hobbs, L. (2013). Teaching “out-of-field” as a boundary-crossing event: Factors shaping teacher identity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 271–297. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9333-4. Hong, J. (2012). Why do some beginning teachers leave the school, and others stay? Understanding teacher resilience through psychological lenses. Teachers and Teaching, 18(4), 417–440. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.696044. Ingersoll, R. (2001a). The realities of out-of-field teaching. Educational leadership, 58(8), 42–45. Ingersoll, R. (2001b). Rejoinder: Misunderstanding the problem of out-of-field teaching. Educational Researcher, 30(1), 21–22. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3f7f/ 63edbd37d1ce488e4cf35046135aded367a3.pdf. Ingersoll, R. (2001c). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organisational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534. Ingersoll, R. (2002). Out-of-field-teaching, educational inequality, and the organization of schools: An exploratory analysis. CPRE Research Reports, 22. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn. edu/cpre_researchreports/22/. Ingersoll, R. (2003a). Out-of-field teaching and the limits of teacher policy. Report of the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and the Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=gse_pubs. Ingersoll, R. (2003b). Is there a shortage among mathematics and science teachers? Science Educator, 12(1), 1–9. Ingersoll, R. (2006, January). Is there really a shortage of mathematics and science teachers? Paper presented at the Math Science Partnership Conference, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http:// repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/132. Jerald, C., & Ingersoll, R. (2002). All talk no action: Putting an end to out-of-field teaching. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&context=gse_pubs Johnson, C. (2013). Educational turbulence: The influence of macro and micro-policy on science education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(4), 693–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10972-012-9333-9. Kan, A., Cinkir, ˛ S., ¸ Olgun, D., Eryilmaz, A., & Cemalo˘glu, N. (2013, September). A statistical model for teacher competency: Validation of national teacher competencies. Paper presented at the European Conference on Education Research, Istanbul, Turkey. Kennedy, A. (2014). Understanding continuing professional development: The need for theory to 198impact on policy and practice. Professional Development in Education, 40(5), 688–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.955122. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lindqvist, P., Nordänger, U. K., & Carlsson, R. (2014). Teacher attrition the first five years—A multifaceted image. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate. 2014.02.005. Lingard, B. (2014). Politics, policies and pedagogies in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Lingard, B. (2016). Part ll: Educational issues and challenges (Introduction). In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), Handbook of global education policy (pp. 164–168). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

References

43

Lingard, B., Sellar, S., & Savage, G. (2014). Re-articulating social justice as equity in schooling policy: The effects of testing and data infrastructures. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 35(5), 710–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.919846. Marais, P., & Meier, C. (2004). Hear our voices: Student teachers’ experiences during practical teaching. Africa Education Review, 1(2), 220–233. McConney, A., & Price, A. (2009a). An assessment of the phenomenon of “teaching-out-of-field” in WA schools: Final report. Perth, Australia: Western Australian College of Teaching. McConney, A., & Price, A. (2009b). Teaching out-of-field in Western Australia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(6), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2009v34n6.6. McInerney, D., & McInerney, V. (2006). Educational psychology: Constructing learning (4th ed.). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Menter, I., Hulme, M., Elliot, D., & Lewin, J. (2010). Literature review on teacher education in the 21st century. Edinburgh, UK: Educational Analytical Services, Schools Research, Scottish Government. Olofsson, J., & Panican, A. (2017). An education policy paradigm that fails upper secondary school pupils. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 69(4), 495–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13636820.2017.1344869. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). A teachers’ guide to TALIS 2013. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/a-teachers-guide-to-talis-20139789264216075-en.htm. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). PISA: Preparing out youth for an inclusive and sustainable world. The OECD PISA global competence framework. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2018-global-competence.htm. Ornstein, A., & Hunkins, F. (2012). Curriculum foundations, principles, and issues. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon Publishers. Owen, S. (2016). Professional learning communities: Building skills, reinvigorating the passion, and nurturing teacher wellbeing and “flourishing” within significantly innovative schooling contexts. Educational Review, 68(4), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2015.1119101. Phillips, D. (2005). Policy borrowing in education: Frameworks for analysis. In J. Zajda (Ed.), International handbook on globalisation, education and policy research: Global pedagogies and policies (pp. 23–34). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Pirrie, A. (2017). The Lego story: Remolding education policy and practice. Educational Review, 69(3), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2016.1207614. Plunkett, M., & Dyson, M. (2011). Becoming a teacher and staying one: Examining the complex ecologies associated with education and retaining new teachers in rural Australia? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n1.3. Queensland Audit Office. (2013). Supply of specialist subject teachers in secondary schools. Report to Parliament 2: 2013–14. Retrieved from https://www.qao.qld.gov.au/sites/qao/files/reports/rtp_ supply_of_specialist_subject_teachers_in_secondary_schools.pdf. Rawolle, S., Wells, M., Paatsch, L., Tytler, R., & Campbell, C. (2016). Improving schools: Productive tensions between the local, the systemic and the global. Singapore: Springer. Ryan, S., Von der Embse, N., Pendergast, L., Saeki, E., Segool, N., & Schwing, S. (2017). Leaving the teaching profession: The role of teacher stress and educational accountability policies on turnover intent. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 11–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017. 03.016. Savage, G. (2017). Neoliberialism, education and curriculum. In B. Gobby & R. Walker (Eds.), Powers of curriculum: Sociological perspective on education (pp. 143–165). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Santoro, N., & Kennedy, A. (2016). How is cultural diversity positioned in teacher professional standards? An international analysis. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(3), 208–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2015.1081674.

44

1 Connecting the Dots …

Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Efficacy or inefficacy, that’s the question: Burnout and work engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 20(2), 177–196. Schueler, A., Roesken-Winter, B., Weißenrieder, J., Lambert, A., & Römer, M. (2016). Characteristics of out-of-field teaching: Teacher beliefs and competencies. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), CERME 9—Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Feb 2015, Prague, Czech Republic (pp. 3254–3261). Retrieved from https://hal.archivesouvertes.fr/hal-01289877. Schumacher, G., Grigsby, B., & Vesey, W. (2015). Determining effective teaching behaviours through the hiring process. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(1), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0071. Scott, D. (2008). Critical essays on major curriculum theorists. New York, NY: Routledge. Sheehan, P. W. (2005). Foreword. In J. Zajda (Ed.), International handbook on globalisation, education and policy research: Global pedagogies and policies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Shulman, L., & Shulman, J. (2007). How and what teachers learn: a shifting perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257–271. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0022027032000148298. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004. Smith, M. (2005). Power in place/Places of power: Contextualizing transnational research. City & Society, 17(1), 5–34. Stern, M. (2012). “We can’t build our dreams on suspicious minds”: Neoliberalism, education policy, and the feelings left over. Cultural Studies: Critical Methodologies, 12(5), 387–400. https://doi. org/10.1177/1532708612453004. Tomlinson, C. (2015). Teaching for excellence in academically diverse classrooms. Society, 52(3), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-015-9888-0. USLegal. (2019). Beginning teacher law and legal definition. Retrieved from https://definitions. uslegal.com/b/beginning-teacher/. van der Westhuizen, P. (2004). Management as an action. In P. van der Westhuizen (Ed.), Effective educational management (12th ed., pp. 135–235). Cape Town, South Africa: ABC Press. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York, NY: SUNY Press. van Manen, M. (2016a). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. New York, NY: Routledge. van Manen, M. (2016b). The tone of teaching: The language of pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wagner, C., & Okeke, C. (2009). Quantitative or qualitative: Ontological and epistemological choices in research methods curricula. In M. Garner, C. Wagner, & B. Kawulich (Eds.), Teaching research methods in social science (pp. 61–70). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Walker-Gibbs, B., Ludecke, M., & Kline, J. (2018). Pedagogy of the rural as a lens for understanding beginning teachers’ identity and positionings in rural schools. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 26(2), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2017.1394906. Warnke, G. (2011). The hermeneutic circle versus dialogue. The Review of Metaphysics, 65(1), 91–112. Weldon, P. (2015). The teacher workforce in Australia: Supply, demand and data issues. Policy Insights, 2. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001& context=policyinsights. Weldon, P. (2016). Out-of-field teaching in Australian secondary schools. Policy Insights, 6. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context= policyinsights.

References

45

Weldon, P. (2018). Early career teacher attrition in Australia: Evidence, definition, classification and measurement. Australian Journal of Education, 62(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0004944117752478. Williams, Y. (2018, March 24). “We need to admit that the job of the classroom teacher has simply become too big”: Try these—The 14 reasons why teachers are working harder than ever before [Tes online article]. Retrieved from https://www.tes.com/news/we-need-admit-job-classroomteacher-has-simply-become-too-big.

Chapter 2

Context-Conscious Understanding

The teaching context is complex and any reflection on policies regarding the out-of-field phenomenon needs to be anchored to a strong theoretical foundation—a framing that directs policies to mirror the contexts they seek to uphold. Noticing the consequences of the outof-field teaching phenomenon in classrooms and schools can then undergird improvement and management strategies. A context-conscious theoretical reasoning displays the consequences of the out-of-field phenomenon for specific learning contexts by acknowledging its multilayered teaching and learning characteristics, and supplies this knowledge for the creation of fit-for-context management in different learning spaces.

2.1 Introduction Why context-consciousness? The out-of-field workforce “patch” is so taken for granted in education systems worldwide that its effects on the human context, the school context and the classroom context are either glossed over or run their course unnoticed. Research shows that the contextual factors of out-of-field teaching may involve, for example, out-of-field teachers might find they have to teach • an unfamiliar subject to large student cohorts; • in a second or third language in which they are not fully fluent, and manage multiculturalism in classes without proper support (e.g., immigrant teachers, who often find themselves assigned out-of-field in hard-to-staff, remote areas where specialist support is not available); • more than one subject outside their field of qualification or expertise and/or • new and unfamiliar subjects each term or calendar year without having an opportunity to develop expertise in any specific area.

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. E. Du Plessis, Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1948-2_2

47

48

2 Context-Conscious Understanding

The phenomenon’s impact on the everyday practices, experiences and concerns of teachers and school leaders (not to mention quality education) can be severe; discovering exactly what these implications really are and what they mean for building a quality, stable and strong teaching workforce is urgently needed. An appreciation of the truths of others and an interest in and openness to the validity of the claims they make can provide the observer with a deeper understanding of different views and perspectives (Gadamer, 2003; Warnke, 2011). An epistemological understanding of the impact a specific context can have on the lived experiences of those in that context can stimulate interpretive processes that interlace and interlock the various truths revealed by the search. Interpretive processes (Holstein & Gubruim, 1998) and attentiveness are both “interpretive act[s] of meaning” (van Manen, 2016b, p. 62) and can assist in scaffolding the construction of strategies best suited to the actors and spaces of a particular context. The outflows of the out-of-field phenomenon are linked strongly to the space in which they happen. Awareness of the interrelatedness between what is known about the context and the creation of strategies to effectively manage its implications in the context it occurs are indispensable. Effective management of the phenomenon, therefore, is embedded in its contextual realities and an open and honest acknowledgement of these realities. Lingard (2016) has suggested the value of policy think tanks that bring together a mixture of roleplayers from politics, academia, economics and the media; his argument is that policy development is being fast-tracked and is losing its “research capacity” (p. 1). The effort to stay connected to reality is supported by Heidegger’s (1962) “being in the world” (p. 174) theories of understanding. Further, van Manen (2016b) has emphasised that each context (e.g., home, classroom or school) comprises a specific atmosphere that “envelopes and affects everything” (p. 69), and that having a sense of the climate and atmosphere of contexts is knowledge of both “knowing and being in the world” (van Manen, 2016b, p. 69). Yet, the climate of a specific context is a complex phenomenon; in the case of classrooms and schools, it can often be constructed because of the manner in which policy frameworks are implemented. Taking a holistic approach to discovery, Gadamer believed that understanding lies in a deliberate, self-conscious reflection which resembles a golden thread that runs through all stages of the meaning-making that is being (Scott, 2008). In keeping with these perceptions and theories, the interpretive research on the phenomenon that supports the ideas presented in this book (Du Plessis, 2014) adopted a postmodern epistemological position through which knowing is theorised by the exploration and examination of lifeworlds (Merleau-Ponty, 1968). The understanding and respecting of the subjective experiences of the research participants embrace social constructivist ontological theories of the uniqueness of being (Schutz, 2006; Schutz & Luckmann, 1973; Wagner, 1970). This respect of being also assured that honest verbalisation of experiences, interpretations and truths were valued because of the insight they could bring to the challenges experienced in the out-of-field teaching workplace. Further, the reflexive approach taken towards the analysis of the viewpoints supported the development of an awareness and understanding of out-of-field issues that is able to push beyond what seems obvious.

2.1 Introduction

49

Lingard (2014; 2016) has accentuated the need to “work with a broader sociology of knowledge approach about how the production and circulation of ideas and research for policy are contributing factors to policy thinking” (p. 29). Undeniably, the complex underlying influences in out-of-field teaching classrooms, as in all classrooms, are collectively constructed and are socially and behaviourally interdependent, as are the implications these have for quality education, which stretch out into the wider education community. He further asserts that the truths research unveils are absent in policy decision-making. In answer to this, each chapter of this book offers an evidence-based link that constructs a golden thread between the context and the out-of-field phenomenon. An ontological (closeness to the reality) awareness of what really happens, beyond what is initially expected or intended as a result of decisions and actions (Gadamer, 1976/2008), then unearths valuable truths and knowledge about the lived meaning of the out-of-field phenomenon which can inform policy development for the management of the phenomenon.

2.2 Policy and Context-Consciousness Education policy discourses and contexts (national systems of schooling, schools and classrooms) are interactive realities, and the influence of policy on the teaching environment reflects both educational and school leaders’ concepts about teaching contexts. These concepts in turn influence the strategic decisions school make, drawing attention to the need for them to link effectively and accurately to their target destination. Yet, Lingard (2010) has noted that teachers have more influence than the whole school on student achievements, especially on disadvantaged students. Social democratic school reform strategies need to demonstrate educational leaders’ accountability, openness and context-conscious policy learning (Lingard, 2010). Reaching the context with effective strategies requires a policy position that is reflexive with the context. I assert that a clearer understanding of specific contextual factors that influence and intensify the complexities surrounding out-of-field teachers’ experiences can change context and policy alignment. Disconnected policies have consequences for teachers’ perceptions about the commitment of educational leadership to ensure the transformation most needed in the workplace, while teachers’ disappointment about this commitment can change their view of, and passion for, the teaching profession. Van Manen (2016a) claimed that communities (in this case policy development communities) that restrict individuals from developing their full potential display “political, economic, and philosophical views [that] are incompatible with pedagogy—however, it does not follow from this that pedagogy itself should be turned into a political theory” (p. 212). Policy and pedagogy together must always serve the best interest of teachers and students. Yet, contextual factors that are overlooked by policy decision-makers create a space that holds teachers back from developing their full potential.

50

2 Context-Conscious Understanding

The Department of Education and Training in Victoria, Australia (2016) noted that the development of processes to stabilise the teaching workforce is a high priority with various strategies needed to address concerns. Current instabilities in the teaching workforce worldwide (Tapper, 2018; Westervelt, 2016) project an urgency to address unnecessary teacher attrition. Education serves and transforms societies and the contexts in which those in them go about their everyday life. Mayer, Luke and Luke (2008) have noted that “teaching and schooling are historical technologies of nation, nationality and nationalism” (p. 79), and explain that the professional accountability of all educational stakeholders builds an effective teaching workforce. The development of a stable, quality teaching and learning environment and education organisation involves the effective integration of contextual factors. Contextconscious structuring of processes positions the various stakeholders to create and successfully implement strategies that align with workforce intentions and objectives. Broadfoot, Osborn, Gilly and Paillet (1988) have claimed that the complex relationship between the decision-making process about pedagogy and what curriculum, assessment and student achievement expectations entail should be understood against the background of the teaching situation, the everydayness of teaching practices and the “manipulations of policy-makers and administrators” (p. 284). I argue that the dilemmas experienced inside the out-of-field teaching and learning context and stakeholders’ professional accountability are caught up in the context in question. Efforts to effectively manage the phenomenon and the implications it has for teaching and learning are therefore vested in developing contextual knowledge, as van Manen (2016b) explains: to know something is to know what that something is in the way it speaks to us, in the way it relates to us and we to it (p. 61).

Knowing deeply, therefore, means noticing what is happening in specific teaching and learning environments, and using this knowledge to determine what needs to be done to make improvements. Beliefs and values can in turn inform the continuous search for truths within contexts, and this knowing/noticing then forms the foundation of decision-making. Any development of targeted education policy strategies that is deeply rooted in such an understanding of the challenges inside classrooms and schools has the advantage of addressing embodied aspects provided by those in the context. In this sense, the embodied knowing of educational role-players becomes “knowledge in the hands” Merleau-Ponty (1945/1962, p. 144) of decision-makers, and the space, knowledge and power (Foucault, 1991) that they access can change the direction of education. Knowing and noticing the value of policy in the target context mean that the relation between context, policy and people will be acknowledged and respected. Allowing lived experiences to speak to us from the context where they occur is a process of discovery and strategy development that appreciates the rawness of the components of everydayness. Further, the knowing and noticing of these experiences inform pre-understandings, and pre-understandings influence initial decisions about framework and strategy development. For example, where a specific social incident within a classroom is connected to a set of meanings that are part of the everydayness

2.2 Policy and Context-Consciousness

51

of out-of-field “being,” what school leaders have noticed about this context will motivate the strategies they employ to manage the incident. School leaders who do not notice individual out-of-field teachers’ significant challenges within their classrooms will employ management strategies that are disengaged from the context.

2.3 Context-Conscious Understanding Development Context-conscious understanding accommodates and embraces inclusive teaching and learning environments and improves attempts to uphold a whole school approach, including a continuous critical reflection on suitable and fit-for-purpose policies. Moral, cultural and political expectations for education require critical engagement with transcultural knowledges and cultures (Mayer et al., 2008). A complete consciousness of students’ needs and a critical engagement is expected from teachers by the wider school community. This is a challenging and demanding task for teachers assigned to positions where they are unfamiliar with the subjects and/or year levels they have to teach. Beyond the task, and inside administrative penetration, teachers have a responsibility to plan teaching practices, class contexts and lessons that “take care of and teach” students to have hope for their future through their learning experiences (van Manen, 2016b, p. 84). Context-consciousness becomes a lens through which policy understanding aligns with the realities noticed in schools and classrooms. Views and perceptions change depending on the particular angle and distance from which we look (Cerbone, 2006). Riddell (2009) has emphasised the value of a whole school approach in decisionmaking, and this entails noticing the smaller incidences that affect teachers. The results of the smaller, multilayered aspects of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on the whole school in terms of achievements and outcomes are often overlooked by educational and school leaders. An engaged leadership approach can define schools as environments where the views and experiences of stakeholders and human capital are valued in achieving quality education. Borman et al. (2005) have described inclusive teaching and learning environments as those that foster the key involvement of stakeholders so that all involved reflect on and address problems in order to improve the education they deliver. Contextconsciousness offers an inclusive decision-making style that focuses on the whole without ignoring the smaller parts and is a rationale for staying connected, engaged and aware of patterns in the field that construct the context in which education improvement strategies are implemented. Consider the macro-political and social questions directing policy implementation expectations that are ingrained in contextual factors such as unequal regional, social and economic predicaments (Mayer et al., 2008). These, too, are interconnected with characteristics such as social culture and the interpersonal dimensions of learning (Gillies, 2009), school leaders’ understanding of teachers’ challenges (Du Plessis, 2017) and their school leadership styles (Bush, 2008)—all of which impact quality education (Hattie, 2009). The macro-context surrounds the microcosm of the classroom; context-consciousness

52

2 Context-Conscious Understanding

embraces the social–political frameworks, the contexts of school culture and the complexities of the classroom and thus comprehensively undergirds the search to understand.

2.4 Context Impacts Policy Implementation Educational policy frameworks are resources to support and improve education. Targeted policies are defined as evidence-based, context-connected and need-sensitive frameworks; their main objective is to improve the quality of the teaching and learning environment and its outputs. Policy experts’ understanding of contexts impacts how they negotiate reasons for linking interdependent fields in policy implementation (Lingard, 2016); the foundation of these negotiations is a genuine awareness of the uniqueness of a specific field or context that makes reasoning legitimate. The significant role of the context in these negotiations for policy development becomes real once the policies are implemented in specific situations. As noted, the environment and cultures of the global and local education community in which knowledge construction develops form an integrated frame around the context in which policies are implemented. A situated perspective for policy-makers, therefore, needs to encompass awareness of the relationships between characteristics of policy frameworks, approaches to implementation, cognitive decision-making and the context. A clear understanding of how specific incidences of these factors impacts knowledge construction supports the development of context-related policies, creating targeted policy development, which then has a background story that is embedded in sound knowledge. I emphasise that a critical reflection on policy implementation for out-of-field teaching practices needs to take social–cultural influences, specific situations and the real-life experiences of teachers and their students into account if genuine policy discourse transformation is the objective. Figure 2.1 demonstrates the factors that influence policy implementation that are linked to policy transformation in context. The close connectedness between policy and context—or the

The School Context Situated perspectives (culture, social, societal)

Policy Discourse Objectives Results Achievements to improve operational quality

Fig. 2.1 Policy discourse and practice in context

Policy Practice Skills Knowledge and resources to ensure professional practice

2.4 Context Impacts Policy Implementation

53

absence of this connectedness—has a ripple effect on the various teaching and learning contexts within the larger school context. Figure 2.1 therefore demonstrates the interrelatedness between policy discourse and policy practice in the school context. As Fig. 2.1 describes, policy discourses influence the future of students. Van Manen (2016b) has emphasised that the culture within schools and educational systems is reflected in their structures, expectations, pedagogical awareness and policies. He further underlined that policy discourses that value profits above the environment reflect un-pedagogical philosophies. Schools and classrooms represent the social culture of the wider community and are learning places from which students construct their expectations for learning and hope for the future. Connecting to students and their learning needs means teachers notice students’ needs at a level that their parents/carer knows their needs. In this way, teachers’ role as in loco parentis and the educational authorities which represent teachers and their attention to pedagogies become vehicles of students’ futures. Vygotsky’s (1978) social–cultural constructivist learning theory emphasises teachers’ responsibility as the more knowledgeable other in the classroom. I argue that policy discourse needs to acknowledge the essential value of teachers as in this role in the classroom: the teacher must have the capacity to sensitively and carefully guide the learning process. Vygotsky also highlighted teachers’ responsibility to know the point or level of development at which each student in their classroom should be met. This “zone of proximal development” theory aligns the teachers’ role of in loco parentis to students’ personal context, the classroom context and the school context, and provides a foundation for examining the contextual factors at play during the teaching and learning process. Vygotsky’s relevance to policy implementation approaches is that when these are closely aligned with knowledge construction and the learning theories that underpin teaching and learning, it is possible for teachers to perceive policies as resource instruments. Policies need to enable the alignment of pedagogy and culture in a specific school and classroom context. I argue that the success and effectiveness of apolicy discourse is in its alignment with context as a supportive resource instrument. Hyslop-Margison and Strobel (2008) have explained that the diverse nature of humanity is correlated with theories of knowledge as personal and individualistic even though knowledge is formed through active social encounters. Policy discourse should be able to acknowledge and reflect the diverse needs of teachers and students, who, as individual human beings, construct views of the world through their personal experiences, personal history and predispositions (Wenger, 2009), especially since these experiences will influence how teachers perceive and implement policy strategies. Similarly, the procedures and policy strategies implemented within the learning context influence the climate and culture of the teaching and learning process. The process of teaching and learning is not the same for specialist/lead teachers and outof-field teachers, but they have to operate within the same policy frameworks. The underlying meaning of the out-of-field experience for teachers and how they structure their own truths are both strongly linked to their specific lived experiences. If the consequences of policy do not accommodate the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and its implications, these teachers’ challenges can become too much for them to

54

2 Context-Conscious Understanding

manage on their own. The interdependent social–cultural nature of teaching and learning needs policy frameworks that prioritise the protection of social–cultural harmony.

2.4.1 Acknowledging Social–Cultural Interdependence Understanding the specific social–cultural effects of the out-of-field phenomenon on teaching and learning requires a situated interpretation or hermeneutic insight (Gadamer, 1976/2008) of these teachers’ lived experiences of being in the out-offield context and how it affects their teaching capacity and style. Teachers’ lived experiences in these positions include, for example, restricted pedagogical knowledge and restricted trust relationships, low self-perception of efficacy (Brouwers & Tomic, 1999) and a subsequent growing lack of confidence. All of these factors influence their teaching capacity and style and the interdependent social–cultural characteristics of their students’ learning. Confident teachers familiar with their subject matter and the social–cultural context of the students in their classrooms are able to display flexible pedagogical skills, such as employing different problem-solving strategies in the light of their awareness of students’ capacity to communicate and work with peers—a common classroom situation that influences students’ attitudes towards learning (Forman, 2013). Out-of-field teachers can become curriculum followers rather than curriculum developers because, in an effort to cope and keep up, they passively follow what is prescribed (Forman, 2013). Hermeneutic insight, therefore, ensures awareness of the depth of reality that teachers experience and how they manage their lifeworlds within their specific contexts (Rubin & Babbie, 2010; van Manen, 1990). I argue that school improvement policies cannot be allowed to stagnate but rather need to be continually reassessed on how they support, protect and improve the interdependence of the social–cultural contextual undertone of teaching and learning. Organisational infrastructures for teacher support and student guidance, as well as school-specific improvement strategies, need to acknowledge and respect individuals’ beliefs as being integral to the learning environment. The realities of out-of-field teaching practices require carefully designed policy frameworks that support teachers and students—but I assert that they also require a systemic movement away from policy as a discourse of passive obedience and towards a policy meta-narrative that is situated on a deeper understanding of the fundamental purpose of policies in the learning and teaching environment.

2.4.2 Policies as Support Instruments Policy frameworks are the backbone of the atmosphere and mood of the teaching and learning environment. Ball (2006) has noted that only certain voices and power are

2.4 Context Impacts Policy Implementation

55

recognised in the “commonsense of policy” (p. 45). Constructive dialogue about and critical reflection on the lived experiences within out-of-field teaching and learning contexts will stimulate a deeper understanding of the effects of the phenomenon through participants’ own expression, discourse and language. Leaders’ noticing and understanding of teachers’ and their students’ experiences in out-of-field classrooms can bring the task of inclusion to the attention of leaders and so inform how policies can be developed as support instruments. It is worth emphasising that the development of policy cannot end in frameworks that are exclusive. The goal of policy is to support and improve the quality of education for all, and teachers’ knowing of students is complex, especially in the increased diversity of current classrooms. The consequences of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon for quality education and the awareness that a move towards targeted policies is needed are therefore anchored in the lived experiences and achievements of teachers and students. Teachers’ and students’ achievements and performances are influenced by the various intertwined meanings and outflows of the phenomenon, and these effects on teaching and learning open an epistemological understanding of the actual support needed to move towards the improved management of out-of-field classroom and school contexts. The evidence-based knowledge offered in this book was generated through constructive dialogue I had during the research phase with school leaders, educational directors, subject facilitators, specialist teachers, out-of-field teachers and students in both primary and secondary schools in Australia and South Africa. These educational stakeholders showed an eagerness to share their truths, with a hope that they would stimulate further exploration of the value of enquiring into the lived experiences of teachers, students and their leaders for the construction of targeted policy strategies.

2.5 In-Depth Understanding of Policy Constructs As noted, perceptions and experiences are informed through awareness of, or noticing the message and voice of multidimensional verbal or nonverbal meanings. As Gadamer has observed, “Someone who understands is always already drawn into an event through which meaning asserts itself” (1975, p. 446). Voice therefore has a prominent role in both scaffolding and creating understanding (Gadamer, 1975; Vygotsky, 1978). In the case of the out-of-field phenomenon, voice has the capacity to ground, substantiate and connect up the multilayered challenges of these teaching and learning environments. Policy constructs and the support they offer to schools and classrooms become particularly important when aspects of the teaching and learning environment are challenging. The complexity of out-of-field teaching practices has created a discourse of its own across all areas of education that is currently unacknowledged by educational leaders and policy-makers owing to assumptions about “what teachers can do.” This discourse involves experiences about the dislodgement of teacher well-being and student achievement and behaviour, as well as (more broadly) the success of education quality, education improvement strategies

56

2 Context-Conscious Understanding

and the stability of the teaching workforce. Voice therefore draws together a broad and deep understanding of the complexity of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon. For this reason, I assert that policy constructs should not remain disconnected from or oblivious to the discourse, or language that happens inside the out-of-field teaching and learning space. “Understanding the whole in terms of the detail” (Gadamer, 1975, p. 291) supports the acquisition of just such an in-depth understanding of the specific details that need attention in the process of policy construction. For example, education needs to be student-centred so that students are supported to reach their full potential (ideological goal). To uphold this, I argue that educational policy constructs need to mirror and support a language of student-centredness in classroom and school contexts. This focus means that policies prioritise the process of increasing students’ prior-acquired knowledge via teachers’ capacity to guide them towards newly constructed knowledge. The binding of this micro-level with the broad macro of policy frameworks, however, means policy-developers acknowledging the multilayered details of student-centred learning. Placing a teacher without the pedagogical flexibility and/or confidence to cope with teaching a subject or student level that they are not familiar with does not enable student-centred learning. Policy discourse needs to practically support students’ opportunities to internalise new concepts and thus grow academically. The depth of the impact of out-of-field teaching practices on the quality of teaching and learning and on the improvement efforts of education systems calls for the reassessment of current policies. The depth of impact is also reflected in the absence of policy attention to the multilayered impact of the phenomenon on strategies to improve student results and protect the quality of education beyond the obvious implications.

2.5.1 Moving Beyond the Obvious: Fusion of Horizons Recent concern about teacher attrition in the media has drawn attention to teacher supply challenges. Tapper (2018) has noted a “…lack of support… [that is] driving teachers across England out of the profession much faster than they can be replaced” (p. 1), while Westervelt (2016) shared “bad news” from the U.S.: The new hiring hasn’t made up for the teacher shortfall. Attrition is high, and enrollment in teacher preparation programs has fallen some 35 percent over the past five years—a decrease of nearly 240,000 teachers in all. (p. 1)

Dinham and Scott (2000a) have noted that schools and teachers are increasingly “exposed to the scrutiny and demands of society” (p. 19). They explain that when it comes to society understanding what impacts school leaders’ and teachers’ responses to teaching and/or specific social incidences within classroom contexts, it is clear that factors underpin the strategies school leaders and teachers employ to manage the teaching and learning environment, and that these are not isolated from their pre-understandings (Vessey, 2007) or the construction of meaning that is embedded

2.5 In-Depth Understanding of Policy Constructs

57

in the everydayness of teaching and being a teacher. In short, a genuine understanding of being-in-the world involves awareness of the situatedness of experiences (Gadamer, 1975). Gadamer’s hermeneutic viewpoint therefore provides a method to investigate and interpret the meaning of different personal experiences and personal situations about the same thing to construct a full understanding of these human interpretations through a “fusion of horizons” (Gadamer, 1976/2008, p. xix; Regan, 2012). Gadamer emphasised listening, observing, testing, reflecting and looking from different angles as the foundation of interpretation and meaning-making. This manner of deep reflection, which I argue is underpinned by a context-consciousness, therefore has power to provide a broad ontological focus for reassessing and situating the realities in classrooms and schools that are the results of policies. Furthermore, where role-players notice incidents, the fusion of this ontological awareness of multiple lifeworlds can “uncover and describe structures” (van Manen, 1990, pp. 10–11) that may benefit from policy adjustments. Gadamer (1976/2008) also suggested that an analysis of the “whole being,” as mirrored and exposed through discourse, is a continuing progression. I assert that such a strategy for knowing allows knowledge to “move beyond the obvious” and to thus highlight the multilayered “complexities and challenges” (TALIS, 2014, p. 5) that comprise the whole. Via the multiple different perspectives of the various stakeholders immersed in the world of out-of-field teaching practices, therefore, what being in the out-of-field world means is displayed. For example, teachers’ activities of caring, thinking, doing and using language to create understanding are shown to be essentially those of in loco parentis (in place of a parent); these activities are the foundation of their task to introduce their students to the world outside their home environment (van Manen, 2016a). A knowledge of being-in-the-world, then, needs to encompass the sharing of incidents to make sense of and to stimulate a broader scaffolding for knowledge about the phenomenon. In assembling this viewpoint and focus, I aim to provide a new lens through which policies pertaining to the out-of-field phenomenon can be reviewed and adjusted, since I believe that policies need to be built on the facts of being-in-the-world (Laverty, 2003; Standing, 2009). My research therefore gives voice to the real-life experiences of out-of-field teachers and others in the context through the sharing of dispositions, the development of perceptions, and the unique and subjective viewpoints of teachers and school leaders, in the expectant hope of building bridges for future stakeholders to use in the move towards targeted and fit-for-purpose policy development. In accord with Lingard (2016), I advocate that collaborative policy development is best supported by research evidence that develops an in-depth understanding of specific needs (Brewer, 2005) that goes beyond what seem obvious. A move towards in-depth conversations (Annells, 2006; Laverty, 2003) and honest reflection on lived experiences (Laverty, 2003) can reveal, inform and build understanding about the meanings of being part of the out-of-field situation that even teachers and school leaders might not be aware of (Laverty, 2003; van Manen, 1990). Furthermore, current misunderstandings, which abound regarding out-of-field teaching practices, can be exposed via this exploratory position that is committed to the unearthing of being. According to Gadamer, an epistemological understanding of life experiences observes both beliefs and values and

58

2 Context-Conscious Understanding

so has the ability to confront the “capacity to not only interpret human understanding but misunderstanding as a mechanism for effective communication” (Regan, 2012, p. 288). Gaining a holistic view of experiences linked to the out-of-field phenomenon means recognising the social interdependence in the teaching and learning environment (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Analysis of the out-of-field phenomenon against the background of Gadamer’s (1976/2008) “fusion of horizons” (p. xix) theory is able to motivate a discussion that highlights how gaps in policy are in fact a symptom of the misconceptions, misunderstandings and lack of awareness stakeholders currently have about the implications of this phenomenon for quality education.

2.5.2 Pre-Judgement Precedes Policy Development An understanding of the out-of-field phenomenon and its impact on quality education is significantly influenced by the pre-judgement and pre-understanding of educational and school leaders, and that a gap exists in this area is most evident in the disconnection between the realities in schools and classrooms and the policies that are currently in place. Gadamer (1975) uniquely embraces the idea of prejudice as being fundamental to a hermeneutic process that seeks deeper understanding, rather than being an impediment to it. In accordance with Merleau-Ponty (1968), Gadamer (1976/2008) observed that pre-judgement and prejudice entail how “a person trying to understand a text is prepared for it to tell him something” (p. 238), a position that allows the acknowledgement of existing personal truths that are vested in the accumulation of experiences and perceptions. In this sense, an awareness of our own pre-judgement or prejudice also involves respecting the authenticity, uniqueness and distinctiveness of others’ meanings in relation to our own meanings. In doing so, we can allow the combining of truths and interpretations that can more fully inform understanding, underlining that “the circle of understanding” is not a “methodological circle, but describes an element of the ontological structure of understanding” (Gadamer, 2003, p. 293). In agreement with Heidegger (1999), Gadamer (2003) further stated that “hermeneutic theory often discussed the circular structure of understanding, but always within the framework of a formal relation between part and whole,” explaining that “the circular movement of understanding runs backward and forward,” and is a movement which encompasses the iterative journey between pre-understanding or “fore-understanding” (p. 293) and emergent new understanding. Prejudice informs an individual’s understanding and is “always determined by the specific content” (p. 294). Hermeneutics, therefore, allows the acknowledgement and acceptance of the beliefs inherent in the human participants that underpin the search for truths from the field, and respects the connection between presupposition and interpretations as being parts of reality and truth (Annells, 2006). Gadamer (1975) claimed that this thorough fusion of horizons represents the hermeneutic circle. Gadamer’s theory of practical wisdom thus securely ties meaning to the entire context in which

2.5 In-Depth Understanding of Policy Constructs

59

the thing or phenomenon is occurring, allowing the development of epistemological understanding to accommodate the processes of interpretation. Life experience includes history, which, according to Gadamer, is captured in the traditions and beliefs revealed in linguistic explanations. Gadamer (1976/2008) explained that awareness of effects such as history, background and culture (in this case, those of policy tendencies) has the potential to align subject (here, policy) and object (the phenomenon), and to develop understanding of their interconnectedness as a whole (Laverty, 2003). Context-consciousness and consciousness of the effects of tradition and history in school contexts can thus add insight to existing policies by greatly informing the gap that exists between familiar and unfamiliar information. A consciousness of history and its effects can provide a much-needed interpretational lineage (Laverty, 2003) of the realities that have developed in the field. Consciousness of the multiple contexts of history, tradition, culture and those of individuals can thus create a wider appreciation of what being means in a specific context. Awareness that reality and its interpretation are always connected to pre-judgement, pre-understanding and prejudices within a specific historical time can form a background against which the construction of new knowledge about the meanings of actions (Maggs-Rapport, 2001) can then be authentically analysed. The hermeneutic circle thus builds knowledge and information around phenomenological truths and insights from the field while respecting the parts that construct the whole (Charalambous, Papadopoulos, & Beadsmoore, 2008; Grondin, 2002). The development of targeted policies can be significantly improved by being deeply entrenched in this sound knowledge. Bringing this hermeneutic insight into policy development means a reflection or questioning of things that impact quality education, with questions such as, How can the international policy discourse of improved education provide a lens on understanding that validates concerns about out-of-field teaching practices?

The taken-for-granted attitudes of educational leaders towards an influential phenomenon like out-of-field teaching practices—and teachers’ lived experiences while assigned to these positions—greatly impact discussion around policy development. Targeted policies are therefore going to require the development of a union between the perspectives of policy-makers and the perspectives projected through discourse from the field. Sensitivity towards and insight into the language from the field supports the construction of new meanings which can help to avoid misunderstanding (Maggs-Rapport, 2001). Misunderstanding can also be addressed through the validation added via field information from a combination of the voices and lenses of the various stakeholders: educational leaders, school leaders, teachers, parents and students. A hermeneutic mind is sensitive to the “newness” that is offered through text (Gadamer, 1975, p. 238); reflecting on how teachers’ being has implications for the school culture and classroom climate and atmosphere urged me to turn focus to how out-of-field teachers are protected and supported via an exploration that used different theoretical lenses to move towards the development of an integrated philosophy

60

2 Context-Conscious Understanding

as a foundation for deep insights. The development of policies that will support outof-field teachers to remain the more knowledgeable other in the teaching and learning environment is essential for upholding the quality of student learning in these classrooms. Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivist theory forms a sound basis to emphasise this. Vygotsky and Gadamer have different theoretical assumptions; however, Vygotsky’s theory (1978) of sociocultural philosophy and Gadamer’s (1975, 1976/2008) hermeneutic philosophy combined support the search to understand the complexities of out-of-field teaching for students and teachers and how policies can help to address them. I assert that the extensive tradition, custom and culture of assigning teachers to out-of-field positions while their intense lived experiences in these positions have been overlooked, taken for granted, and/or misunderstood calls for an aggressive focus on the human experience and the context in which these experiences develop. Out-of-teachers’ lived experiences intersect with their self-efficacy, professional identity and social/emotional well-being because of their compromised capacity to fulfil expectations as the knowledgeable other in the teaching and learning space. The search for the truth regarding out-of-field practices and their impact on quality education must advance with sensitivity to human capital, education’s greatest resource (Hattie, 2009). Tact, sensitivity and empathy (Biesta, 2012) are required if the gaps in policy that create a vacuum in strategic management of the out-offield phenomenon in schools across the world are to be identified via enquiry into the lifeworlds of education stakeholders. Therefore, a theoretical framework that demonstrates respect for prejudice, opinion, context, situations, time frames and lived experience is needed, and one that must also directly address the expertise required to be a teacher, and show an in-depth understanding of the complexities of the multilayered teaching and learning space. Throughout this book, I will constantly reflect on the issue at hand, namely, How do policies, across international borders, support and protect teachers teaching in outof-field positions, while keeping close conversations with teachers and leaders in the field?

I emphasise that the human experiences of out-of-field teachers, and those complexities which develop in education because of the out-of-field phenomenon and which have gone unnoticed and unaddressed by decision-makers and policy-makers thus far, need not be further ignored as they can be addressed by micro-education policy development.

2.6 Situations and Circumstances Inform Being: Policy Habitus and the Everydayness of Being Being involved and engaged in daily conversation makes understanding of everydayness possible. Similarly, van Manen (2016b) noted that “in everyday situations…, pedagogy occurs in the way we are” (p. 32). In this sense, policies need to be connected to the shape of everydayness; micro-education policies have the flexibility

2.6 Situations and Circumstances Inform Being …

61

to mold to contexts and so offer a habitus or framework to teaching and learning contexts, within which the everyday can be noticed, upheld and accomplished. As Dinham and Scott (2000b) have noted, situations and circumstances that create “waves of reform and restructuring and community criticism [can leave] teachers feeling guilty and defensive” (p. 189). Adjustment to new situations and personal circumstances is a human capacity, but I argue that how smoothly and quickly these adjustments take place requires context-conscious policy structures and support. Through access to close conversations, interactions and discussions, policy developers can step into the lifeworlds of out-of-field teachers and so grasp the essence of their experiences as a useful foundation for policies in this field. Gadamer (1975) stated that “language is the middle ground in which understanding and agreement concerning the object [take] place” (p. 345). Discourse and conversation further mediate understanding, as does encouraging curiosity about everyday life experiences (Barnacle, 2001) that otherwise go unnoticed. Gadamer (1975) advocates a kind of “true conversation” where “each opens himself [sic] to the other person, [and] truly accepts his point of view” (p. 347). Effective policy development, therefore, reflects thoughtfulness and acknowledges the practicalities of the everydayness of teaching and learning. In the process of policy development, adjustment and decisions, I argue along with Gadamer (1976/2008) that understanding and interpreting are ongoing—especially in the education arena, where constant change and transformation are part of the teaching situation and circumstance. Policies that are concerned with what it means to be a teacher in a constantly changing environment and which acknowledge the impact of constant unsupported change on the dispositions and stability of the workforce have the potential to provide the supportive framework that out-of-field teachers and their students need. It is clear that policies influence teachers’ and students’ being, and that this being also has consequences for the successful implementation of policies across international borders. Lived experiences can define a person’s self-concept (Laverty, 2003; Sharkey, 2001), and research shows that out-of-field teaching practices develop clusters or layers of meaning which are deeply intertwined with teachers’ confidence, self-doubt and critical reflection on self-efficacy. Further, the individual is formed as a person-in-community, with a history or tradition that is grounded in their everyday experiences or truths (Gadamer, 1976/2008; Heidegger, 1999). Out-of-field teachers’ specific situations and circumstances construct their truths. These truths are not stagnant but reflect the historical nature of being part of an out-of-field situation—often because of their leaders’ decisions about teacher placements (Caena, 2014). When a particular teaching assignment affects a teacher’s teaching capacity and strength, being in that situation is grounded in everyday truths of being that include the circumstances that placed them there, often without support, or the protection of guidelines or targeted policy resources (Ingersoll, 2003). Bourdieu (1979) has explained that embodied dispositions motivate a person’s view of the world and how the individual executes their job and adjusts to changes and structures, such as policy structures, in that world. I argue that the impact of embodied experiences caused by policy structures that are disconnected from teaching and classroom situations affects how

62

2 Context-Conscious Understanding

teachers and school leaders perceive their lifeworlds and informs how they act in these worlds. Policies can change teachers’ lifeworlds and how they perceive their professional identity and being a teacher. Yet, individuals not only influence the environment in which they function but also affect each other’s lifeworlds (Schutz & Luckmann, 1973). The goal is to develop school improvement policies that progress education quality and student achievement and development. The effect policies have on the environment (including the teacher) in which students’ learning takes place makes it necessary to reassess how policies can improve teachers’ (and students’) situations, circumstances and the policy habitus surrounding and undergirding teaching and learning. Habitus is defined by Bourdieu (1977) as “structures constitutive of a particular type of environment” (p. 72). A habitus, then, produces social viewpoints and practices that are intrinsically connected to the social conditions in which they develop (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990). The empirical data offered this book unveil the “present and past positions in the social structure” (Bourdieu, 1977, p. 82) that outof-field teachers carry with them as dispositions and social positions. Out-of-field teachers’ embodied experiences, dispositions and truths underpin the approaches and strategies they use to maintain effectiveness in their classrooms. These actions are often a mirror of emotions of absent “belongingness” (Gadamer, 1975, p. 416) and their social position in the school context, situation and circumstances. Being and habitus are thus interconnected principles (Heidegger, 1962) that influence one another and therefore the effective implementation of policies in specific contexts. Heidegger (1962) explained that the values of “the being-there” (p. 182) and “being in the world” (p. 174) are inter-existent; I assert that such knowledge needs to inform targeted policy decisions. My argument is that teachers’ role as the in loco parentis (van Manen, 2016b) who guides students’ learning (Vygotsky, 1978) should take centre stage in developing a new policy habitus. Out-of-field teachers’ embodied knowing and insight has the potential to transform the out-of-field teaching and learning environment. Yet, the influence of embodied knowing and lived experiences is often overlooked because of the intense focus placed on symptoms or outcomes (Moran & Mooney, 2002) linked to situations and circumstances. However, policy strategies are perceived as disconnected from the realities in schools and classrooms when the lived experiences and strategy-generated principles do not enable improved practices, classroom situations or teaching and learning circumstances. Policy development will benefit from continuous close conversations that allow recognition of the smaller parts that make up the whole, and that reveal the relationship between the totality and the segments (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2010). I emphasise that the essence of context-consciousness and the reality of being can transform the multilayered meaning of the out-of-field phenomenon into a new policy habitus once they are noticed and acknowledged. As Gadamer (1975) poetically observes, “in linguistic communication, the world is disclosed” (p. 404). Further, a policy habitus which embraces the creation of structures that acknowledge out-of-field teachers’ lived experiences, dispositions and feelings of at homeness in their specific teaching positions follows a “strategy-generating principle enabling agents to cope with unforeseen and ever-changing situations” (Bourdieu, p. 72).

2.6 Situations and Circumstances Inform Being …

63

Teaching is complex and demanding, and the value of targeted policies lies in their useful application to teachers, students and their beliefs, desires and aspirations, particularly when these lived experiences within the learning and teaching environment influence society’s view of education and the value it has for preparing students for the future.

2.7 Lived Experiences Linked to the Out-of-Field Teaching Issue The Gadamerian notion of practical wisdom involves self-understanding within the situation of practice, while asserting that distance from the practice “can induce a distortion” (Grondin, 2002, p. 5). Gadamer (1975) discussed practical wisdom as the conceptualisation of different views into clear understanding. In this sense, policy-making is the act of keeping closeness with reality and constructing strategies and guidelines that are rooted in practical wisdom to inform better living and thinking (Marshall & Thorburn, 2014). In this frame, targeted policies can be seen as evidence-based, context-connected and need-sensitive frameworks that stimulate better thinking and living to improve the quality of the teaching and learning environment. Further, Gadamer emphasised attentiveness as a mode of knowledge. Carney, Cavey and Hughes (2017) have summarised attentiveness as teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and awareness of key ideas and progressive concepts, their noticing and recognising students’ knowledge construction strategies, and their ability to respond accordingly. Off-balance in the classroom because of their restricted subject knowledge, out-of-field teachers try to maintain teaching confidence while they are inwardly unsure of the content; this inner conflict causes them to lose attentiveness and reflectiveness on what exactly is happening in their classrooms, and so behavioural issues can develop. Policies that are developed through a collaborative attentiveness and connectedness to the needs in school and classroom contexts are likely to be perceived as suitable resources and support frameworks to manage the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and address the needs of out-of-field teachers. Husserl’s theories of perceptions or experiences that linger between reality and ideas that are perceived as abstract mirror the complexity of the challenge to understand (Zahavi, 2003). The value of “insightful invention, discovery and disclosure” for the policy habitus and construction of new meaning is its “needfulness and desire” (van Manen, 1990, p. 88) to address concerns. The objectives of policy-developers and decision-makers to improve the quality of education will make sense when they pay attention to the out-of-field teaching phenomenon, the lived experiences surrounding the phenomenon and begin to create policies that effectively address its concerns. Education policies impact society’s expectations and the perceptions of the wider school community of the role of school leaders and teachers to guide and introduce the next generation’s citizenship. Policies, therefore, set the trends

64

2 Context-Conscious Understanding

and culture in education and influence the extent of the impact of the out-of-field phenomenon on teachers’ and students’ lived experiences in these contexts.

2.8 Summary The theoretical positioning of the discussion of policy concerns in this book is underpinned by the C-CUD theoretical framework (Du Plessis, 2019) that in agreement with Gadamer (1976/2008) highlights the interpretation of experiences as a process of (a) finding out what the content really means, (b) finding out what the discourse of the content presents and theorises and (c) finding a confident interpretation that involves a fusion of horizons to construct new knowledge that goes beyond obvious interpretations (Crist & Tanner, 2003). I advocate that the policy content or habitus needs to focus on the management of the out-of-field phenomenon and support stakeholders who have experienced the effects of the phenomenon on quality teaching and learning up close. Comprehensive interpretation goes beyond what is said (Crist & Tanner, 2003) and pays attention to the meaning of content by way of the concurrent discourses that it presents. In this way, a compilation of different perceptions provides a process of epistemological construction that is “sensitive to the text’s quality of newness” and shows a capacity to recognise, value and set aside “the conscious assimilation of one’s own fore-meanings and prejudices” (Gadamer, 1975, p. 238) to enter into policy development negotiation. A genuine consciousness of the context that includes multiple views, embodied meanings and attentiveness to culture and tradition within a school or education system has the capacity to close the gap between what seems familiar (school leaders’ and policy-makers’ pre-understandings included) and unfamiliar information. Strategies that seize a clear understanding of the role policies have to improve the outof-field teaching context have the potential to bring subject (policy frameworks) and object (the out-of-field phenomenon) closer together, and progress perceptions about the benefit of a close interconnectedness between the phenomenon and policies. The real-life incidences linked to out-of-field teaching and the context in which it takes place have potential to ground a new policy development and decision-making. Teachers’ and students’ experiences regarding the phenomenon offer practical wisdom to develop its better support and management. An understanding of “being” (Gadamer, 1975, p. 432) should not be overlooked when policies are developed to guide and direct “being.” To effectively manage this decades-old, highly influential phenomenon in our schools, school leaders and teachers need the support and resources of hermeneutically based, well-targeted, well-designed and collaboratively developed policies. The interpretation of the lived meaning of out-of-field teaching practices for policy development reveals clusters of meaning and key themes that are discussed in detail in the following chapters.

References

65

References Annells, M. (2006). Triangulation of qualitative approaches: Hermeneutical phenomenology and grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652648.2006.03979. Ball, S. (2006). Education policy and social class: The selected works of Stephen J. Ball. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Barnacle, R. (2001). Phenomenology and wonder. In R. Barnacle (Ed.), Phenomenology (pp. 1–15). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University Press. Biesta, G. (2012). Philosophy of education for the public good: Five challenges and an agenda. Educational philosophy and theory, 44(6), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2011. 00783.x. Borman, G., Slavin, R., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N., & Chambers, B. (2005). Success for all: First-year results from the National Randomized Field Trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 1–22. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1979). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. California, CA: Stanford University Press. Brewer, M. (2005). Reaching out: Across disciplines, across cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 217–219. Broadfoot, P., Osborn, M., Gilly, M., & Paillet, A. (1988). What professional responsibility means to teachers: National contexts and classroom constants. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 9(3), 265–287. Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (1999). Teacher burnout, perceived self-efficacy in classroom management, and student disruptive behaviour in secondary education. Curriculum and Teaching, 14(2), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/14.2.02. Bush, T. (2008). From management to leadership: Semantic or meaningful change? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(2), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1741143207087777. Caena, F. (2014). Initial teacher education in Europe: An overview of policy issues. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/policy/strategicframework/expert-groups/documents/initial-teacher-education_en.pdf. Carney, M., Cavey, L., & Hughes, G. (2017). Assessing teachers attentiveness to student mathematical thinking: Validity claims and evidence. The Elementary School Journal, 118(2), 1–29. Cerbone, D. (2006). Understanding phenomenology. Chesham, UK: Acumen Publishing. Charalambous, A., Papadopoulos, R., & Beadmoore, A. (2008). Ricoeur’s hermeneutic phenomenology: An implication for nursing research. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 22(4), 637–642. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00566.x. Crist, J., & Tanner, C. (2003). Interpretation/analysis methods in hermeneutic interpretive phenomenology. Nursing Research, 52(3), 202–205. Department of Education and Training. (2016). Organisation design guide for Victorian school leaders. Melbourne, Australia: Victoria State Government. Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2000a). Moving into the third, outer domain of teacher satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 379–396. Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (2000b). The present and future context of education. In S. Dinham & C. Scott (Eds.), Teaching in context. Victoria, Australia: ACER Press. Du Plessis, A. E. (2014). Understanding the out-of-field teaching experience (Doctoral dissertation). University of Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ: 330372. Du Plessis, A. E. (2017). Out-of-field teaching: What educational leaders need to know. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers.

66

2 Context-Conscious Understanding

Du Plessis, A. (2019). Professional support beyond initial teacher education: Pedagogical discernment and the influence of out-of-field teaching practices. Singapore: Springer. Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and punish: The birth of a prison. London, UK: Penguin. Forman, E. (2013). Learning mathematics as participation in classroom practice: Implications of sociocultural theory for educational reform. In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, B. Sriraman, & B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (Chapter 8). New York, NY: Routledge. Gadamer, H. (1975). Truth and method (2nd ed.; J. C. B. Mohr, Trans.). New York, NY: The Seabury Press. Gadamer, H. (1976/2008). Philosophical hermeneutics. (D. Linge, Ed. & Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gadamer, H. (2003). Truth and method (2nd revised ed., J. Weinsheimer & K. G. Marshall, Trans.). New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc. Gillies, R. (2009). Evidence-based teaching: Strategies that promote learning. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Grondin, J. (2002). Gadamer’s basic understanding of understanding. In R. J. Dostal (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Gadamer (pp. 36–51). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge. Heidegger. M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarie & E. Robinson, Trans.). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Heidegger, M. (1999). Ontology: The hermeneutics of facticity (J. Van Buren, Trans.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Holstein, J., & Gubruim, J. (1998). Phenomenology, ethnomethodology and interpretive practice. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 137–157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hyslop-Margison, E., & Strobel, J. (2008). Constructivism and education: Misunderstandings and pedagogical implications. The Teacher Educator, 34, 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08878730701728945. Ingersoll, R. (2003). Out-of-field teaching and the limits of teacher policy. Report of the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and the Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=gse_pubs. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Research, 38(5), 365–379. Laverty, S. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200303. 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. Lingard, B. (2014). Politics, policies and pedagogies in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Lingard, B. (2016). Think tanks, “policy experts” and “ideas for” education policy making in Australia. Australia Education Research, 43, 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-0193-0. Maggs-Rapport, F. (2001). “Best research practice”: In pursuit of methodological rigour. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(3), 373–383. Marshall, A., & Thorburn, M. (2014). Cultivating practical wisdom as education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(14), 1541–1553. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.856280. Mayer, D., Luke, C., & Luke, A. (2008). Teachers, national regulation and cosmopolitanism. In A. Phelan & J. Sumsion (Eds.), Critical readings in teacher education: Provoking absence (pp. 79– 98). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945/1962). Phenomenology of perception. London, UK: Routledge. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible (C. Lefort, & A. Lingis, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Moran, D., & Mooney, T. (2002). The phenomenology reader. London, UK: Routledge.

References

67

Regan, P. (2012). Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics: Concepts of reading, understanding and interpretation. Meta: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy, 4(2), 286–303. Riddell, R. (2009). Schools in trouble again: A critique of the national challenge (2008). Improving Schools, 12(1), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480208101723. Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2010). Essential research methods for social work (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Schutz, A. (2006). Home is a prison in the global city: The tragic failure of school-based community engagement strategies. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 691–743. Schutz, A., & Luckmann, T. (1973). The structures of the life-world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Scott, D. (2008). Critical essays on major curriculum theorists. New York, NY: Routledge. Sharkey, P. (2001). Hermeneutic phenomenology. In R. Barnacle (Ed.), Phenomenology (pp. 16–37). Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University Press. Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2010). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Standing, M. (2009). A new critical framework for applying hermeneutic phenomenology. Nurse Researcher, 16(4), 20–30. Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013. (2014). Main findings from the survey and implications for education and training policies in Europe. European Commission: Education and Training. Tapper, J. (2018, May 13). Burned out: Why are so many teachers quitting or off sick with stress? The Observer. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/may/13/teacherburnout-shortages-recruitment-problems-budget-cuts. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York, NY: The State University of New York Press. van Manen, M. (2016a). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. New York, NY: Routledge. van Manen, M. (2016b). The tone of teaching: The language of pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Vessey, D. (2007). Gadamer’s hermeneutic contribution to a theory of time-consciousness. The Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 7(2), 1–7. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wagner, H. (1970). On phenomenology and social relations: Selected writings. London, UK: The University of Chicago Press. Warnke, G. (2011). The hermeneutic circle versus dialogue. The Review of Metaphysics, 65(1), 91–112. Wenger, E. (2009). A social theory of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists…in their own words (pp. 209–218). London, UK: Routledge. Westervelt, E. (2016, September 15). Frustration. Burnout. Attrition. It’s time to address the national teacher shortage. nprEd How Learning Happens. Retrieved from https://www.npr. org/sections/ed/2016/09/15/493808213/frustration-burnout-attrition-its-time-to-address-thenational-teacher-shortage. Zahavi, D. (2003). Husserl’s phenomenology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Chapter 3

Attention to the Numbers

The statistics describing the occurrence of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon highlight the need to reflect on and reassess the role of education improvement policies in its management. According to McKenzie et al. (2014), in Australia, 5% of experienced primary and 8% of experienced secondary school teachers say they might leave the profession. For earlycareer teachers, these figures are even higher, hovering between 7 and 11%. The report also shows that 18% of teachers are considering an alternative career, and claims that, of early-career teachers, 39.9% of primary and 43.4% of secondary teachers consider attrition, or are uncertain about their teaching careers. International statistical information about the out-of-field phenomenon makes the discussions offered in this chapter applicable to a wide range of teaching and learning environments.

3.1 Introduction The focus of this chapter is on the NUMBERS, or the international occurrence of the out-of-field phenomenon, and is threefold: • Firstly, and in general, that numbers and statistics are key aspects of governments’ functioning and decision-making (Lingard, 2014) and are needed for changes to policy via politics; • Secondly, that statistics about the out-of-field phenomenon in the teaching and learning context are not adequately standardised, making water-tight comparisons between school contexts, subject contexts or across countries difficult—a situation which underlines the need for information that has the consistency and credibility and that is operable for policy decisions and politics and • Thirdly, that the current numbers (statistics) on their own do not represent a complete picture of the out-of-field phenomenon and the real influence it has on the education arena.

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. E. Du Plessis, Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1948-2_3

69

70

3 Attention to the Numbers

Information is needed to draw the attention of policy-makers and to ensure policies are developed to effectively manage and transform the teaching and learning environment affected by the phenomenon (and mitigate the consequences it has there). Yet, of equal or greater concern is that the statistics–politics–policy chain regarding the out-of-field phenomenon overlooks the links it has with other education factors policy is scrambling to stabilise, such as teacher attrition and turnover rates, education budgets, teachers’ workforce instability, quality education concerns and even the current concern about the quality of ITE. Why is it that education systems, schools and governments are not addressing the phenomenon in policy decisions? The gaping absence of the phenomenon in policy frameworks coupled with its widespread occurrence are factors that influence educational improvement at all levels. The search for possible reasons for this policy gap may be attributable to such things as the pressure on continuously changing government administrations and education leaders, and/or the current pressure on schools to rapidly improve achievement that forces school leaders to keep overlooking the teacher demand and supply issues that schools experience. Another issue is that some research projects offer statistical information that was compiled from research which gathered teachers’ perceptions and feelings of being out of field or described their lived experiences (Du Plessis, 2014; Warnke, 2011); other research projects report on statistics gathered quantitatively via unstandardised criteria for out-of-field teaching used for the research and not described—a situation which underlines the problems with the current state of statistics in the field. I assert that what is required is a critical view of education quality that acknowledges the effects of the out-of-field phenomenon across the education context, from improving student achievement outcomes to the phenomenon’s interaction with ITE concerns. The occurrence of the out-of-field phenomenon needs to influence educational decisions on three levels. The first is the local context, which includes the teaching and learning culture in schools, the influence of the pressure for student achievements and the phenomenon’s influence on the interrelationships in the school community (Dee & Cohodes, 2008). The second includes the general wider educational community and societal context and how the occurrence of the out-of-field phenomenon influences organisational and systemic goals to build a stable and quality teaching workforce to ensure high-quality education and quality teaching. The third is the national context, and includes how the occurrence of the phenomenon in schools adds pressure to governments against the background of a competitive global education focus and concerns about PISA results. The pressure that the occurrence of the phenomenon asserts across the education context is visible when the PISA-reported mathematics and literacy performance of Australian students, which declined between PISA 2003 and PISA 2012 (McConney & Price, 2009a, b; Thomson, De Bortoli, & Buckley, 2013), are placed in tension with other available data. Confirming the achievement struggle, in research completed for the Australian Council for Educational Research in mathematics and science, Thomson et al. (2013) have noted that Australian Year 4 and Year 8 students were outperformed by their same-age cohorts in Korea, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, Japan and the Russian Federation. In juxtaposition with this report, however,

3.1 Introduction

71

the QAO (Queensland Audit Office, 2013) reported the same year that 34% of Australian Year 8 students were taught by mathematic teachers not suitably qualified to teach the subject, in comparison to the global average of 12%. This QAO report indicated that 46% of junior mathematics teachers (Year 8 and lower) shared that they were teaching in out-of-field positions in this subject. Weldon (2015), however, offers occurrence numbers for Australia that demonstrate a drop in out-of-field teaching practices. I argue for caution about numeric data being presented without a clear indication of how the out-of-field teaching concept was defined during specific investigations, as this is a significant problem with the numbers presented about the phenomenon across contexts. Clear conceptualisation of the out-of-field phenomenon is imperative to validate empirical data offered in this field. Yet, the tendency or imperative to describe information in terms of numbers belongs to validation that extends beyond policy and politics, so I offer some reliable numeric understandings to demonstrate that the global concern with the out-of-field phenomenon does generate considerable data across the education context. Occurrence of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon internationally varies among specific subjects in specific countries; some recent research has noted that 80% of primary school teachers and 15% of lower secondary teachers in Germany taught mathematics without being involved in mathematics programmes during their ITE programmes (Bosse & Törner, 2013; Schueler, Roesken-Winter, Weißenrieder, Lambert, & Römer, 2016; Törner & Törner, 2010). In Victoria, Australia, 13–20% of graduate teachers who entered the workforce stated that they “felt unqualified” (see Sect. 1.6) for the year level they were teaching; this study also claimed that 15% of science teachers felt similarly unqualified, while 25–30% of teachers in general did not perceive themselves as suitably qualified for their positions (Ingvarson, Beavis, & Kleinhenz, 2004; Shepherd, 2013). In Western Australia, 24% of teachers generally, including 16% of maths teachers and 18% of science teachers, were unsuitably qualified for the subject/s they were teaching (McConney & Price, 2009a). In South Australia, 16% of general science teachers were unsuitably qualified (Panizzon, Westwell, & Elliott, 2010), and in Tasmania, only 49% of science teachers were suitably qualified (Tasmania Audit Office, 2010). The same tendency occurs across several countries. In the U.K., a report from 2011 reflected that 26.6% of maths teachers, 28.7% of geography teachers and 31.4% of physics teachers were not suitably qualified for the subjects they were teaching (Loveys, 2011). Again in Australia, Darby-Hobbs (2012) and Weldon (2015, 2016) have both reported that 13% of maths, physics and chemistry teachers teaching Year 11 and 12 secondary students have less than 1 year of tertiary training in the subject they teach, as do 25% of junior maths teachers, while 50% of junior maths teachers have less than 3 years’ tertiary qualifications in their teaching subject. Maths, information and communication technology and science teachers are twice as likely to teach out of their field in provincial towns, and three times more likely in remote towns (Weldon, 2016). Harris, Jensz, and Baldwin (2005) have noted that 16% to 28% of science teachers in Australia did not have science-based degrees, 22% of Year 7 teachers were unsuitably qualified to teach science and 20% of maths teachers did not study maths beyond ITE at first-year level. Policy transformation of curricula and/or systemic changes that create workforce transformation and staff demand (for example,

72

3 Attention to the Numbers

transitioning Year 7 from the primary into the high school phase and requesting some Year 7 teachers to move to high schools) increase the incidence of out-of-field teaching and the risk of out-of-field teaching loads. Teacher attrition and retention rates are a major teaching workforce concern globally because of what they mean for building a stable, strong and quality teaching workforce. Supply and demand concerns and the effectiveness and quality of education are all greatly impacted by the attrition rates of beginning teachers. In Australia, the attrition rates for beginning teachers hover between 24% and 40 (Buchanan, Prescott, Schuck, Aubusson, & Burke 2013). In comparison, research in Germany (Halász, Santiago, Elkolm, Matthews, & McKenzie, 2004) indicates only a 9% attrition rate. Such comparisons again suggest querying contextual factors and understanding how the phenomenon is both defined and managed before such statistics can provide useful knowledge and information to policy-developers. Teachers leaving the profession strongly relate to dissatisfaction levels, lost passion for the profession and doubts about their self-efficacy as teachers (Du Plessis et al., 2018; Johnson et al., 2014). Bandura (1982) has underlined that self-concepts of efficacy determine how people behave. The phenomenon’s influence on the wellbeing of education’s most important human capital resource, the teacher, should not be underestimated, and stability within the teaching profession needs to be seen in the light of the level at which the out-of-field phenomenon is occurring in school contexts. The occurrence of out-of-field teaching practices across primary and secondary schools influences how teachers perceive themselves as being good (or effective), and that the phenomenon’s occurrence is widespread is recognised in the global arena: the literature offers a view of statistics from the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Korea and South Africa. Professional identity and job-satisfaction levels are worn out when teachers continuously have to work in positions outside their qualification over a long period of time—especially when they have spent several years developing expertise in another specific subject field or year level (Du Plessis et al., 2018). The importance of having a clear and correct statistical picture of the presence of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon in our schools is underlined by the impact this phenomenon has on teacher’s pedagogical accountability. Pedagogical accountability requires that teachers’ performances are assessed and compared to their colleagues’; the outcome of these performance assessments is published and constructs teachers’ professional image and identity. Yet, being out-of-field influences teachers’ pedagogical accountability for their specific subject or year level. Van Manen (2016a) has claimed that knowing a subject “means to hold this knowledge in a way that shows that it is loved and respected for what it is and the way it lets itself be known” (p. 61). Teachers’ knowledge about a specific field or subject area influences their professional relationship with and passion for this subject field, factors that are dislodged when principals hand out teaching assignments to teachers based on class demands and teacher availability. How do education systems, schools and governments begin to grasp, acknowledge and effectively manage a phenomenon that is clearly indicated in statistics and yet noticeably absent in policy decisions? A thorough investigation of the interaction of the phenomenon across the education context suggests education initiatives to

3.1 Introduction

73

improve teacher and student performance and education quality cannot continue to ignore the phenomenon in policy decisions pushing towards educational improvement. I argue that at all levels, from policy development to the classroom, policymakers need to reflect on what is expected of teachers and of education, and how these expectations can be followed up with well-connected policies that prioritise suitably assigned teachers. Unsuitably assigned or out-of-field teachers find it challenging to get on top of unfamiliar subject content or the developmental needs of a unfamiliar year level and to fully engage in their in loco parentis role, and yet the teaching and learning context reflects rapidly changing social, cultural and technological conditions that necessitate confident and well-qualified teachers in classrooms. Ball (2012) has described his research participants as “key actors” (p. 2) in the policy process. Building a stable and quality teaching workforce for the future requires policy information that takes account of the numbers but also acknowledges that policies need to get beyond the numbers and instead shift towards well-designed and well-managed strategies that are supported by evidence from the field.

3.2 Twenty-First-Century Statistics Informing the Future of Education: Local, Wider Community and National Concerns Ignoring the many misunderstandings that surround the out-of-field phenomenon seems likely to harm the education improvement plans of the next century, since the relevant, situated competence of teachers needs to find support in accountability policies—that is, policies informed by empirical data. I argue that evidence-based decisions to improve policies and the relevant support these can then offer to the workforce have the potential to transform education quality. Teachers influence both the quality of knowledge and the social interaction within classrooms, and these shape student learning and performance (Gillies & Boyle, 2010). Yet, the impact of teachers on the learning culture and climate goes beyond the classroom context because teachers’ skill in the classroom ultimately upholds the development of cooperative learning environments, which function as students’ preparation for twenty-first-century citizenship and model the role of individuals to complement, support and stand together in reaching a common goal (Gillies & Boyle, 2010; Lingard, Hayes, Mills, & Christie, 2003; Lonsdale & Anderson, 2012). The influence of suitably qualified teachers is rooted in their autonomy and accountability in the subjects and/or year level they teach. The positive contribution of competent and capable teachers, therefore, not only involves creating a much-needed fit between practice and policy but also supports teaching strategy development. Bédard (2015) has stated that new strategies are created from teachers’ pedagogical autonomy and accountability and have the potential to “lead to improvements in academic performance” (p. 2), but only if the education system in which they are implemented is well structured and well managed.

74

3 Attention to the Numbers

The QAO (2013) has emphasised the correlation between stagnant student improvement achievements in mathematics and science and declining participation in senior mathematics and science subject domains. Education systems’ attention to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) areas does highlight areas of concern, but it takes time to transform beliefs, cultures and traditions. Gordon (2007) has described the occurrence of out-of-field teaching practices in middle schools and secondary schools in the U.S., pointing to evidence that 69% of middle school students and 31% of secondary school students were taught mathematics by teachers not suitably qualified. He further underlined that 93% of middle school students and 67% of secondary school students were taught physical science or physics by teachers not suitably qualified in these fields. Figure 3.1 illustrates how a focus on numbers (whether balanced or not) has the potential to influence how the out-of-field phenomenon is managed in certain subject fields, teaching areas, domains or disciplines. Although some international conventions and laws (e.g., Australian laws) promote inclusive education principles, statistics indicate that certain fields such as special education, among others, have a high level of unsuitably qualified teachers (Weldon, 2015, 2016). Reflecting on the efforts of education departments internationally to improve the quality of STEM subject areas while increasing their budget expenditure to accommodate these objectives, I note that this process does not often include an in-depth reflection on developing specifically fit-for-purpose policies to support these objectives. In addition, significant attention and long-term focus on out-of-field teaching policy in STEM subject domains stimulate questions about whether this extensive focus comes at the cost of attention to other out-of-field subject areas (see Fig. 3.1). I argue that what is currently seen in statistics about education quality and achievement emphasises subject areas that are relevant to the cultural zeitgeist, but that these subject numbers are just the tip of the education iceberg.

STEM subject domains

Music

Art

Geography English

Languages other than English Special Education

Information Technology

Fig. 3.1 Out-of-field teaching: STEM is only the tip of the iceberg

Earth Science

3.2 Twenty-First-Century Statistics Informing the Future …

75

Policy attention needs to be given to the factors that transform beliefs, cultures and traditions. The STEM domain issue is presented as declining in participation by students and teachers (QAO, 2013), but research also shows that students will shy away from choosing subjects taught by teachers they perceive as inadequate or not knowing the subject well enough to teach it with passion (Du Plessis, 2014). The influence of unsuitably qualified teachers extends beyond classroom parameters because the achievements and development of students have repercussions on their future career and tertiary education decisions (Gordon, 2007). Students struggle to develop passion, interest and deep learning in subjects that are taught by a teacher who has restricted content and pedagogical content knowledge. The in-depth development and integration of subjects cannot take place as a result of out-of-field teachers’ restricted pedagogical autonomy. Moreover, the image of the teaching profession and how teachers are perceived as professionals by both students and the wider community are greatly influenced by teachers’ competence in classrooms. The flow on effects of this image influences students’ views of teaching as a career to consider. Moreover, the out-of-field phenomenon not only affects students beyond the classroom, it also influences out-of-field teachers’ beliefs about teaching, which are often transformed by their experiences with implications for their confidence and professional identity development. In addition, in situations where a large proportion of teachers are assigned to out-of-field positions (as in some rural or remote schools), the pedagogical impact on the school and its learning culture spreads out to affect perceptions of teachers’ professional image, so that understanding develops that teachers do not have the capacity for the necessary pedagogical autonomy. Continuous perceptions about teachers’ restricted pedagogical autonomy further result in prescriptive curricula and policies focused on standardised achievements, leaving no room for teacher initiatives. Bédard (2015) has underlined that the “environment in which teachers and school principals evolve must allow them enough latitude to experiment” (p. 4). Higher pedagogical accountability of teachers and their principals is aligned with higher academic performance of students (Bédard, 2015); teaching practices are the tool that links prior knowledge and understanding to new information. Teachers are accountable to build knowledge and learning bridges and guide their students to make links and connections between prior and new knowledge, for example, between knowledge from previous centuries (history) and the current century so that subject content can be integrated in new exploration, experimentation and new findings. Innovative development of new knowledge cannot be contained by time, space and prescriptive subject curricula. However, the restricted content and pedagogical content knowledge of out-of-field teachers make such teaching practices an unrealistic expectation. A critical reflection of the multilayered implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon for these teachers’ practices exposes a deeply rooted vacuum in policies capable of addressing the future impact of out-of-field teaching in areas such as classroom practice analysis, integration and transformation, leading learning towards the development of critical thinking and reasoning (Gillies, 2009). Research also shows that out-of-field teachers find it difficult if not impossible to lead their students to, and stimulate, higher order thinking in out-of-field subjects (Du Plessis,

76

3 Attention to the Numbers

2019)—unsurprising, given that the development of students’ higher order thinking is closely connected to the challenges teachers present them with (Gillies, 2009). Unrealistic expectations for teacher performance (especially beginning teacher performance) while teachers are assigned to out-of-field positions need to be an international concern because high expectations for students to perform puts pressure on teachers to make it happen whether they feel qualified to meet expectations or not. A genuine analysis of the meaning of the out-of-field phenomenon for the teaching workforce and future policy frameworks requires attention to the interaction between the phenomenon’s effects and teacher well-being as well as student achievement. I argue that education policy needs to mirror the truths demonstrated in the lived experiences of out-of-field teachers so that school improvement policies can reflect a twenty-first-century learning and teaching context that advocates for school principal and teacher pedagogical autonomy and accountability. Improvement policies need to demonstrate acknowledgement of the sphere of impact of the out-of-field phenomenon at the local school level, the general wider education community and societal level and the national level (see Sect. 3.1). Well-designed policies can provide a safe environment in which the student teachers of the next century can explore the best strategies and most suitable approaches for teaching practices while they complete their professional experience in school contexts. Currently, however, the culture of out-of-field teaching practices present in schools, coupled with the tendency to overlook it by education leaders and policy-developers alike, influences students’ achievements and their decisions about future studies. Concerns for the future of education about the growth rate of the school student population, the ageing teacher population and the decline in school leavers choosing to be teachers make policy strategies for the out-of-field phenomenon even more necessary, if only to manage a possible looming increase in out-of-field teaching practices. Beginning teacher workforce concerns about novice teacher attrition rates stimulate the question, “Do education policies make provision for strategies to effectively manage the causes of these rates?” More than a decade ago, The National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF, 2007) prompted queries about the common culture or tradition of assigning graduate teachers to positions for which they did not have suitable qualifications or expertise. The literature elucidated the need for a deeper understanding of the impact that policies directly related to the out-of-field phenomenon could have for the improvement of education outcomes, but nothing came of it (Ingersoll, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c). I argue that a phenomenological exploration of the lived experiences of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon invaluably demonstrates the need for policies that acknowledge the issues of this widespread and global epidemic in education that unseats deep and quality learning in specific subjects and year levels. Van Manen (2016a) has explained the orientation needed: It is also true that the subjects let us learn something about them. It is in this letting us know that subject matter becomes a true subject: a subject that makes relationships possible. Our responsiveness, our “listening” to the subject, constitutes the very essence of the relationship between student and subject matter. (p. 62)

3.2 Twenty-First-Century Statistics Informing the Future …

77

I have described that teachers have a social position as in loco parentis, but it is this reality that explains the high expectations for them to have and be able to communicate specialised knowledge and expertise, particularly in order to introduce the next generation to quality learning in the early years of development (van Manen, 2016b). The role of the primary school teacher is to introduce students to the world (van Manen, 2016b) and to stimulate their interest in specific fields of learning beyond a focus on numeracy and literacy. Although some countries define primary school teachers as generalists (see Sects. 1.6 and 4.4.2.1), primary school teachers have a significant influence on the development of the fundamental foundation of students’ future interest in subject areas. Primary school teachers’ professional identities are linked to their extended experience in a specific year level, and their competence, interest and passion in specific subject areas and/or year levels (Du Plessis, 2019; van Manen, 2016a). Beyond primary school, Eppley (2009) and Du Plessis (2014) have both noted that high rates of out-of-field teaching occur in the middle years of schooling (Years 7–10) because school leaders assume academic preparation for middle school is not as challenging as that required for the senior secondary phase, and that both teachers and students can cope with the repercussions of teachers having restricted content and year-level knowledge at this level. I argue that the misunderstandings and misconceptions embedded in this practice have considerable implications for students’ future subject preferences. Out-of-field teaching assignments in middle school may be causing aversion to the subjects these teachers are teaching in terms of student senior subject choices because students prefer not to take subjects in which the teacher is identified as not having expertise or specialist knowledge. A teacher’s knowledge becomes part of their being so that this embodiment is how they stylise the subject content (van Manen, 2016a); teachers being out-of-field in specific subjects, fields, teaching areas or year levels has consequences not only for students’ behaviour and deep learning experiences (Du Plessis, 2014), but also influences out-of-field teachers’ well-being (Du Plessis & McDonagh, 2020), a situation that has significant meaning for teachers, classrooms, schools, other education stakeholders and policy-makers alike. Recent research (Du Plessis, 2017; Du Plessis, Gramotnev, Gramotnev, & Hoang, 2019) has identified several key factors and decisions by educational and school leadership and/or policy-developers about the quality of ITE, the preparedness of beginning teachers for workplace behaviour management, the creation of effective classroom climates and the management and development of a healthy school community that all intersect with the out-of-field phenomenon. Awareness of how perceptions about teachers’ competence and performance align with the factors mentioned has consequences for policy framework development that will improve the perceived quality of education at local, wider society and national level (Almy & Theokas, 2010).

78

3 Attention to the Numbers

3.3 Policy Strategies and the Impact on Out-of-Field Numbers As the foregoing discussion has asserted, the current state of research on the outof-field phenomenon and the recent statistics available are inadequate. Statistics acquired through incongruent or absent definitions of the phenomenon are a concern for reliability and validity, and any resultant confusion is likely to influence the formation of perceptions about a phenomenon that is already shrouded in stakeholder and policy misconceptions and ignorance. While acknowledging the work that has been done so far by researchers in different countries to benefit knowledge in this field, I argue that extended research in specific contexts that goes beyond the numbers is still needed. I advocate that part of policy process and strategy development is the creation of frameworks for the investigation of the issue at the local level.

Policy-developers can then develop strategies and frameworks to address the challenges and issues identified through this research. When numbers have indicated that, after 5 years of teaching, teacher attrition in the U.S. is between 40 and 50% (Ingersoll, 2003a, 2003b), extended research about the occurrence of out-of-field teaching and the reasons why it forms part of the education environment need to shed some much-needed light on this global issue (Ingersoll, 2001). Policy strategies are implemented by schools and systemic institutions to address the pressure to deliver the expected achievements, but quality education begins in the classroom with the teacher who carefully guides students’ learning. I argue that strategies to improve results that show no appreciation for the contribution made by the foundational educational elements of teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge will not be able to prevail. More than two decades of research into this phenomenon and the current focus on the improvement of quality teaching and student achievement need to join hands and stimulate more and more questions about the unaddressed impact of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on teachers and their students. I am energetic for this resolve to penetrate policy thinking, but not at the expense of understanding the complexity and breadth of what needs to be resolved. With the focus on quality teaching and the quality of teachers, school leaders indicate that it has become increasingly difficult to recruit suitably qualified teachers to address specific needs in their schools (Productivity Commission, 2012; Shepherd, 2013). Harris and Jensz (2006) have stated that the problem of recruiting qualified teachers in specific subjects results in a common approach among school leaders to apply their most suitably qualified and experienced teachers to senior classes, while middle and junior specialist classes become the responsibility of less experienced and often not suitably qualified teachers. These contextual factors that impact the quality of teaching matter because “‘quality teaching’ is an indicator of governments’ objective that school education deliver high quality teaching with a world–class curriculum” (Productivity Commission, 2018, p. 4.13)—in short, quality is a pressure point of government policy, and teachers are the primary delivery system, making what happens to teachers

3.3 Policy Strategies and the Impact on Out-of-Field Numbers

79

during the education process and because of the goals it requires of them of critical importance to all of the outcomes. My argument, underpinned by the lived experience expressed by teachers in outof-field teaching positions, underlines the impact out-of-field teacher placements have on quality teaching. Assigning teachers to complex and challenging teaching situations without attending to policies and strategies to manage their specific needs and/or offering support for them to develop their teaching ability and capacity puts them and their students at risk of disappointing achievements and performances. My analysis of policy decisions, therefore, is that educational and school leaders’ understanding and perceptions in relation to the real-life experiences of teachers in out-of-field positions are noticeably absent. I further suggest that misunderstandings and misconceptions among leaders in education about out-of-field teaching have considerable power to impact what happens inside classrooms and schools, but at the moment they are focused on coping with workforce management changes and challenges, a short-term strategy that can only increase out-of-field incidences. Collard (2009) has highlighted that transformation and adjustment are required for teachers in managing new and unfamiliar curricula and pedagogies, and making teaching modifications as required by school leaders’ theories requires teachers to reflect on beliefs, teaching philosophies and personal experiences. Teachers who are confident and perceive themselves as successful in what they do continually recommit to their fundamental principles and beliefs of teaching and are willing to explore new pedagogies that will further support the development of students in their classrooms (Sayeski, 2009). Concurrently, teachers’ experiences in the workplace transform their beliefs and teaching philosophies. Research indicates that out-of-field teachers find it harder to comply with implementation requirements of curricula unfamiliar to them, constraining their ability to comply effectively with any systemic transformation and change requirements that occur during their out-of-field assignments (Hobbs, 2013). As Harris et al. (2005) have noted, “no matter how good their pedagogical skills, teachers who lack knowledge in their discipline are manifestly unprepared” (p. viii). Yet, expectations are that out-of-field teachers will be able to maintain the same level of effectiveness as their suitably qualified colleagues in spite of being assigned to subjects or positions for which they are not suitably qualified. I claim that these expectations are not realistic, and that out-of-field teaching experiences change the way teachers perceive the teaching profession and have significant implications for their well-being. Out-of-field teaching affects trust relationships among teachers and students, and as such, teachers’ attempts to offer students quality education and a sound citizenship philosophy for the future. Out-of-field teachers’ comments regarding the personal–professional results of this contextual divergence from their intrinsic goal attainment shed light on the causes of attrition and turnover from the phenomenon. These difficulties are further magnified when beginning teachers get assigned to out-of-field positions, because beginning teachers have restricted pedagogical experiences to support their teaching decisions, especially in unfamiliar subjects. International statistics demonstrate that between 40 and 50% of beginning teachers in the U.S. and U.K. (Andrews, Gilbert, & Martin, 2007; Cooper & Alvarado, 2006; Ingersoll & Merrill, 2010; Ingersoll, Merrill, May, 2012; Ingersoll, Merrill, & May, 2014)

80

3 Attention to the Numbers

and 30 to 50% in Australia (OECD, 2005; Queensland College of Teachers, 2013) leave teaching during their first 5 years. In South Africa, 73% of beginning teachers get assigned to complex and demanding school and classroom contexts, often in out-of-field positions, with limited access to professional development opportunities (Department of Education, Republic of South Africa, 2005). These teachers are, however, expected to effectively manage both the practical and the ideological load of their teaching situation/s as if they are suitably qualified and have the requisite expertise. Number concerns add the fact that prospective ITE enrolment numbers decreased by 11% during 2015 with a further 3% decline during 2016 in Australia (Ross, 2018). Taken together with turnover and attrition rates, these numbers have implications for how the teaching workforce is managed, the increase of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and in turn the quality of education (Tickle, 2018). A further issue for policy strategy hinges on the underlying supposition that teachers assigned to positions already have a clear understanding of student needs and community expectations. Schools and classrooms represent society and are microcosms of the broader community. Expectations for teachers to create a healthy classroom culture and/or climate and manage classrooms as “model” classrooms rely on this supposition. As noted earlier, out-of-field teachers’ social connection to the wider community can become dislodged by factors inherent to the phenomenon, and the way a teachers’ professional identity is perceived in the wider community challenges social trust relationships. Out-of-field teaching affects the management of the teaching and learning space: behaviour management (see Sect. 5.2.2), classroom atmosphere, mood and management are all dependent on teachers’ critical reflection on the best suited pedagogical strategies for a situation (Usher, 2009). When their pedagogical accountability cannot fulfil their status as in loco parentis, other stakeholders’ perceptions of out-of-field teachers shift. Especially in remote and rural communities, the need for teachers to demonstrate an ability and capacity for pedagogical thoughtfulness presents teachers in out-of-field teaching positions with unprecedented challenges for their performance, its appraisal, and for the status and perception of teachers in these areas. Research evidence shows that out-of-field teachers feel the system lets them down because it does not prepare them for what awaits them in these communities and specific teaching contexts (Du Plessis et al., 2018). Teachers in out-of-field teaching positions admit that they struggle to connect with students because of subject content uncertainties and the fear that students might ask content questions for which they do not have the needed background. A gap in policy support leaves teachers assigned to such positions vulnerable to making situated decisions without the necessary insight into community culture, values and customs—even more so if they are teaching in positions and subjects for which they are not suitably qualified, because of the concurrent demands to cope with the unfamiliarity of subject content in conjunction with the unfamiliar sociocultural learning expectations. Context-conscious micro-education policy frameworks have the potential to influence the occurrence numbers of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon by demonstrating sensitivity for the realities experienced by teachers. Policy frameworks that

3.3 Policy Strategies and the Impact on Out-of-Field Numbers

81

give attention to pedagogical thoughtfulness and teachers’ role as the knowledgeable other and/ or in loco parentis need to successfully stimulate in-depth, subjectfocused conversations, encourage questions and welcome critique (Braa & Callero, 2006) through strategies that demonstrate attentiveness to building trust, respect, confidence and openness—factors out-of-field teachers identify as challenging aspects of their out-of-field positions. The goal to develop ideal classrooms is supported by a critical review of real classrooms so that targeted policies can confront the phenomenon and give teachers more chance of reaching their own and others’ goals of the ideal.

3.4 A Closer Look at Policies, and Beyond: Social Justice Lingard, Sellar and Savage (2014) have noted that the “proliferation of testing and new data-driven accountabilities has changed what counts and what is counted as social justice in education” (p. 710). I assert that more data or larger data sets are critically unable to generate in-depth understanding of how policies can support and improve the management of the out-of-field phenomenon in relation to issues of social justice. Large data sets will inform the occurrence of the phenomenon; however, I am concerned about the particular value that is given to these new datadriven validation processes without acknowledgment of teachers’ lived experiences (or those that such accountabilities can create). Teachers’ pedagogical autonomy and accountability drive social justice in the teaching and learning context, and teachers’ restricted pedagogical knowledge influences the classroom as a socially just space. Ball (2013) noted “the more fuzzy and patchy the system of schools,” the more complex schooling becomes for those “without the right cultural assets” to find their way successfully within schooling (p. 3). A teaching and learning environment containing diverse student backgrounds and abilities is already complex, but it can quickly develop into an even more challenging space when an out-of-field teacher attempts to take ownership of the subject content but overlooks the specific needs of students, compromising social inclusion in learning. Learning is underpinned by the structures that create learning environments, implicating policy and decision-making at systemic as well as school level; teachers need to be supported by policy to act in their key position of responsibility for citizenship, which they hold via society’s educational delegation of mutually held social values. A school culture has consequences for the quality of teaching and learning that take place in it—as is recognised by the socially related education policies leaders are required to understand, incorporate and apply in their schools. How schools accept systematic reform strategies/policies (either national, state or local) has implications for both whole-school and long-term social reform (Lingard, Hayes, & Mills, 2002). As well, the structures and attitudes leaders develop with policy implementation reflect both their approach to the objectives and the cultural approach a school

82

3 Attention to the Numbers

community will take to them. Strategies and structures directly influence teachers, students, parents and the wider school community (society). School environments can and do impact effective change (Aladjem & Borman, 2006), but effective change requires an underlying fairness within transformation strategies. A socially just school culture, therefore, is created by leadership style and decisions, and ideally becomes a space where all students and teachers are respected and supported in classrooms. Policies that uphold a socially just learning stance therefore build a safe environment for all students to explore equal learning opportunities. In this sense, school culture undergirds the real quality of education. Joyce, Weil and Calhoun (2000) have noted that positive school cultures are supported by integrative and productive methods of cooperation that value fundamental beliefs of being and accommodate individual learning approaches. In line with this, I argue that leaders’ misunderstanding of the out-of-field phenomenon poses a challenge to their cooperative action towards social inclusion. When teachers are assigned to positions outside their field of qualifications, school policies need to ensure that both they and their students feel confident to engage in inclusive learning. Where leadership decisions and strategies reflect any ambiguity in this, school culture starts to be out of step with its responsibilities, whether through lack of noticing or simply misconceptions about what really happens in the classroom when teachers are unsuitably qualified for their positions. Research shows that in school environments where out-of-field teachers find it difficult to attend to the needs of students with learning differences, this can unintentionally stimulate an onset of antisocial behaviour and thus a disruptive classroom (and potentially school community) environment (Rutter, 2008). Challenges in interrelationships develop feelings of social injustice, too, and out-of-field teachers admit that they tend to initiate less contact with the difficult students in their classrooms (Du Plessis, 2014). The escalation of inadequately addressed behavioural issues can mean escalation of their management. I argue that out-of-field teachers, encumbered by acquiring the content and pedagogical knowledge to act in their positions, do not have the capacity needed to manage vulnerable, at-risk students, and that, coupled with the inadequate understanding of the effects of the phenomenon and its acknowledgement in schools, this can cause an escalation of problems that can end up being blamed on the student (Du Plessis, 2018). Short and long suspension has significant impact on students’ development and self-image and already complex lived experiences (Ekstedt & Fagerber, 2005). Out-of-field teachers are dependent on school policies that allow them to have extra classroom support; such policies reflect the indepth understanding of education leaders about their specific classroom challenges. Spelitsis (2018) has reported a case where a school’s suspension rates were halved by a good behaviour plan that was developed in consultation with the school community, drawing attention to the value of developing contextually relevant school policies. School policy strategies are needed to ensure that frameworks address out-offield-related challenges in relation to social justice and inclusion, particularly as research also indicates that the absence of policies that support teachers in complex teaching positions to develop well-structured classroom contexts results in teachers

3.4 A Closer Look at Policies, and Beyond: Social Justice

83

feeling left to find their own way. Teachers in unfamiliar teaching situations identify difficult classroom and behaviour management issues as being consequences of their lack of confidence in their out-of-field area (Du Plessis, 2014). Well-designed policy frameworks can be resources that provide out-of-field teachers with structures to understand their difficulties, and to maintain inclusive practices and order in their classrooms without negative self-examination, or student blame. Moreover, standards proposed by education systems that validate quality education for all students underline social priorities for equality and social justice that mandate inclusive learning opportunities for all students. The practical application of these standards, however, raises questions about teaching environments where outof-field teachers lack the capacity and ability to fulfil this expectation, a situation which creates consequences for trust relationships between the school and parents. Parents very soon become aware of the dysfunctional learning and teaching environments of which their children are part and develop views about how these influence their children’s learning and development. Parents trust that schools have frameworks and structures in place to manage situations in keeping with shared educational priorities. Rutter (2008) has emphasised the difference timely school recognition and school-based analysis can have on the prevention of learning and behaviour issues via proactive implementation of intervention policies.) This draws attention to the presence and expectation of the wider education community; acknowledging the influence of power to construct relationships is intrinsically connected to the need to “control relationships within given forms of interaction” (Bernstein, 2000, p. 5). Teachers are expected to be the more knowledgeable other; the community empowers them as its in loco parentis with the power to mediate, initiate, build and guide a socially just atmosphere in classrooms. Sensitive and in-depth interactions by skilled teachers build trust relationships; these pedagogically based communications are needed to align students’ everyday knowledge with the knowledge offered at school and with that of expected citizenship. A respectful understanding between the school, the home and the wider educational community is needed in order to develop positive and healthy school concepts that then inform students’ experiences and effectively extend their understandings and interests (Freiberg & Driscoll, 1996). Classroom climates that demonstrate a focus on individual students’ learning, achievements and their sense of self-worth stimulate motivated learning frameworks (van Manen, 2016a) that reflect a wide social–cultural learning discourse. This construction of the teaching and learning environment supports students to accept and stay grounded in their own culture, tradition, history, needs, desires and interests. Under the guidance of suitably qualified teachers supported by policies that accommodate diverse learning approaches, learning interactions can align with the objectives of the socially just culture of the wider educational community. In turn, these meaningful interactions mediate the needs and expectations of self and other (Hoff, 2013) by respecting the power discourse delegated to the classroom, and are crucial for creating essential connections between the classroom, the school and the wider school community (Lonsdale & Anderson, 2012).

84

3 Attention to the Numbers

Ongoing healthy connections are supported by well-designed school policy frameworks. These policy frameworks, both by what they set up as pathways and parameters for stakeholders and how they represent school and community cultures and expectations/values, uphold a genuine social justice agenda. Meaningful interactions and connections within the classroom context are thus intertwined with the knowledge offered at school and are enclosed by the organisational, systemic and local policy framework. Ultimately, teachers stand in a critical position in the power relationships represented by education systems; the school environment that aims to develop a socially just learning environment relies on knowledgeable teachers who are confident to explore fit-for-purpose strategies that enable students to feel safe to explore new learning approaches while offering them a sense of belonging, power, freedom and fun (Gillies, 2007). I argue that the role schools are expected to fulfil in developing socially just citizenship is influenced by the occurrence of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon because of the repercussions the phenomenon has for the classroom context. Teachers influence the atmosphere, climate and mood in classroom and how students feel that they belong (van Manen, 2016a). Quality and successful schools need to ensure that all teachers and all students have the welldesigned policy tools they need to successfully develop citizenship and cognition in a socially just school and classroom environment (Gillies, 2007; Lingard, 2007). To ensure that this complex set of relationships are protected, accountability policies are needed for school leaders. School leaders’ decisions about teacher assignments have an impact on the culture of a school, and therefore their social justice accountability is implicated when they make decisions about policy frameworks to effectively manage these teacher assignments (Glanz, 2003). In addition, since the management of school and classroom contexts becomes more meaningful when it is influenced by stakeholders within the specific context (Freiberg & Driscoll, 1996), the development of a strategic framework of policies to protect the relationship between the school and the community is crucial to developing positive learning and teaching environments. Ball (2013) has suggested that a constructive political process for reassessing education for the new century has to relate to social realities such as community needs and socioeconomic challenges. He emphasised that “the school becomes one tactical locus for the management of urban populations” (Ball, 2013, p. 58), an idea which draws together students, teachers and communities.

3.5 Numbers and the Image of Quality Education Historically, civilizations have perceived teachers as experts in their field of knowledge with the expectation that they would know best how to guide their students’ learning and achievement. Learning that out-of-field teaching is a common practice condoned by educational leaders, while it clearly has implications for students’ achievement if it is not well managed, poses significant questions to leaders in control of national education systems. In fact, further, the reality that unsupported out-of-field teaching practices are a part of the professional teaching workforce can be difficult to

3.5 Numbers and the Image of Quality Education

85

believe (Ingersoll, 2006; Ingersoll, Merrill, & May, 2012). A radio interview between the Australian Broadcast Corporation interviewer, Cassie McCullagh, and Senator Simon Birmingham, Minister for Education and Training in South Australia, mirrored this surprise that in the private sector, one in five Year 7–10 general science teachers in Australia do not have tertiary qualifications in science. Cassie McCullagh asked, “How can that be?” (Ministers for the Department of Education and Training Media Centre, 2018). I assert that the utmost surprise expressed at the fact that the out-of-field teaching phenomenon is a common practice in education is an indication of the public expectation of the professionalism of teaching and teachers.

3.6 Summary The numbers offered in this chapter demonstrate that the occurrence of the out-offield teaching phenomenon plays a significant role in education, an issue that is caught up in school leaders’ decisions. Human resource decision-making and teacher placements become the responsibility of school principals and regional offices; however, clear policy frameworks and workforce plans are currently not explicit about requirements (QAO, 2013), a situation that increases occurrence statistics and should not be taken for granted. The international occurrence statistics about the phenomenon demonstrates that it is a common practice in schools and affects a large number of school leaders, teachers and students across primary, middle and senior secondary phases and across subjects—and not only STEM subject domains where it often receives the most attention. Despite the lack of standardisation in the numbers, the volume of research attention the phenomenon receives identifies it as a significant education concern. I argue, too, however, that of equal concern is the influence the phenomenon on teachers in these positions. Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of knowledge they share with students influence their perceptions about the value of strategies and approaches they implement to guide their students’ learning (Sosu & Gray, 2012). These beliefs and teachers’ professional identity are influenced by assignments to out-of-field positions because teachers become what they teach (van Manen, 2016a). The chapter has developed the view that the out-of-field teaching phenomenon needs policy approaches that address leadership misunderstandings about the phenomenon and the issues that develop within classroom and school contexts because of it. Out-of-field teachers find that the challenges that their out-of-field position creates for their status as in loco parentis and the more knowledgeable/more informed other make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to fully achieve a well-structured and socially just learning environment that embraces the needs of twenty-first-century students and upholds the social agenda for citizenship. The chapter has further pondered on questions about policy frameworks (or their absence) to support out-of-field teachers to manage the out-of-field challenges within the policy and strategy framework of schools. Zepeda (2006) has highlighted that 40–50% of out-of-field teachers in the U.S. do not receive extra help or support.

86

3 Attention to the Numbers

This is a reflection of the gap in policy development that is underpinned by the misconceptions and misunderstandings that fuel the out-of-field phenomenon and its challenges. Further, misunderstandings about the most suitable management strategies and frameworks for out-of-field teaching create complex issues for policies that aim to support effective teaching and learning environments. Discussions in this chapter support a broad position for resourceful development of policy frameworks that will confront the implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon to ensure that positive, healthy teaching and learning environments support students in the total learning experience of school. Teaching is never stagnant, but it is a process of change; teachers’ beliefs are continuously being reflected upon and adjusted according to the needs echoed within specific teaching and learning contexts. Yet, any school-level improvement policy decisions need to clearly mirror expectations for beliefs about knowledge and its construction. Jones (2010) has noted the value of empirical data from a wider context, such as the use of international contexts, to construct deeper understanding of a phenomenon. The following chapters will move towards a deeper understanding of the real-life experiences connected to the out-of-field teaching phenomenon in school and classroom contexts by placing it against the background of empirical data. These chapters search for how policy frameworks, as valuable resource instruments, can support out-of-field teachers, who often have to adjust their epistemic beliefs, about achievement, performance and their role as in loco parentis, in the manner that Sosu and Gray (2012) have suggested, from “naïve to sophisticated” (p. 81). The development of a deeper understanding stimulates critical reflection on and reassessment of how existing policies can address the multilayered issues that develop in the teaching and learning environment because of the out-of-field phenomenon. The discussions that follow place student achievements at the centre of policy decisions, situate teachers as the most important resource to support these achievements and locate both of these within the guiding strategies and frameworks of well-designed policies.

References Aladjem, D., & Borman, K. (2006). Examining comprehensive school reform. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. Almy, S., & Theokas, C. (2010). Not prepared for class: High-poverty schools continue to have fewer in-field teachers (Research report). Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Retrieved from http://www.data-first.org/data/are-our-teachers-knowledgeable-in-the-subject-they-teach-2. Andrews, S. P., Gilbert, L. S., & Martin, E. P. (2007). The first years of teaching: Disparities in perceptions of support. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01626620.2007.10463424. Ball, S. (2012). Politics and policy making in education: Exploration in policy sociology. New York, NY: Routledge.

References

87

Ball, S. (2013). Education, justice and democracy: The struggle over ignorance and opportunity. In A. Montgomery & I. Kehoe (Eds.), Reimagining the purpose of schools and educational organisations: Developing critical thinking, agency, beliefs in schools and educational organisations (pp. 189–206). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24699-4_14. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122. Bédard, M. (2015). Pedagogical autonomy and accountability: A recipe for improving academic results. MEI: Economic Notes. Montreal, Canada: Montreal Economic Institute. Retrieved from https://www.iedm.org/sites/default/files/pub_files/note0815_en.pdf. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. Boston, MA: Rowman and Littlefield. Bosse, M., & Törner, G. (2013). Out-of-field teaching, mathematics teachers and the ambivalent role of beliefs—A first report from interviews. In M. S. Hannula, P. Portaankorva-Koivisto, A. Laine, & L. Näveri (Eds.), Current state of research on mathematical beliefs XVIII: Proceeding of the Mathematical Views (MAVI) 18 Conference (pp. 341–355). Retrieved from https://helda. helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/42920/ad6_Current_state.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Braa, D., & Callero, P. (2006). Critical pedagogy and classroom praxis. Teaching Sociology, 34(4), 357–369. Buchanan, J., Prescott, A., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., & Burke, P. (2013). Teacher retention and attrition: Views of early career teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n3.9. Collard, J. (2009). Constructing theory for leadership in intercultural contexts. In J. Collard & A. Normore (Eds.), Leadership and intercultural dynamics (pp. 3–21). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc. Cooper, J. M., & Alvarado, A. (2006). Preparation, recruitment and retention of teachers [Booklet]. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001520/152023e.pdf. Darby-Hobbs, L. (2012). Response to schools workforce issues paper. Retrieved from https://www. pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/education-workforce-schools/submissions/sub032.pdf. Dee, T., & Cohodes, S. (2008). Out-of-field teachers and student achievement: Evidence from matched-pairs comparisons. Public Finance Review, 36(1), 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1091142106289330. Department of Education, Republic of South Africa. (2005). Teachers for the future: Meeting teacher shortages to achieve education for all. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/ —ed_dialogue/—sector/documents/publication/wcms_161964.pdf. Du Plessis, A. (2014). Understanding the out-of-field teaching experience. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:330372. Du Plessis, A. (2017). Out-of-field teaching: What educational leaders need to know. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Du Plessis, A. (2018). Barriers to effective management of diversity in classroom contexts: The out-of-field teaching phenomenon. International Journal of Educational Research. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.002. Du Plessis, A. (2019). Professional support beyond initial teacher education: Pedagogical discernment and the influence of out-of-field teaching practices. Singapore: Springer. Du Plessis, A. E., & McDonagh, K. (2020). Leadership for well-being: Managing the implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon. Manuscript in preparation. Du Plessis, A. E., Gramotnev, D., Gramotnev, A., Hoang, N., Wang, J., Schmidt, A., … Roy, K. (2019). Initial teacher education’s (dis)connectedness to the teaching workforce: Implications for school contexts and the development of stable beginning teacher workforce. Manuscript in press. Du Plessis, A. E., Hoang, N., Wang, J., Schmidt, A., Mertens, L., & Cullinan, M., … Cameron, V. (2018). Invest in the future of education: Building a stable and quality beginning teacher workforce. Critical factors for reform: Evidence from the field (Research report). Brisbane, QLD: Australia: Australian Catholic University.

88

3 Attention to the Numbers

Ekstedt, M., & Fagerberg, I. (2005). Lived experiences of the time preceding burnout. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03264.x. Eppley, K. (2009). Rural schools and the highly qualified teacher provision of No child left behind: A critical policy analysis. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(4), 1–11. Retrieved from http://jrre.vmhost.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/24-4.pdf. Freiberg, J., & Driscoll, A. (1996). Universal teaching strategies (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Gillies, R. (2007). Cooperative learning: Integrating theory and practice. London, UK: Sage. Gillies, R. (2009). Evidence-based teaching: Strategies that promote learning. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Gillies, R., & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 933–940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009. 10.034. Glanz, J. (2003). Action research: An educational leader’s guide to school improvement (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Gordon, B. (2007). U.S. competitiveness: The education imperative. Issues in Science and Technology, 23(3), 31–36. Halász, D. C., Santiago, G. P., Elkolm, M., Matthews, P., & McKenzie, P. (2004). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing, and retraining effective teachers. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/ education/school/34990905.pdf. Harris, K.-L., & Jensz, F. (2006). The preparation of mathematics teachers in Australia: Meeting the demand for suitably qualified mathematics teachers in secondary schools (Report prepared for Australian Council of Deans of Science). Retrieved from http://amsi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/ 2014/07/36_ACDS_Prep_Math_Teach_Aus_Jul06.pdf. Harris, K., Jensz, F., & Baldwin, G. (2005). Who’s teaching science? Meeting the demand for qualified science teachers in Australian secondary schools (Report prepared for Australian Council of Deans of Science). Retrieved from http://www.acds.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2015/ 04/teachsci.pdf. Hobbs, L. (2013). Teaching “out-of-field” as a boundary-crossing event: Factors shaping teacher identity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 271–297. Hoff, H. (2013). “Self” and “other” in meaningful interaction: Using fiction to develop intercultural competence in the English classroom. Tidsskriftet FoU i praksis, 7(2), 20–50. Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organisational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534. Ingersoll, R. (2003a). Is there a shortage among mathematics and science teachers? Science Educator, 12(1), 1–9. Ingersoll, R. (2003b). The teacher shortage: Myth or reality? Educational Horizons, 81, 146–152. Ingersoll, R. (2003c). Out-of-field teaching and the limits of teacher policy. Report of the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and The Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1143&context=gse_pubs. Ingersoll, R. (2006, January). Is there really a shortage of mathematics and science teachers? Paper presented at the Math Science Partnership Conference. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn. edu/gse_pubs/132. Ingersoll, R. M., & Merrill, L. (2010). Who’s teaching our children? The key to changing the teaching profession. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 14–20. Retrieved from http://www.ascd. org/publications/educational-leadership/may10/vol67/num08/Who’s-Teaching-Our-Children% C2%A2.aspx. Ingersoll, R. M., Merrill, L., & May, H. (2012). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force (Working paper). Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/241/. Ingersoll, R. M., Merrill, L., & May, H. (2014). What are the effects of teacher education and preparation on beginning teacher attrition? (Research Report No. RR–82). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

References

89

Ingvarson, L., Beavis, A., & Kleinhenz, E. (2004). Teacher education courses in Victoria: Perceptions of their effectiveness and factors affecting their impact. Retrieved from https://research. acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=teacher_education. Johnson, B., Down, B., Le Cornu, R., Peters, J., Sullivan, A., Pearce, J., et al. (2014). Promoting early career teacher resilience: A framework for understanding and acting. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 20(5), 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.937957. Jones, C. (2010). Practical problems of doing research across different cultures: Experience from the RACHEL study. Intensive & Critical Care Nursing, 26(3), 125–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.iccn.2010.01.003. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2000). Models of teaching (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Lingard, B. (2007). Pedagogies of indifference. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(3), 245–266. Lingard, B. (2014). Politics, policies and pedagogies in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Lingard, B., Hayes, D., & Mills, M. (2002). Developments in school-based management: The specific case of Queensland. Australia. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(1), 6–30. Lingard, B., Hayes, D., Mills, M., & Christie, P. (2003). Leading learning: Making hope practical in schools. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Lingard, B., Sellar, S., & Savage, G. (2014). Re-articulating social justice as equity in schooling policy: The effects of testing and data infrastructures. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 35(5), 710–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.919846. Lonsdale, M., & Anderson, M. (2012). Preparing 21st century learners: The case for school community collaborations (ACER occasional essays). Retrieved from ACEReSearch website: http:// www.acer.edu.au/documents/ACER-Occasional-Essay-Number_4.pdf. Loveys, K. (2011, April 21). Scandal of the untrained teachers: Thousands don’t have degrees in the subjects they teach. DailyMail. Retrieved from https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1378908/Thousands-teachers-dont-degrees-subjects-teach.html. McConney, A., & Price, A. (2009a). An assessment of the phenomenon of “teaching out-of-field” in WA schools (Final report). Perth, Australia: Western Australian College of Teaching. McConney, A., & Price, A. (2009b). Teaching out-of-field in Western Australia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(6), 86–100. McKenzie, P., Weldon, P., Rowley, G., Murphy, M., & McMillan, J. (2014). Staff in Australia’s schools 2013: Main report on the survey 2014. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/ system/files/doc/other/sias_2013_main_report.pdf. Ministers for the Department of Education and Training Media Centre. (2018, July 9). Interview on ABC Radio Sydney Focus with Cassie McCullagh and Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham: Specialised STEM teachers [E & EO transcript]. Retrieved from https://ministers.education.gov. au/birmingham/interview-abc-radio-sydney-focus-cassie-mccullagh. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (2007). National commission on teaching and America’s future and Pearson achievement solutions partner to recognize exemplary learning teams. Retrieved from https://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/Chapter4.Carroll.pdf. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers: Overview: Education and Training Policy. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/school/34990905.pdf. Panizzon, D., Westwell, M., & Elliott, K. (2010). Exploring the profile of teachers of secondary science: What are the emerging issues for future workforce planning? Teaching Science, 56(4), 18–40. Productivity Commission. (2012). Education and training workforce: Schools workforce (Research report). Retrieved from Australian Government Productivity Commission website: https://www. pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/education-workforce-schools/report.

90

3 Attention to the Numbers

Productivity Commission. (2018). Report on government services 2018: School education, Part B, Chapter 4. Retrieved from Australian Government Productivity Commission website: https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2018/ child-care-education-and-training/school-education. Queensland Audit Office. (2013). Supply of specialist subject teachers in secondary schools. Report to Parliament 2: 2013–14. Retrieved from https://www.qao.qld.gov.au/sites/qao/files/reports/rtp_ supply_of_specialist_subject_teachers_in_secondary_schools.pdf. Queensland College of Teachers. (2013). Attrition of recent Queensland graduate teachers: Report, November 2013. Retrieved from https://www.qct.edu.au/pdf/Retention_Research_Report_RP01. pdf. Ross, J. (2018, April 28). Teacher shortage looms in Australia as entry requirements rise. The World University Rankings. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ teacher-shortage-looms-australia-entry-requirements-rise. Rutter, M. (2008). Biological implication of gene-environment interaction. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 969–975. Sayeski, K. (2009). Defining special educators’ tools: The building blocks of effective collaboration. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451209338398. Schueler, A., Roesken-Winter, B., Weißenrieder, J., Lambert, A., & Römer, M. (2016). Characteristics of out-of-field teaching: Teacher beliefs and competencies. In K. Krainer & N. Vondrová (Eds.), CERME 9—Ninth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Feb 2015, Prague, Czech Republic (pp. 3254–3261). Retrieved from https://hal.archivesouvertes.fr/hal-01289877. Shepherd, J. (2013, March 31). More schools hiring unqualified teachers “to save money.” The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/31/schools-hiringunqualified-teachers-money. Sosu, E. M., & Gray, D. S. (2012). Investigating change in epistemic beliefs: An evaluation of the impact of student teachers’ beliefs on instructional preference and teaching competence. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012. 02.002. Spelitsis, H. (2018, February 21). School’s suspension rates halved by good behaviour plan. Queensland Times. Retrieved from https://www.qt.com.au/news/revealed-ipswich-schools-suspensionexpulsion-rate/3341142. Tasmanian Audit Office. (2010). Auditor-General special report no. 90: Science education in public high schools. Retrieved from https://www.audit.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/ScienceEducation-Report.pdf. Tickle, S. (2018, April 10). “Every lesson is a battle”: Why teachers are lining up to leave. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/apr/10/lesson-battlewhy-teachers-lining-up-leave. Thomson, S., De Bortoli, L., & Buckley, S. (2013). PISA 2012: How Australia measures up: The Pisa 2012 assessment of students’ mathematical, scientific and reading literacy. Retrieved from Australian Council for Education Research website: https://research.acer.edu.au/ozpisa/15. Törner, G., & Törner, A. (2010). Fachfremd erteilter Mathematikunterricht—Ein zu vernachlässigendes handlungsfeld? Mitteilungen der DMV(MDMV), 18, 244–251. Usher, R. (2009). Experience, pedagogy, and social practices. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists…in their own words (pp. 169–183). London, UK: Routledge. van Manen, M. (2016a). The tone of teaching: The language of pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. van Manen, M. (2016b). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. New York, NY: Routledge. Warnke, G. (2011). The hermeneutic circle versus dialogue. The Review of Metaphysics, 65(1), 91–112.

References

91

Weldon, P. (2015). The teacher workforce in Australia: Supply, demand and data issues. Policy Insights, 2. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001& context=policyinsights. Weldon, P. (2016). Out-of-field teaching in Australian secondary schools. Policy Insights, 6. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context= policyinsights. Zepeda, S. (2006). High stakes supervision: We must do more. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120500448154.

Chapter 4

The Realities Beyond the Numbers: The Policy–Pedagogy Relationship

There is always a lot more going on beyond the numbers (Lingard, 2010). Policies and strategy decisions that are not connected to realities in the field are often perceived as unreasonable expectations. Moving past the quantitative and instead taking notice of lived experiences reveals specific truths applicable both to context and to educational policy development.

4.1 Introduction Large-scale statistical information represents only the surface of the contextual realities they are drawn from. Exclusive focus on large-scale data alone to inform policy development can create an imbalanced viewpoint that tilts frameworks and expectations away from the realities in the field rather than towards them as intended. To fully understand the numbers, a context-conscious analysis of both the occurrence and the meaning of the out-of-field phenomenon is necessary, as Lingard (2014) has acknowledged, research that provides insights into “truth” is supported by qualitative and quantitative evidence. In agreement with Lingard (2010), I emphasise the value of teachers’ voices and of noticing human capital discourses to inform policy development. Positioning a deeper understanding of truth regarding the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and how it is best managed involves acknowledgement and appreciation of the scope of realities that are experienced within specific out-offield contexts. Open and honest discussion about the real-life experiences and the lifeworlds of teachers assigned to out-of-field positions unveils the misunderstandings mirrored in disconnected policies that let them down. Conversations with all the stakeholders involved in the environment allow the phenomenon to be described from different angles; the value of this “fusion of horizons” (Gadamer, 1976/2008, p. xix) as the foundation for policy development means that the different truths of all the human capital are noticed and can be included in evidence-based policy decisions. Further, the deliberate application of a knowledge framework that stems from © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. E. Du Plessis, Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1948-2_4

93

94

4 The Realities Beyond the Numbers …

context-consciousness can inform policy development about the role of context in policy strategy and framework validity that I argue has the potential to become reflexive and continuous: a knowledge position that informs policy through value placed on beliefs and experiences (see Sects. 1.1.2, 1.1.5 and 1.18) can enliven the understanding of educational stakeholders about educational strategies and approaches (Green & Hood, 2013). The main questions, therefore, for out-of-field policy development hover around: (a) How are education policies influenced to develop effective and targeted support for out-of-field teaching and learning environments? and (b) How are education policies developed to demonstrate a context-consciousness that then directly supports teacher and student achievements in an out-of-field teaching environment?

The value of numbers significantly increases when they are underpinned by a hermeneutic awareness of what concurrently lies within/behind them, because a hermeneutic lens avoids the subject/object divide and instead underlines the interrelationships between the experience and the person, and the context that influences these experiences. In this lens, attentiveness to this discourse of perceptions and nonverbal expression of feelings becomes the vehicle for information and knowledge transmission (Laverty, 2003). Gadamer (1975) has noted that hermeneutics provides the prospect of noticing unfamiliar and unknown experiences, opening the door to discovering what these mean in the formation of understanding and for the internalisation of different perspectives. Understanding the needs of human capital, therefore, is a process underpinned by the hermeneutic circle that is embedded in language (whether words, actions, tone of voice, dispositions—or any carefully observed message) and the movement from self to experience and experience to self (Laverty, 2003). Merleau-Ponty (1968) suggested that the consciousness of understanding is connected to language because “it speaks of being and of the world” (p. 96), so offering logic to both the visible and invisible world while giving insight into the speaker’s specific needs. The development of deeper understanding rooted in research and evidence-based information therefore improves the validity and applicability of policy decisions because of the different lenses through which the same thing—in this case, the out-offield teaching phenomenon—is observed. The fusion of the diverse phenomenological lenses (Dall’Alba, 2009) and the sensitivity to hermeneutic incidences (Gadamer, 1976/2008) give scope to a discourse about out-of-field teaching that grows together from different contexts. In light of the global nature of the phenomenon, I argue that assembling and offering transnational research about it strengthens the applicability of this book as a policy resource through the width and breadth of the empirical evidence supplied. Having emphasised the two decades of research that I have conducted into the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and what it means for teachers, I pose these two concerning questions: (a) Has the research sufficiently influenced policy development and adjustments? and (b) Is the issue of “policy ignorance or absence” the result of restricted large-scale transnational or global research in this field?

4.1 Introduction

95

Examining truths from the real-life experiences of out-of-field teachers and their students, as well as how all stakeholders (out-of-field teachers, expert teachers, school leaders, students and parents) in two different countries construct meanings about these experiences and connect them to the school and wider community context can give great insight into key out-of-field issues such as pedagogical autonomy and accountability. A hermeneutic approach to policy development therefore explores and understands the multilayered truths within the classroom and school context that need to be managed, and provides a scaffolding for policy-makers and educational leaders to lean on when developing sustainable and applicable policies for the future.

4.2 Aligning Practitioners’ “Truth” to Policy Development Sachs (2003) has wondered if teacher professional standards control or develop teaching, stating that governments use standards as regulatory frameworks and bureaucratic controls. In contrast, Darling-Hammond (1999) has noted that “professional standards for teaching [can] hold promise for mobilising reforms of the teaching career” (p. 39). I argue that unless the significant expectations set by frameworks such as global teacher professional standards align with the realities and truths of the classroom context, these expectations can be experienced as unrealistic. Aligning standards with the realities of the classroom makes them sustainable and so adds value to strategies to improve the profession. But how do standards (such as global teacher professional standards) acknowledge the widespread out-of-field teaching phenomenon? I have already proposed the argument that understanding the truth about the outof-field phenomenon and its effects is dependent on a context-consciousness, and that this understanding is a significant necessity for the development of targeted policies. Linking a hermeneutic philosophy to policy development provides opportunities to reflect on, reassess, uncover, confirm and/or question prior understandings of how policies accommodate the use of the out-of-field phenomenon. Developing a “consciousness” of personal truths is underlined by Gadamer (1976/2008) as the process that “brings before me something that otherwise happened behind my back” (p. xviii). He further underlined that the development of understanding entails continuous adjustments by the listener, as they notice and consider verbal and nonverbal messages as being integral to the analysis of changes that take place within specific contexts, situations, experiences, performance and perceptions. Understanding, in this sense, is a space where critical reflection and sharing of experiences through interaction are connected to noticing and interpretation (Annells, 2006; Maggs-Rapport, 2001). Exposing a pre-understanding of the current truths of the out-of-field teaching experience is possible via Gadamer’s hermeneutic theory and the value he places on “prejudice” in deeper understanding (Gadamer, 1976/2008, p. xviii). Values, cultures, societies, histories and community traditions all influence the multiple layers of

96

4 The Realities Beyond the Numbers …

attitudes, behaviour, interpersonal relationships and truths (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011; Denscombe, 2005; Hardcastle, Usher, & Holmes, 2006). These, together and in turn, create and influence the pre-understandings of stakeholders about outof-field teaching practices that draw together to the conclusion that procedures need to be in place to manage it because of the impact it has on classrooms and schools. I emphasise that grasping what multilayered factors these pre-understandings are comprised of is part of constructing an awareness of the thing that goes beyond what seems obvious, and that acquiring and acknowledging them is necessary in order to effectively reassess existing policies and inform the new development of targeted policies. Freebody (2003) noted that taken-for-granted understandings about lived experiences can have significant implications for teaching and learning contexts, but taking Gadamer’s slant on the value of pre-understandings in the construction of new awareness means that the process of policy development deliberately seeks out the impact that such “taking for granted” has already had and turns this knowledge to the advantage of new policy development. The real-life experiences of teachers and school leaders therefore inform meaning: their real-life emotions, perceptions and expectations in relation to the out-of-field situation are a clear indication of the ways in which procedures are needed to manage the challenges that develop within the classroom and school context. Gadamer (1975) has stated that the development of understanding and decision-making is “an art and not a mechanical process” (p. 168) that is fixed firmly in hermeneutics, and highlights that presenting empirical evidence for policy making requires more than assembling facts. For information to increase understanding and be of real use for learning, its meanings need to be assembled with acknowledgement and appreciation of the context and situation in which the observed situations/experiences happen. Clearly, shared experiences and interpretations from stakeholders, teachers and school leaders about their realities can often be quite different (Hardcastle et al., 2006) because “all human action and decision are conditioned by experience” (Gadamer, 1999, p. 25). Teachers and school leaders are constantly interacting with their contexts, interpreting perceptions and linking personal meaning with these experiences (McManus Holroyd, 2007). I argue that the task of designing targeted policies for the education arena requires van Manen’s (1990) philosophy of constructive approaches to managing the complex meaning-making of incidences. From this viewpoint, constructive approaches to strategy development include respecting, appreciating and acknowledging time, history, expression and interpretation of behaviour and culture to enhance clear understanding (see also Gadamer, 1979). The effort of moving from (existing) pre-understandings of what seems to be obvious to a new position of understanding entails acknowledging the truths in the field via an awareness of ontological closeness, noticing and engaging with specific influential situations, and fostering a connectedness to classroom settings and other experiences in the field. Garnering a deep understanding of the issues, therefore, is embedded in a commitment to the methodology, in order to find what can be revealed and exposed. Maggs-Rapport (2001) has suggested that deep understanding of issues, concerns and dilemmas takes place at an ontological level via a focus on what the reality is, and at an epistemological level by questioning knowledge and the relationship of

4.2 Aligning Practitioners’ “Truth” to Policy Development

97

the knower to what can be known. Policy development that is disconnected from the context and needs experienced within specific situations leads to frameworks and controls that demonstrate unrealistic expectations. Interpretations of the “space” in which participants function are intertwined with the experiences and their impact on quality education. Searching for insights about what needs to be revealed and exposed means noticing, acknowledging and accommodating these experiences, and giving attention to factors influencing them, so that they can be managed through well-designed and well-fitted policies and strategies.

4.3 Evidence and Policy Validity Policy development, therefore, is strengthened by attention to the trail of evidence, and empirical data authenticates and upholds the quality of adjusted procedures and strategies (Christians, 2011). In addition, the validity of policies is impacted by the choice, complexity, trustworthiness and richness of the evidence (Cohen et al., 2011) that is used to develop policy frameworks. Gadamer (1976/2008) has explained that trust, openness, confidentiality and anonymity stimulate honesty about real inner feelings. As noted, the insights into the out-of-field teaching phenomenon offered in this book are shared via the views of various education stakeholders experiencing its effects, and as noted, evidence reliability is found in offering information through the lenses of more than one person from the same institution as verification of perceptions offered (Hardcastle et al., 2006). Close examination of stakeholders’ perceptions shows the disconnection from teachers’ lifeworlds that can develop when leaders and decision-makers are not aware of the realities in out-of-field classrooms. An evidence trail that leads to robust policy frameworks needs to attend to the fact that human beings “realize themselves as social beings, because they always stand in relations of influence to others” (van Manen, 2016a, p. 211). While the disconnection between leaders and teachers has implications for the validity of school improvement policies, gaps within existing policies accommodate the acceptable use of the phenomenon in schools, a power differential that inherently exists between leaders and the teachers they assign to out-of-field positions. Careful consideration should be given to policy-making that will support educational leaders in the process of reflecting on teachers and existing policies with fresh eyes. Truths which expose contentious contextual factors still need to be heard to support collaborative development of policies through negotiation and the value of being heard without being criticised. Respecting the implications contextual factors have for school quality improvement requires information to be shared exactly as it is offered and experienced by stakeholders. In one sense, the purpose of this book is to provide a policy think tank space (Lingard, 2016) that offers decision-makers a platform from which to reassess the evidence of a culture of decades of out-of-field teaching practices in schools, and those undergirding misconceptions about the phenomenon that will potentially hamstring improvement, and from this new position of

98

4 The Realities Beyond the Numbers …

deeper understanding, develop new targeted policies that genuinely improve support for teachers and school leaders trying to manage the challenges of the phenomenon. In another sense, however, I assert that education policies should aim to present school leaders with frameworks that support and serve being as part of the teaching and learning environment: Being should not support and serve policies. The hermeneutic philosophy therefore functionally emphasises the lived experiences of being so that the ongoing interpretive paradigm can underline a “concern for the individual,” and policy development can utilise the “effort [that] is made to get inside the person and to understand from within” (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 17). Moreover, policymakers’ observing allows them to share realities but also to engage and become “part” of the context so that they can fully understand what policies need to do. Policy discourse needs to scaffold an interactive support for school leaders, expert teachers and out-of-field teachers. The development of trust relationships in the field means that policies can then be informed by education stakeholders as co-interpreters of meaning through reflections and clear explanations of lived experiences (Laverty, 2003). School leaders’ attention to and encouragement of continuous close conversations between leaders, out-of-field teachers and their students can then stimulate an openness among those who have real-life experiences of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon to share the challenges and difficulties about their teaching quality and classroom practices (Nykiel, 2007). Furthermore, noticing, observing and detecting through the specific verbal and nonverbal messages used to share (Gadamer, 1976/2008) can generate a deeper awareness beyond the words that are shared, and so not only informs knowing and acknowledgement but also builds those trust relationships for further connection and collaboration (Lonsdale & Anderson, 2012). Trust relationships then form the foundation of honest sharing of experiences, perceptions and challenges and turn the listener’s attention towards reconstructing the significant segments of the experience or perception (Fontana & Frey, 2000; Wenger, 2009) in order to inform the most appropriate action or reaction, prompting and supporting further policy change. If in some senses this sounds surprising, I am concerned about the negative discourse I found in schools regarding policy strategies and frameworks that highlighted a disconnection between policy and the everydayness of schooling and lived experiences in the school context. I question policy frameworks that leave teachers feeling that policies intended to add value merely add extra workloads that could have been avoided because nothing of value comes of carrying them out. The development of educational policies cannot be isolated from examining being—behaviour, experiences, feelings, knowledge, sensory events, demographic information, opinions and values. The social reality of teachers and school leaders, their specific classroom contexts and their understanding of the actions, statements, dispositions and attitudes within these (Cohen et al., 2011) unmask the social discourse of the teaching and learning context. As noted by various authors (Oliver-Hoyo & Allen, 2006; Polkinghorne, 2005; Shields & Twycross, 2003), the interpretation of discourse involves attending to not only the messages of actions and language, but also expressions of power or emotion. I assert that the interaction between policy and the classroom is already charged with issues of power and control, and that this is especially so in the

4.3 Evidence and Policy Validity

99

out-of-field teachers’ classroom. Attention to the complexities of the lived meanings of out-of-field teaching practices and the implications these have for quality education need a prominent place at the policy discussion table. The policy discourse in schools in general does not present policies as support or resource tools. Professional discussions about the out-of-field teaching dilemma, policy strategies and the pedagogical culture it stimulates are of utmost importance for schools and classrooms, for the social reality and lifeworlds of the individual teachers and students engaged in them, and for education as a whole. Van Manen (2016a) has emphasised the relation between pedagogy and policy and cautioned against perspectives and views that are “inherently anti-pedagogical” (p. 211) or those which crash students’ hope of a future. I argue that the validity of educational policies is embedded in how they improve, uphold and support the pedagogical culture of schools and classrooms through attentiveness to the development of the underlying factors of education quality, such as • teacher confidence, • positive teacher and student dispositions, • healthy teacher–student relationships that are underpinned constructive verbal and nonverbal communication, • improved classroom pedagogies and strategies, and inter-classroom collaboration and • effective classroom management and positive behaviour management. Drawing this out through discourse between stakeholders and policy decision-makers can offer epistemological awareness that informs the policy procedures needed to manage the out-of-field teaching phenomenon with a pedagogical thoughtfulness that remains mindful of the skills involved in the art of teaching.

4.4 Duty of Care: The Role of Policies Clearly, the current perceptions and understandings of educational leaders regarding out-of-field teaching experiences will greatly influence their decisions about the transformation of policies to effectively manage the impact of the phenomenon. Importantly, however, educational and school leaders have a duty of care accountability when they enter into policy development; in terms of the entrenched out-offield phenomenon, it is clear that the impact of the phenomenon encompasses issues not only of student achievement and teaching/teacher quality, but also the schools’ responsibility to offer quality education to all their students and to ensure an equitable working environment for their staff. Critically, teachers often admit that one of the reasons they agree to teach outside their field of qualifications is because of their loyalty to their school or their school leaders, or, effectively, because they were asked to do so by their principal (Du Plessis, 2017; Du Plessis et al., 2018). Unfortunately, out-of-field teachers also stated that once they had taken the out-of-field assignment they realised that supportive structures were not in place and assistance was difficult

100

4 The Realities Beyond the Numbers …

to access, which left them feeling isolated. Despite ingrained assumptions, there is growing awareness among educational leaders of the complexities caused by the out-of-field phenomenon. The following discussion introduces field research material (Lincoln & Denzin, 2003) to explore the perceptions of educational and school leaders about what out-of-field teaching practices mean for their leadership. A large proportion of educational leaders do not have a full understanding of the implications of the phenomenon on the teaching and learning environment (Du Plessis, 2017). However, some leaders acknowledge that it is a phenomenon that needs to be more carefully managed. An education director from Australia shared his perceptions about the out-of-field experience and its implications for students: “We see kids migrating out of biology at a particular school because the teachers are ‘dumb;’ kids will become raucous, and they know you’re an imposter” (Field data: Director 1). Another Australian education director, from the public school sector, viewed the out-of-field situation as “…very hard—research does tell us that it’s the quality of the teacher that makes the biggest difference in a child’s education” (Field data: Director 3). Decision-making and policy development in relation to “fixing” the out-of-field phenomenon can be perceived by education leadership as being the schools’ responsibility, as suggested by an Australian education director: “We’re moving to an autonomous system and if the outcomes are unfortunate then it is the responsibility of the school. Schools will soon realise to put people in out-of-qualification teaching positions is not wise” (Field data: Director 3). I argue, however, that the delegation of autonomy includes pedagogical accountability: Educational leaders at all levels and education stakeholders at systemic level have a shared duty of care to improve the quality of education and to collaborate to develop effective frameworks to manage the quality of teaching and learning environments. In the face of distressed teachers and students finding it hard to reach expectations and experience satisfying teaching and learning experiences (Du Plessis, 2014), the denial of education leaders appears obtuse. At school level, education leaders’ duty of care to ensure that quality education expectations are plausible can end up being sidelined or overlooked. An educational director from South Africa explained that both continuous curricula changes proposed by local leadership and systemic decisions about curricula changes linked to policy developments often cause teachers to find themselves compelled to teach unfamiliar subject areas, fields or content. For example, “a history teacher now having to teach geography, or a science teacher having to teach biology” (Field data: Director 2). Demonstrating that these changes impact quality education outcomes and beyond, the director further stated, “That brought about this perception that teachers are not qualified.” The education director shared similar perceptions about curricula changes and their implementation: “The curriculum was introduced without a proper audit to see whether the human resources were there to deliver this curriculum,” and used a metaphor to further explain: “It’s like launching a new car but we haven’t set up our production line to be able to provide all the parts for this car.” School leaders admitted that they find it difficult, if not impossible, to manage complexities in the teaching and learning environment without systemic support.

4.4 Duty of Care: The Role of Policies

101

Many stated that, for example, the recruitment of suitable teachers for their school was a significant challenge (Weale, 2018), yet this is a task that is perceived as school leaders’ responsibility by the school community that then holds them accountable for the quality of teachers they assign. Under pressure of constantly changing curriculum and implementation requirements—from both a dissociated upper hierarchy and from their watching school community—school leaders are struggling to properly discharge their duty of care for quality education without systemic support. Significantly, however, research shows that it is school leaders’ understanding of how the out-of-field phenomenon affects their school and classroom contexts that determines their attitudes towards their assignment decisions, as well as towards teachers in these positions: Some school leaders view the problem as being the out-of-field teachers’. Rather than seeing these teachers as struggling, some leaders perceive that they are just not coping with their teaching responsibilities properly and therefore wait until severe challenges develop in their classrooms before they offer additional support (see Sects. 6.5.1 and 9.4.1).

4.4.1 Duty of Care and Teacher Performance It follows that the way school leaders manage out-of-field situations will be intertwined with how they perceive the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and its effects on the quality of learning and teaching offered in their schools. Critically, however, it is these understandings that influence how they fulfil their duty of care. In the rapid business of the school context, it is easy to underestimate the responsibility and power school leaders wield in the teachers they employ and the decisions they make to assign or utilise them in specific positions. Courtney and Gunter (2015) have noted five elements that impact leaders’ duty of care towards teachers and their performance: (a) unequal power relations because of unequal access to policies (for example, trained mentors and professional development, additional time allowance for planning); (b) visible responsibility for local enactment of ideological policies to improve quality; (c) power to enact punishment of ideological non-conformity; (d) responsibility for working conditions of teachers and students and (e) local capacity for totalitarian regimes and their power over professional identity and employment. Such remarks underline the gravity of leaders’ duty-of-care responsibilities to their staff. Research shows that school leaders’ lack of understanding (or misunderstanding) of the effects of out-of-field teaching practices in their schools is the most common cause of the compromise of their duty of care responsibilities to their staff, students and the school community in relation to their use of out-of-field teaching practices. I argue that their duty of care for quality education is being hamstrung by misconceptions perpetuated by the lack of information resources about the influence of the phenomenon on teachers and students. School leaders need policy in this area to assist them to gain a context-consciousness from being attentive to the needs and dilemmas of out-of-field teachers, and how these influence the education and teacher

102

4 The Realities Beyond the Numbers …

quality discourse in school communities. School leaders who understand that outof-field teachers, like all teachers, aim to improve their performance and properly support their students’ achievements and development will perceive their power and duty of care in assigning teachers to positions in a different light. This alludes to one of the key questions: How are policy decisions influenced by the out-of-field teaching phenomenon? The voice of out-of-field teachers should be caught and held into improvement policy frameworks and strategies because of the requirements of power, responsibility and accountability these policies represent. At present, however, it seems that the discourses of power, responsibility and accountability have more pathways to transform the curriculum than to update leadership understandings of real phenomena that themselves have enough presence to affect curriculum and other policy-pitched outcomes. Research data are not encouraging on this topic, despite the relationship between policy and pedagogy being inherent in social ideology, that schools need to provide students with opportunities to develop their full potential. Leaders’ observations are caught in the push for quality dictated by policy discourses but have little understanding of out-of-field teachers’ lifeworlds. A principal from an Australian combined primary/secondary school shared their personal perceptions of out-of-field teachers’ performances: “[Out-of-field] teachers [are] not coping—they’re not planning properly, they’re not putting enough time in, or they don’t care” (Field data: D4). Remarks from another principal, of a remote Australian primary school, indicate pedagogy as a quality concern in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms: “They are too strict and formal or too lax within their classrooms” (Field data: F3). Struggling subject-inexperienced out-of-field teachers shared that their effectiveness and performance are assessed against the same standards as specialist teachers (Beltran, 2014). When the same expectations are held for out-of-field teachers and specialist/lead teachers regarding the control they have over content and classroom pedagogies, the question arises where these teachers can get the help and support they need to find the balance within classroom pedagogies. Bédard (2015) has claimed that the pedagogical autonomy and accountability of school leaders influence students’ academic achievements, explaining that it is up to school principals to decide what material is used in their schools and classrooms and to allow teachers to use innovation and variety to adapt to and support students’ needs and enhance teachers’ performance. The school culture is built by the principal (Hattie, 2009) and aligns with the principal’s professional relationships with teachers, especially in complex teaching and learning environments. Further, this duty of care culture in schools is supported by teachers’ “pedagogical tactfulness” and “having a sensitivity” for what will benefit their students’ potential development (van Manen, 2016b, p. 64). Each individual student has the need to be “noticed,” a need which entails being known (van Manen, 2016b, p. 29) by their teachers. A “good teacher,” as noted by van Manen, “embodies” the subjects they teach, a nuance that implies that teachers become “what they teach” (p. 65).

4.4 Duty of Care: The Role of Policies

103

4.4.2 The Duty of Care Culture in Schools Even though some school leaders acknowledge that the out-of-field teaching phenomenon has a negative impact on the school culture and image of the quality of education that is offered in their schools, they are still under pressure to manage their workforce. A principal shared that “there are people who are looking for jobs but they’re not appropriate as teachers of a subject that many students are already very alienated and disengaged from” (Field data: G2) a statement that demonstrates the conflicting intersections between role responsibilities, quality education culture and duty of care that school leaders must negotiate during employment and teaching assignment decisions. In an outcry for aligning educational leadership’s duty of care with the needs in the field, however, this principal took exception to a statement made by an educational director that there are “not really major concerns about teacher quality” because teachers in general are well qualified. The principal stated that the dilemma about duty of care and teacher performance is about how “well qualified teachers are for the specific position to which they are assigned” (Field data: Director 3). The principal went on to remark that the position of the educational director was extraordinary, was disconnected from the reality in the field and was quite strange, and said, “I thought, ‘How can our top public servant say that?’” Another school leader responded to the same statement by saying, “You can have an attitude of ‘whatever doesn’t kill me makes me stronger’—[that is], I can learn from this experience—but it has a negative impact on the curriculum, particularly for enrichment of the high flyers in the classroom” (Field data: C6). The interplay between educational leaders and other stakeholders and the duty of care to ensure schools are environments where students and teachers have opportunities to reach their full potential is constantly challenged by misconceptions about the real influence of the out-offield phenomenon on teachers and on teaching and learning culture. Revealing these complex realities magnifies the need for educational leaders to step in and fulfil their duty of care to support and resource school leaders so that they can more effectively manage local workforce requirements. The duty of care culture required in schools entails continuous reflection on the resources used in classrooms, the subjects and programmes offered and pedagogical attentiveness to the needs of teachers and their students. School leaders’ pedagogical thoughtfulness and attentiveness are reflected in the expectations they hold for out-offield teachers. Disconnection, misunderstanding and misconception about the impact of the phenomenon can be demonstrated in how school leaders perceive and describe their responsibility for challenges in the teaching and learning context. A dean of staff at a remote Australian independent primary school shared, “I find that the Ygeneration, or under 30 s, their work ethic is not very good—when it gets tough they fall over and I’ve had constant staffing issues, lots of tears, lots of emotion—Teaching is a difficult job!” (Field data: E3). When the intensity of out-of-field teachers’ lived experiences is misunderstood this way, leaders’ construction of the duty of care culture of their schools is one that does not protect or value the efforts of out-offield staff and instead questions their already compromised sense of competency in

104

4 The Realities Beyond the Numbers …

their unfamiliar teaching assignments. The remark of an Australian principal, “A good teacher can teach anything—I reckon,” (Field data: C6) pushes against policy transformation with a kind of attitudinal totalitarianism. However, this principal thought about his response for a while and then shared second thoughts: When you get a child who wants to learn more…you need your specialist teachers. It would be a disadvantage for the student to continue with that [an out-of-field teacher] for long. That’s why we are moving our Year 7s up into the high school now because they need specialist conditions.

These complex responses suggest the directional impact of particular actions in duty of care, and that their entanglement must be addressed in order that transformation can really penetrate to the improvement of quality in the teaching and learning environment. Perceptions that the best approach to confronting the implications of the out-of-field phenomenon are one-off policy changes for short-term solutions are not adequate. I suggest instead that critical analysis of current procedure and strategy scaffolding is required before beginning to create new policies that are able to uphold consistent stability in this vital area of the education environment.

4.4.2.1

Duty of Care Culture in Primary Schools

The viewpoint that a good teacher can teach anything is part of the underlying and entrenched misunderstandings and expectations which currently permeate outof-field teaching. Another is that out-of-field teaching in primary schools does not impact quality education, or that the phenomenon can be condoned without implications for student learning and teacher achievement in primary schools. In keeping with research results, in this book, I have deliberately defined out-of-field teaching as teaching outside a specific field of qualifications and/or year levels, as I assert that teaching expertise entails specific year-level expertise as well as subject matter qualifications. Although primary school teachers are often perceived as generalists (see also Sects. 1.6 and 3.2), they develop expertise for a specific year level and its curricula and learning needs. Despite being seen as qualified to teach across all levels of primary school, teachers’ professional identities develop according to the levels in which they gather most experience. This means, for example, that a generalist primary teacher assigned to a Year 6 level for 3 or more years would view themselves as an expert Year 6 teacher; if this teacher was moved to a Year 3 classroom (and particularly if the Year 3 age group has not interested them in terms of their professional identity development), the teacher will perceive that they are not suitably qualified and have been assigned to a position without the expertise required. Primary school teachers also identify specific subject areas that are and are not their specialty or interest. It is therefore important to acknowledge that teachers develop expertise as they practice. This has significant implications for micro-education policies and how the out-of-field phenomenon is managed in school contexts. O’Connell, Fox, Hinz and Cole (2016) have noted that students in early education need to receive high-quality early learning “with a dose and intensity necessary to

4.4 Duty of Care: The Role of Policies

105

make a difference” (p. 39) to their learning identities. Van Manen (2016a) affirmed this responsibility of teachers’ as in loco parentis to carefully introduce students to the wider world of experiences. Yet, workplace staffing choices for out-of-field teaching in primary schools are frequently based on the misconception of the generalist primary teacher. At a combined primary/secondary school in South Africa, a school leader responsible for staff summarised teachers’ experiences in out-of-field teaching positions by saying, “People make more of it than what it is.” The leader clarified these perceptions, stating, “If you’re a teacher, you should be able to teach anything up to Year 9 level. If I were given a Year 10 class, yes, this curriculum is a little bit more in-depth” (Field data: A1). Such a view implies that school leaders’ duty of care culture for out-of-field teachers and students in primary school areas does not have the same values or intensity as that used by school leaders managing out-of-field teachers in high school areas. This discrepancy in the duty of care culture between primary and high schools is common, but evidence from the field shows that the impact of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon may be even more detrimental for students’ learning experiences in primary schools. As previously mentioned, outof-field teachers state that it takes them 3 to 5 years to accumulate the experience they need to perceive themselves as experts in an out-of-field subject, area or year level. This often overlooked fact draws attention to the real possibility that out-of-field teachers’ restricted understanding of students’ developmental needs may create gaps in their students’ achievements and in the necessary scaffolding for their subsequent new knowledge because of a misnomer about the generalisability of primary school teachers’ knowledge and skills. An analysis of views expressed, however, suggested that underlying generalist assumptions were not implacable reasoning, even for those who often utilised them. A primary school principal gave an account of a “very competent” upper primary school qualified teacher who was struggling and not coping in a pre-primary position (Field data: D4). The teacher, whose professional identity was as a qualified Year 6 teacher, was identified as the best option to assign to a challenging pre-primary (kindergarten/prep) classroom because of the quality of teaching she produced; however, evidence showed that she could not manage to achieve the same success in her new position and needed significant support. Her lack of pedagogical knowledge to guide pre-primary school students’ initial writing and reading learning was limited, as was her skill in managing the behaviour regulation for this specific year/age level, both of which contributed to this teacher’s difficulty in maintaining her usual performance and achievements. The principal stated that it was (a) the nature of the difficult class that unseated the teacher’s ability and (b) the lack of experience the teacher had with that age group/year level that created the crisis. Interestingly, the principal appeared to have overlooked the specific pedagogical accountability of the teacher linked to the out-of-field year-level expectations. This principal reassessed decisions leadership had made with the placement of teachers in the primary sector by saying, It depends on the stage of the development of the child. I think we can do that [out-of-field teaching] with pre-primary to Year 6s. I think in high school it’s more pertinent—we are now beginning to see that in early years it’s more pertinent… (Field data: D4)

106

4 The Realities Beyond the Numbers …

Such deeper realisations can lead to acknowledgement and changed perceptions of the issues and implications the out-of-field teaching phenomenon actually creates in classrooms.

4.5 Summary The value of research in this field that moves beyond the numbers lies in the focus on human insights of lived experiences and perceptions; these have significant value for the development of targeted policies to address the needs they describe. I argue that the relationship between policy and pedagogy, as discussed by van Manen (2016a), includes an understanding of social pedagogies, cultural pedagogies and pedagogies of self-reflection. Pedagogy, as the art of teaching, requires expertise, a point that becomes particularly critical when research shows that teachers assigned to out-offield positions need 3 to 5 years in a subject field or year level to develop it (Du Plessis, 2014). The time frame in which out-of-field teachers move from being outof-depth to perceiving themselves as specialists in an out-of-field subject depends, too, on whether policy frameworks and strategies are in place to support professional learning and professional development opportunities for these teachers (Du Plessis, 2019). The policy–pedagogy relationship depends on the pedagogical thoughtfulness policy-makers and decision-makers engage in about the lived experience of being part of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon. The insights shared by school leaders about the lived experiences of their staff being out-of-field reflect leaders’ views about out-of-field teaching practices and the pressures they experience both to assign staff and as a result of their staff assignments. Realisation of the influence of these lived experiences provides a clearer discourse for policy development so that policy discussions about the out-of-field phenomenon can be more than acknowledgements of its occurrence. Social pedagogical responsibility and accountability call on education systems to take necessary steps to ensure students have opportunities to develop their full potential for twenty-first-century citizenship. The relationship between policy and pedagogy needs to be underpinned by a structured collaborative policy frame within which policy-makers and stakeholders from the wider school community see teachers and position them within the social discourse of learning. Social discourse can create a bridge between leaders’ pre-understandings and classroom lived experiences by the establishment of strong working links for policy between teachers’ and students’ actual lifeworlds and educational leaders’ real responsibilities and duty of care obligations. Noticing pedagogical influences and relationships involves school leaders’ attentiveness and acknowledgement of the phenomenon’s effects on teaching and learning. Noticing these influences and effects then confirms knowing, and an in-depth knowing includes how the effects of the phenomenon can be used to transform perceptions about school leaders’ and teachers’ pedagogical autonomy and accountability. Renewed attention to the validity of policies has the potential for significant positive

4.5 Summary

107

change in the management of the out-of-field teaching practices inside classrooms. As a policy think tank (Lingard, 2016), this book gives school leaders and teachers a voice (Lobo & Vizcaino, 2006; van Manen, 1990), allowing a flow of information that exposes the “message” embedded in real-life experiences of the out-of-field thing. The following chapters focus on specific concerns, evidence and viewpoints about what was said and in what context it was said that point to the currently restricted or total absence of policy frameworks for the out-of-field thing.

References Annells, M. (2006). Triangulation of qualitative approaches: Hermeneutical phenomenology and grounded theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 56(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652648.2006.03979. Bédard, M. (2015). Pedagogical autonomy and accountability: A recipe for improving academic results. MEI: Economic Notes. Montreal, Canada: Montreal Economic Institute. Retrieved from https://www.iedm.org/sites/default/files/pub_files/note0815_en.pdf. Beltran, K. (2014, March 28). Study marks problems posed by inexperienced teachers. K-12 Daily. Retrieved from https://www.cabinetreport.com/human-resources/study-marks-problems-posedby-inexperienced-teachers. Christians, C. (2011). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of quality research (4th ed., pp. 61–80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London, UK: Routledge Falmer. Courtney, S., & Gunter, H. (2015). Get off my bus! School leaders, vision work and the elimination of teachers. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 18(4), 395–417. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13603124.2014.992476. Dall’Alba, G. (2009). Introduction to diverse approaches to phenomenology and education. In G. Dall’Alba (Ed.), Exploring education through phenomenology: Diverse approaches (pp. 10–30). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Reshaping teaching policy, preparation and practice: Influences on the National Board for Teaching Professional Standards. Washington, DC: AACTE Publications. Denscombe, M. (2005). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Du Plessis, A. (2014). Understanding the out-of-field teaching experience (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:330372. Du Plessis, A. (2017). Out-of-field teaching: What educational leaders need to know. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Du Plessis, A. (2019). Professional support beyond initial teacher education: Pedagogical discernment and the influence of out-of-field teaching practices. Singapore: Springer. Du Plessis, A. E., Hoang, N., Wang, J., Schmidt, A., Mertens, L., Cullinan, M., & Cameron, V. (2018). Invest in the future of education: Building a stable and quality beginning teacher workforce. Critical factors for reform: Evidence from the field (Research report). Brisbane, QLD: Australia: Australian Catholic University. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 645–672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction and practice. London, UK: Sage Publications.

108

4 The Realities Beyond the Numbers …

Gadamer, H. (1975). Truth and method (2nd ed., J. C. B. Mohr, Trans.). New York, NY: The Seabury Press. Gadamer, H. (1976/2008). Philosophical hermeneutics (D. Linge, Ed. & Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gadamer, H. (1979). The problem of historical consciousness. In P. Rabinow & W. Sullivan (Eds.), Interpretive social science: A reader (pp. 103–160). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gadamer, H. (1999). Hermeneutics, religion and ethics (J. Weinsheimer, Trans.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Green, H., & Hood, M. (2013). Significance of epistemological beliefs for teaching and learning psychology: A review. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 168–178. https://doi.org/10. 2304/plat.2013.12.2.168. Hardcastle, M., Usher, K., & Holmes, C. (2006). Carspecken’s five-stage critical qualitative research method: An application to nursing research. Qualitative Health Research, 16(1), 151–161. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge. Laverty, S. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200303. Lincoln, Y., & Denzin, N. (2003). Turning points in qualitative research: Tying knots in a handkerchief. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Lingard, B. (2010). Towards a sociology of pedagogies. In M. Apple, S. Ball, & L. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 167–178). London, UK: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Lingard, B. (2014). Politics, policies and pedagogies in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Lingard, B. (2016). Think tanks, “policy experts” and “ideas for” education policy making in Australia. Australia Education Research, 43, 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-015-0193-0. Lobo, J., & Vizcaino, A. (2006). Finding a voice through research. Art & Humanities in Higher Education, 5(3), 305–316. Lonsdale, M., & Anderson, M. (2012). Preparing 21st century learners: The case for school community collaborations (ACER Occasional Essays). Retrieved from ACEReSearch website: http:// www.acer.edu.au/documents/ACER-Occasional-Essay-Number_4.pdf. Maggs-Rapport, F. (2001). Methodological issues in nursing research: “Best research practice”: In pursuit of methodological rigour. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(3), 373–383. McManus Holroyd, A. (2007). Interpretive hermeneutic phenomenology: Clarifying understanding. The Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology, 7(2), 1–12. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible (C. Lefort, Ed., & A. Lingis, Trans.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Nykiel, R. (2007). Handbook of marketing research methodologies for hospitality and tourism. New York, NY: The Haworth Press. O’Connell, M., Fox, S., Hinz, B., & Cole, H. (2016). Quality early education for all: Fostering creative, entrepreneurial, resilient and capable learners (Mitchell Report No. 01/2016). Retrieved from Mitchell Institute website: http://www.mitchellinstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/ 04/Quality-Early-Education-for-All-FINAL.pdf. Oliver-Hoyo, M., & Allen, D. (2006). The use of triangulation methods in qualitative educational research. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(4), 42–47. Polkinghorne, D. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 52(2), 137–145. Sachs, J. (2003). Teacher professional standards: Controlling or developing teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 9(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600309373. Shields, L., & Twycross, A. (2003). The difference between quantitative and qualitative research. Pediatric Nursing, 15(9), 24. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York, NY: The State University of New York Press.

References

109

van Manen, M. (2016a). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. New York, NY: Routledge. van Manen, M. (2016b). The tone of teaching: The language of pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Weale, S. (2018, October 5). Teacher crisis hits London as nearly half quit within five years: Conservatives criticised as retention rates drop and pupil numbers increase. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/04/teacher-crisis-hits-londonas-nearly-half-quit-within-five-years. Wenger, E. (2009). A social theory of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists…in their own words (pp. 209–218). London, UK: Routledge.

Chapter 5

Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders Let Down by Policies? Policy Impact Matters!

Retaining teachers in the workforce is directly aligned with targeted policy development. Acknowledging the role of targeted policy frameworks to uphold and support challenging teaching and learning environments is the first step towards building a stable teaching workforce; if policy-developers can “keep it real,” or maintain direct alignment between structures and pathways, policies can undergird the classroom with significant power.

5.1 Introduction Teachers are the main influence inside the classroom, yet they are supported and/or directed by school and educational policies, and it is clear that together these are, and are supposed to be, influential in the construction of classroom climates and atmospheres. To recap, the streamlining of policy discourse via tendencies towards globalisation and “policy borrowing” (see Sect. 1.1.4) suspends attention to policy being underpinned by specific cultural, epistemological and phenomenological knowledge (Lingard, 2014; Phillips, 2005). As has been discussed, demands embedded in policies and expectations that are disconnected from the context can have significant implications for the improvement of effective as well as just education systems. In tension with this is the broad scope of expectations that are laid at the feet of teachers. Teaching is a practice of situated transformation and “teachers need to build mental habits for innovating and adapting to different students or contexts” (Caena, 2014, p. 2). Yet, teachers who do not feel “at home” in an unfamiliar or out-of-field subject are struggling with more than the usual level of situated transformation—as noted, the effects of out-of-field teaching practices for teachers, classroom climates and school cultures open up discussion of the wider context of beliefs, traditions and customs (Tayeb, 2001). Out-of-field teachers’ classrooms can get messy and challenging, and policies geared to standardisation are unlikely to reach the scope of it, nor can out-of-field teachers reach unassisted towards such standardisation. Lingard (2014) also noted that “people’s personal attributes are messier, more hybrid that ever © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. E. Du Plessis, Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1948-2_5

111

112

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

and thus more difficult to make tractable in and through numbers” (p. 32), suggesting the complexities of policy-created or -enforced standardisation. Ingersoll (2003a, 2003b) has highlighted that the Schools and Staffing Survey (known as SASS) in the U.S. indicates that the out-of-field phenomenon is a serious problem that has an impact on the social–cultural foundation of teaching and learning. Quality perceptions and contextual factors bound into the phenomenon implicate the image of schools as quality education providers, for example, those of teacher quality, teaching quality, student achievement, positive school culture and learning culture. These often arise from classroom incidences of disappointment with performance and achievement that are linked to the out-of-field phenomenon, yet while these are overlooked by school leaders, teachers and parents, the cycle of its invisibility is perpetuated. (In fact, Ingersoll has connected the status of teaching in the community to the practice of assigning teachers to teach subjects without the necessary qualifications, see Ingersoll, 2001). One of the aspects of the fallout of this invisibility is teacher turnover and attrition. Teaching is a challenging occupation and teacher turnover rates are higher in comparison to other occupations (Ingersoll, 2003a, 2003b). Both teacher movement between schools and attrition rates affect the stability of schools because of the implications for staffing (Brown, 2008). Continuing turnover means more vacant positions, some of which need to be filled as soon as possible. This in turn stimulates the common practice undertaken by school leaders of assigning unsuitably qualified teachers. Thus, from a practical standpoint, the cycle of out-of-field teaching can be self-perpetuating. As well, lack of awareness of its issues and difficulties in school contexts hampers the development of school improvement policies (see Sect. 2.2) that can alleviate and support its challenges, resulting in the failure of new policies to accommodate the underlying expectations, perceptions and quality educational needs of the wider school community (Bush, 2003). The purpose of this chapter is to underline for policy-makers what governing aspects need attention regarding the out-of-field phenomenon via clear messages from lived experiences (van Manen, 1990) in the field. It is these, the locally experienced aspects of policy and policy-capability, that this chapter describes, in order to illuminate how policy can uphold the out-of-field phenomenon in such a way as to support teachers’ and students’ everydayness, including their triumphs and setbacks and feelings of belongingness.

5.2 Micro-Education Policies Support Classrooms Policies which aim to protect the classroom, those engaged there, and its ultimate purpose are needed in complex teaching contexts such as the out-of-field teaching context, where a teacher’s lack of confidence and self-doubt about possessing the skills and abilities needed to manage an assignment for which they are not suitably qualified can constrain the effectiveness of the learning space. As discussed, restricted confidence and uncertainty have repercussions for the sociocultural learning within classrooms through an absence of active teacher engagement (Lingard,

5.2 Micro-Education Policies Support Classrooms

113

2010). I assert that micro-education policies are strategies to achieve improvements in quality teaching and learning and have the potential to eliminate or restrict misinterpretations of the teaching and learning space by being structurally and functionally connected to the context in which they are used. As well, micro-education policies can accommodate concerns with values, norms and the society they impact, and when well developed, such policies encourage confidence because of their connectedness to the classroom and their potential as enacted resources to improve the teaching and learning space (see Fig. 11.1). Improving teacher qualification and recruiting more student-teachers and beginning teachers alone will not fix the out-of-field teaching issue in schools. I argue, however, that a focus on effectively managing the out-of-field teaching phenomenon with tailored micro-education policies could restrict the impact of the phenomenon on teachers’ performance and thus on student achievements. Management of out-of-field assignments in schools happens without structured strategies or policy frameworks that acknowledge their unique challenges, but an absence of well-defined procedures inside the classroom environment still impacts learning (Marzano, 2007). Moreover, Barlow (2002) has highlighted the importance of greater acknowledgement that teachers are not the cause of out-of-field teaching, and has further suggested that the preponderance of out-of-field situations in schools pinpoints a lack of political motivation about the issue, which results in less effective administrative practices that are then responsible for the complex out-of-field problems that subsequently develop. Out-of-field teachers are perceived by leadership pre-understandings as already competent for their unsuitable assignments (Barlow, 2002), and this prejudice influences school leaders’ decisions regarding how they lead and manage these teachers. Micro-education policies, however, can provide context-conscious structure to the unacknowledged disruption in out-of-field teaching and learning environments. Micro-education policies address the need for broader, systemic frameworks that firstly encourage school leaders to notice aspects of the lived experience of their out-of-field staff, and secondly enable them to create situated micro-policy resources to support them that are fit-for-purpose. The foundations of the everydayness of teaching and learning find explanation in the sociocultural learning philosophy of Vygotsky (1978) and in Van Manen’s (2016a) acknowledgement of teachers’ status in loco parentis, and in Lave’s (2009) notion that the process of learning is not isolated from the social world in which the learning activity takes place. Teachers are responsible to attend to the needs of all their students, which involves an active engagement and noticing of the range of both their own and their students’ real-life experiences, such as triumphs, setbacks and feelings of belongingness. Everyday experiences influence the teaching and learning context and need not continue to be overlooked or ineffectively managed by policy. The complexity of the process and mechanisms of quality learning that are influenced by the out-of-field phenomenon require micro-education policies that can demonstrate a thoughtfulness about the lived experiences, social world and cognitive load that develop because of it. Lave (2009) has emphasised that students’ engagement in the social world of a classroom in essence conceptualises and positions the approaches and practices of how and what they learn. The process of learning is

114

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

thus best accomplished in an environment which has a culture that encourages various learning approaches and acknowledges students’ social and emotional learning experiences without rigidly prescribing how learning should be attempted (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). Appreciation, acknowledgement and respect for individuality, for example, promote discourse that it is acceptable to be oneself and to make mistakes (Arnold, 2005).

5.2.1 Micro-Education Policy Matters in Out-of-Field Teaching Classrooms Micro-education policy means bottom-up policy development. Problems in classrooms are “compounded by teacher practice and pedagogy that does not reflect current knowledge of learner-centered environments” (Allen, 2010, p. 14). The discourse around top-down policy decisions is often disregarded in the field; views are that policy is not really relevant but is merely a set of strategies designed to protect systemic entities (departments, employers and regulatory bodies). Bottom-up policy development, however, means the classroom context is the focus; in this case, out-of-field classroom contexts reveal truths that need to be addressed. I assert that targeted micro-education policies can reach the engrossed and intertwined matters of classrooms by their flexibility and contextual adaptability, and thus make policy accessible and useful to being in classrooms where teaching and learning are challenged by out-of-field teaching practices. In particular, policies can support the construction of a positive classroom climate with “simple, specific, clear and measurable” (Barbetta, Norona, & Bicard, 2005, p. 14) structures and frameworks, within which students and teachers can explore their teaching and learning approaches. Teaching and learning environments are underpinned by a strong teacher discourse that is a product of teachers’ communication in their classroom, verbal and nonverbal, and which conveys a certain message to their students beyond what they say. Teachers’ discourse is a reflection of their pedagogies, beliefs and philosophies of learning and greatly impacts their students’ development, achievements (Marzano, 2007) and the atmosphere of the environment in which learning takes place. In this sense, an effective classroom space is shaped by the strong positive classroom structures of effective teacher discourse. Bourdieu (1977) has emphasised that teachers develop classroom atmospheres as meeting spaces for teachers and their students. These spaces need to positively support students’ journey to achievements and visible outcome of performance through meaningful learning. The structure created by the teacher can be underpinned by strategies to support the development of such things as constructive teacher–student relationships, uplifting and supportive collegial relationships, healthy collaboration between the home and school, independent and assisted self-determination, academic efficacy, and deliberate mindfulness of all the stakeholders in the classroom (Doll, Zucker, & Brehm, 2004).

5.2 Micro-Education Policies Support Classrooms

115

Micro-education policies can be developed with alignment to all the discourses present in the teaching and learning space—for example, those that emerge of teachers’ uncertainty and students’ anxiety if the teaching and learning space become challenging or dysfunctional. Teachers in these challenging positions need micro school policies as enacted policy resources to offer them a safety net within which they can feel supported and guided. Out-of-field teachers do not experience an “at homeness” in unfamiliar subjects or year levels but instead perceive themselves as being “out-of-their-depth” and “out-of-place” and that they are “imposters” who do not belong in specific teaching positions (Du Plessis, 2014). Dysfunctional classroom environments are clearly an issue for perception but also have powerful implications for dispositions (i.e., of teachers, parents and students) about the teaching and learning space. As already noted, the general expectation within school communities that schools need to provide conducive learning atmospheres and positive school cultures affects what the community then perceives as quality teaching and education, but critically, this also creates implications for teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy. Moreover, negative learning experiences can create an ongoing toll on those who have been involved in them. Gadamer (1975) has accentuated the impact of prior experiences on the understanding of current lived experiences. Teachers’ and students’ historical outcomes and prior learning experiences in classroom contexts, positive or negative, influence their understanding of these environments. This understanding impacts their lived experiences and informs a sense that it is all right to “be” part of this context, habitus or environment. Positive lived experiences then give way to specific feelings of being at home within this environment or of “belonging to that world” (Gadamer, 1975, p. 258). I argue that out-of-field teachers who lack confidence and have restricted knowledge of the specific subject area and/or year level need to be able to rely on well-designed and carefully implemented policies capable of contextually supporting their efforts to maintain a level of effectiveness in classroom management. Research has shown that the out-of-field teaching phenomenon can and frequently does disrupt professional interrelationships and communication in the teaching and learning space, amplifying the difficulties of already challenging out-of-field classrooms (Du Plessis, 2017). These spaces can thus develop into intense and emotionally fragile environments because of communication uncertainties, inadequate interactions, unmet expectations, aggravated attitudes and misunderstandings among the stakeholders within them (Du Plessis, 2014). Teachers who are confident about their ability and capacity to carefully guide their students to construct and internalise new knowledge understand that classroom emotions are anchored in the learning experience and performance. These teachers are confident that they have the skills to develop an effective classroom management strategy where emotions, tensions, personal encounters and experiences are maintained while learning continues embracing subject-focused pedagogies (Redmond, 2010). Effective management of the classroom context is entrenched in two-way relationships (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2000). Students feel safe in learning spaces where meaningful interaction and integration take place because meaningful interaction stimulates and motivates

116

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

performance (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Bruner (1996) has underlined the student– teacher “interchange” (p. 44) as the most frequent “tool” used in teaching and learning environments. The experience of out-of-field teaching constrains teachers’ confident interactions and communication with their classes, as well as the presentation of effective guidance, well-articulated objectives, well-informed decisions and classroom control, resulting in social pressure within the classroom context (van Niekerk, 2003). When the sociocultural tone of teaching and learning embraces “human experiences that are always situation-specific” (Van Manen, 2016a, p. 71), underlying and ongoing feelings of social pressure in the teaching and learning environment that influence the classroom interaction need to be able to be deliberately attended to by school policies that acknowledge this factor as being foundational for knowledge construction (see Sect. 5.5.3). Feelings of anxiety in teachers and students (Huberty, 2013) only intensify when policy requirements demand more than teachers feel they can offer. School improvement policies must be able to grasp contextual ramifications of this kind and have the power to stimulate instead careful management of these fragile classroom contexts by the protective frameworks and approaches that are in place.

5.2.2 The Out-of-Field Classroom: Pedagogical Awareness The classroom discourse, behaviour and skills of expert teachers clearly provide a foundation for effective classroom contexts. The question policy-makers need to ask is, How can micro-policies provide a framework for out-of-field teachers to build these effective classrooms, despite their unsuitable assignments? I argue that a detailed awareness of the qualities that all teachers are assumed to “have,” such as experience in the subject matter and the confidence of knowing what works well in specific classrooms/subjects/year levels can inform policy development that aims to address the challenges of complex out-of-field classrooms. Arnold (2005) has suggested that suitably qualified teachers’ awareness of their students’ viewpoints makes it possible for them to mobilise policies in such a way that these pathways then support and enhance students’ skill development, rather than employing policies to manage students. Suitably qualified teachers also find teaching less challenging than their out-of-field colleagues because the depth of their content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge (Shulman, 1987) gives them control over the use of these knowledges and thus the confidence to enter into in-depth subject matter discussions with student and keep them engaged. Lingard (2010) has further suggested that a clear grasp of pedagogy in the classroom is fundamental to understanding human society and the social problems of education. Classrooms are microcosms of society and the pedagogies teachers employ to manage and guide learning and teaching in classrooms provide their students with opportunities to develop skills needed for citizenship.

5.2 Micro-Education Policies Support Classrooms

117

Observations of classrooms offer evidence that confident and expert teachers • have the ability to integrate micro-policies and pedagogies for learning (confidently engage in in-the-moment decision-making); • are able to identify diverse learning and social needs more easily; • communicate expectations and subject matter more confidently and clearly; • are comfortable to fulfil the role as the more knowledgeable or more informed other in the teaching and learning space; and • are confident to manage and adjust decisions regarding student behaviour, and to manage change itself. In short, teachers with the expertise and specialist knowledge to fulfil quality teaching expectations demonstrate an at homeness in the subject areas/fields and/or year levels they teach, and this enables them to express tact, sensitivity and attunement with their students learning needs. Expert teachers belong to the space; they know their role and can fulfil it confidently. These teachers are not affected at the same level of intensity as their out-of-field colleagues are by feelings self-doubt or hesitation, or regarding time resource constraints and changes. Confidence to change in situ is a key aspect of teacher power; without this base of belonging to space and subject matter, teachers struggle to be certain of the best pathway and cannot confidently change fast enough to be effective. Policy needs to support out-of-field teachers to belong and to confidently to step into their role as knowledgeable other. Targeted micro-education policies thus have the potential to support the development of a culture of effective mediation through strategising opportunities to discuss challenges and share teaching experiences. Policy-makers need to find what is happening in expert teachers’ classrooms that is absent in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms to inform and guide policy development for a space that does not have a knowledgeable other. Comparing and contrasting the differences and similarities present in the classrooms of out-of-field teachers and specialist/expert teachers can offer insights into the art of teaching and conscious acknowledgment of teaching characteristics that make a difference to the quality of teaching. The development of micro-education policies requires an in-depth understanding of how the diverse needs of individual students are accommodated or set aside in these classrooms, as well as a deliberate noticing of how expert teachers’ ability to clearly communicate expectations and adjust curriculum guidelines adapts their teaching practices to align with students’ diverse needs. Effective classroom management is closely linked to teachers’ successful management of diversity. As noted, teachers’ confidence is connected to being the more knowledgeable other who has an awareness of how to achieve successful accommodation of the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978); this means that the teacher knows where to meet each student at their unique learning level by giving attention to students’ prior knowledge and by having the pedagogical skills to connect this understanding with the new concepts or information they are offering. This attentiveness and deeper insight to keep students engaged in the teaching and learning process develops during teaching practices, and Engestrom (2009) has noted the influence it has on the classroom climate and the meaningful mediation of learning.

118

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

Furthermore, according to research, school leaders spend between 41 and 50% of their time on administrative leadership tasks and meetings, 22% on teaching-related tasks and meetings, 15% with students, 11% with parents and 7% involved in local and regional community, business, or industry interactions (OECD, 2014). As well, an average of 46% of teachers reported that they never receive feedback about their teaching from their principal and 51% claimed that they do not receive feedback from additional members of the school’s leadership team (OECD, 2014). I argue that micro-education policies can become part of school leaders’ communication and can represent support as well as feedback about teacher actions or practices and student behaviour. These policies can be a reflection of school leaders’ engagement and management of their vocational load/responsibilities and their focus priorities within their school context. Additionally, school and educational leaders’ assessment of their alignment of the micro-education policies they develop within the school context with the macro-education policies of the system can influence how teachers experience the “expectation load” of fulfilling their role as the knowledgeable other. The alignment between policies and expectations supports the school community practicing teaching and learning within a structured and stable environment, and calls on school leaders’ pedagogical accountability (Bédard, 2015). In addition, the implementation of policies entails tact and context-consciousness; Van Manen (2016a) has explained that “tact gives new and unexpected shape to unanticipated situations. Tact converts incidence into significance” (p. 187). School leaders’ and teachers’ tact can enable an acceptance–culture of teacher learning in the classroom space and includes the careful development of micro-policies and pedagogies of modification, especially those which acknowledge that out-of-field teachers lived experiences can only be understood through attentiveness to the surrounding society. Cautious development of policies and the modification of pedagogies involves a context-consciousness of the specific situation. Ashman and Gillies (2003) have defined pedagogical modifications as thoughtful classroom collaboration guidelines and intentions, however, teachers in out-of-field positions admit that they are not confident to manage group learning activities and that collaborative classroom activities are challenging. These teachers prefer clear guidelines and frameworks to follow as they concurrently manage the business of teaching and their knowledge transformation challenges in situ. Being an out-of-field teacher clothes these teachers with lived experiences that are different from those of their suitably qualified and specialist colleagues. The outof-field teaching phenomenon changes the face of classrooms, and thus learning and the construction of knowledge, as well as their behaviour and social culture, issues which can become problematic for teachers who are not in control of the teaching and learning space, and are trying to teach and manage the space without the support of targeted policies. This problem is underlined in the subtle truth that student learning is the construction of knowledge, an entity that clearly depends on a greater breadth of things than merely information transfer (which is often the perception of learning).

5.2 Micro-Education Policies Support Classrooms

119

Comparing what happens inside specialist or expert teachers’ classrooms and outof-field teachers’ classrooms can therefore support the identification of the policy undergirding that out-of-field teachers’ need. Classroom information of this sort can be reviewed by leadership, and micro-policies then crafted for implementation in a classroom that requires targeted assistance. The consistent development and implementation of micro-education policies is as vital as the concepts and theories each of these policies represent. I argue that school and educational leaders’ insight to align micro-education policies with macro-education policies can influence the stability and security of school cultures, classroom climates and a close connectedness between teachers and students that supports their engagement and the reaching of pedagogical goals. The lived experiences of teachers and students in classrooms do not just influence the moments spent there, but go beyond (Lingard, Hayes, Mills, & Christie, 2003; Rogers & McPherson, 2008) to influence students’ learning experiences and approaches and out-of-field teachers’ beliefs about teaching and their career decisions.

5.2.3 The Out-of-Field Classroom: A “Behaviour-Inflaming” Space Dispositions within the learning context form the foundations of meaningful teaching and learning (Ashman & Gillies, 2003). Research has shown that the out-of-field classroom context can quickly turn into a disruptive teaching and learning environment where behavioural challenges further escalate because of an absence of targeted policies to support out-of-field teachers with this aspect of their pedagogical challenges (Du Plessis, 2014). Targeted micro-education policies that focus on supporting the dispositions that guide positive behaviour in classrooms can ensure learning and teaching environments effectively attend to a breadth of learning diversity and student behaviour management. Teachers in out-of-field positions require policy resources to stimulate the proactive strategies they can employ to prevent dysfunctional classroom contexts and disruptive student behaviour. Proactive approaches tranquilise the cycle of events that lead to procedures to punish student behaviour issues (Kounin & Sherman, 1979). Lingard et al. (2003) have explained that supportive teaching and learning environments are spaces where students’ needs, emotions and feelings are dealt with effectively. However, students who have to construct and internalise new knowledge without the support of a knowledgeable other in the classroom can experience the learning environment as unsupportive, and this can have implications for their inclassroom behaviour. Students who experience anxiety can display behaviour that needs to be managed with great care, confidence and particularly, sensitivity, because what happens inside the classroom also has an influence on students beyond the classroom walls in the wider school community. Out-of-field teachers adopt classroom management strategies that rely on removing challenging students from the

120

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

classroom context or expecting school leaders to step in and manage challenging behaviours rather than doing so themselves. These strategies reflect that out-of-field teachers are not confident to cope with these kinds of challenges and/or that they do not have the pedagogical knowledge to confront challenging classroom situations but instead are avoiding actions. Teachers’ capacity to proactively manage classrooms— for example, how they develop awareness among students of their own behaviour and how it impacts the classroom space—depends on their level of confidence in the classroom. How competent they perceive themselves to be influences how they are able to take the leading role they need to assume to act in this capacity. While it is clear that both teachers and schools are responsible to develop and support effective classrooms, concurrently, school leaders admit that their challenges to recruit suitably qualified teachers mean teachers have to be assigned outside their teaching strength, in a “sink or swim” environment of transformation. I assert that classroom policies that are responsive and context-conscious have the power to reflect attentiveness of the smaller parts within the whole that influence the space—for example, those specific student behaviour and diverse learning challenges that are always present within classrooms.

5.2.4 The Out-of-Field Classroom and Contextual Factors As has been discussed, out-of-field teaching practices dislodge healthy classrooms, and dysfunctional teaching and learning spaces do not fully support students to learn how to apply, adjust and manage their social skills. However, research shows that in the complexity of schools’ teacher placement needs, other challenging teaching contexts may occur concurrently with an out-of-field context. Factors such as large class sizes, student cohort combinations and language of instruction can co-occur with teacher placement and qualification challenges. As well, research shows that school leaders’ misperceptions that a good teacher can teach anything causes them to perceive that less damage will be done if a highly experienced teacher manages a complex out-of-field position; as a result, highly qualified and highly experienced teachers often find themselves assigned to year levels or subjects outside their field of expertise (Barlow, 2002; Du Plessis, 2014), but even these teachers experience professional dislodgement. Out-of-field teachers become curriculum followers rather than leaders because they prefer to follow the safety of textbooks rather than taking risks to explore new classroom pedagogies in unknown subject matter. As the informed other, teachers need to be facilitators of knowledge construction and mediate clear understanding, deep learning and accommodation of diverse needs (Wilson & Johnson, 2014). Students’ diverse learning needs place more than a significant demand on teachers because of their interwoven complexities; if not managed with insight, students’ concurrent struggles to learn, be accepted, and continue to engage can have major implications on the classroom atmosphere, culture and climate. As discussed, the learning culture in a classroom is strongly linked to the teacher’s beliefs, ability and

5.2 Micro-Education Policies Support Classrooms

121

confidence to understand students and to adjust their teaching practices via in-themoment pedagogical skills. Leaving students’ learning needs unanswered influences their perceptions of the teacher as competent, and their learning scaffolding and dispositions, factors that flow on into the classroom context, atmosphere and climate. Moreover, caught up in coping with their challenging teaching assignments, out-offield teachers sometimes miss what is needed. A teacher who had worked out-of-field for at least 5 years shared a warning that working without suitable qualifications and expertise can be quite risky for the diverse learning and teaching environment, “especially if they [out-of-field teachers] don’t have the strategies or the knowledge to pick up on the at-risk [students]. It’s quite easy for students who are at risk to just slip through” (Field data, D1). Teachers’ ability to project calmness and control over the teaching and learning environment prepares the classroom for positive and effective structured learning possibilities and so supports students in their meaning-making (Van Manen, 1977). I argue that targeted procedures need to support positive, assertive, expectant learning cultures that uphold teacher dispositions and beliefs because of the interaction between these factors and teachers’ professional identities as confident classroom leaders. Policies that allow contextual factors such as class size, student backgrounds, and teachers’ expertise and specialist knowledge to be directly addressed and attended to will strengthen teachers’ ability to attend to students’ unique learning needs.

5.3 The Politics of Out-of-Field Classrooms The beliefs, values, emotions and dispositions of classrooms give way to the construction of a specific tradition, climate, culture and politics within them. Teachers, as classroom leaders, undergird these politics with their teaching characteristics and style. Kelchtermans (2009) has underlined that teachers’ self-understanding and personal/subjective conceptualisation of truth are intertwined and reflect their personal interpretative framework. As already argued, teachers are the most important resource in classrooms (Hattie, 2009), and influence the classroom climate, atmosphere and mood (Van Manen, 2016a); in particular, as noted, their perceptions of self-efficacy have implications for their students’ emotions (Zee, De Jong, & Koomen, 2016) via their projection of teaching competence. Hence, teachers’ dispositions and emotional proficiency influence the politics of the teaching and learning space, and this has effects on the ultimate goal of student outcomes (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Unsurprisingly, Zee et al. (2016) have stated that “development programs must incorporate strategies that teachers might use to bolster their self-efficacy” (p. 1024) and that these need to emphasise goals for the management of individual students’ needs and support. Self-efficacy is influenced by teachers’ confidence and in their ability to perform their tasks and domain responsibilities (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). Teachers’ deep content and pedagogical content knowledge, as the foundation for their expertise, directs their vocational tasks and domain development, and their perceptions of self-efficacy in these activities uphold their confidence. Yet,

122

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

as noted, teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy change with their placement in out-offield positions, particularly because of the dislodgement of their content knowledge. Moreover, the nature of political influence in classrooms is understandably reciprocal (Rogers, 2003), and this element is underlined by Spilt and Koomen (2009), Spilt, Koomen, and Thijs (2011), that students have the power to influence teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Classrooms are microcosms of society; they give students a space where social skills can be practised and the nature of influence can be safely felt. Different contexts call for different approaches to this social learning responsibility of the in loco parentis, but considering that teachers appointed to out-of-field positions admit that they need a significant time period for adjustment (Du Plessis, 2010), and that during this time of “finding their feet” in a new or unfamiliar subject, students’ learning is affected, the repercussions for the classroom context of the loss of the teacher’s belief in their own self-efficacy and confident engagement (i.e., their sense of being the knowledgeable other) in the classroom are considerable. Teachers’ actions, language, beliefs and responses are felt by students—Levin (2001) has highlighted that attitudes in classrooms are shaped by the views teachers express and their beliefs and dispositions. I argue that the shift or uncertainty in power relationships in a classroom where a teacher is uncertain of themselves, the subject and their skill set for teaching affects students’ engagement and involvement in the societal context of classroom management and as well as their understanding of the learning experience. It is not difficult to see that disruptive teaching and learning environments are not the only outcome of unsuitably qualified teachers. However, I argue strongly that the harmony between teachers’ beliefs, confidence and the schools’ social learning culture can be enlivened by school and educational policies that proactively target difficulties before they create their inevitable cascade. I underline that out-of-field teachers’ dispositions and emotions not only impact the politics at play between teachers and students but concurrently affect the underlying trust relationships within the teaching and learning space. These trust relationships further influence students’ acceptance of school policies and how they cope with classroom politics. McInerney and McInerney (2006) have noted that social and personality development and value identification develop when students integrate values held by those they respect—for example, teachers, peers and parents. Invisibly caught inside the lack of policy attention to the out-of-field phenomenon are outcomes that flow from such politics via repeated exposure to the risk of them: Teachers in hard-to-staff schools are more likely to be teaching out-of-field; students attending these schools (often remote schools) then have repeated exposure to unsuitably qualified teachers (see Sect. 5.5.2). The sociocultural philosophy that underpins teaching and learning needs to be upheld for the lived experiences, actions and outcomes of teachers and their students. Micro-education policies and classroom politics can combine to determine the climate, atmosphere and mood of classrooms, and can then support how these environments are managed. The mood inside classrooms and the politics of classroom management have a significant impact on student confidence and willingness to explore new learning approaches and take risks within their learning experiences

5.3 The Politics of Out-of-Field Classrooms

123

(Lingard et al., 2003). In terms of diversity, students who are sensitive to classroom politics and who do not experience the classroom as a safe environment in which to explore learning approaches or to take risks with their learning need to be safeguarded by the strategies and procedures their schools provide and their teachers adopt. The link between out-of-field teachers’ absent expert subject knowledge and classroom politics needs to be addressed by policy.

5.3.1 Micro-Education Policies as a Resource to Development Classroom Cultures The collaborative act of meaning-making and the social attributes involved in the construction of new knowledge are both hampered by the instability out-of-field teaching practices create for mediating and facilitating quality teaching and learning. Teaching and learning environments that do not offer a safe climate in which students feel confident to explore new learning approaches tend to create conflict and feelings of shame or inadequacy (McInerney & McInerney, 2006), as well as potentially remove the sensation of challenge from the learning experience. As noted, such environments can become behaviourally disruptive, increasing the negative effects on students’ learning development and their attitudes (Ashman & Gillies, 2003), outcomes which are often seen in disengagement from learning and in disconnectedness between teachers and students because students do not trust or respect a teacher who does not demonstrate ownership of the content and the classroom space. Classroom cultures develop around social interaction and respect for individual needs/diversity. I am concerned that out-of-field teachers’ struggle to build trust relationships with their students (Du Plessis, 2018b); students need to be emotionally connected with their teacher (Groundwater-Smith, Ewing, & Le Cornu, 2011). Yet, a culture of trust relationships cannot develop in classrooms where students are emotionally disconnected from a teacher who lacks the knowledge to project themselves as the knowledgeable or informed other, and who cannot step into a mediating and facilitating role to guide and assist learning according to students’ unique needs. Yet, targeted micro-education policies can resource structures within the classroom space to uphold respect for and support teachers in challenging teaching positions as they develop a positive teaching and learning space. A culture of teamwork inside classrooms supports learning as a collaborative act of meaningmaking that can include teachers, students and sometimes their parents. These social attributes involved in knowledge construction require a culture of full engagement and commitment from teachers and students, as well as support from parents, teaching colleagues and student peers. The reality of the classroom context involves lived experiences that are “always situation-specific” (Van Manen, 2016a, p. 71), confirming the suitability of microeducation policies as strategies to support the multilayered aspects of out-of-field challenges. For example, in schools where school leadership developed policies that

124

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

focused on supporting the complexities out-of-field teachers experienced inside their classrooms, research showed that these schools managed to support these teachers in such a way that they demonstrated positive dispositions in relation to their outof-field assignments (Du Plessis, 2017). Out-of-field teachers in these schools were confident that they could succeed and be effective because their leaders were engaged with and aware of the realities (as delineated from the “fantasy” expectations often reflected through policy frameworks) in the classroom context. A principal explained that school leaders’ specific engagement with and awareness of out-of-field teachers’ positions “shows the teachers that the school is caring about what they’re doing in their classrooms” (Field data: F3). These relationally-supported out-of-field teachers were also willing to take on new approaches to pedagogies and act positively towards challenges, including changing specific teaching practices. School leaders in these schools shared attitudes and strategies such as “We are growing people” (G2) and “We’re now saying to our support teachers, stop taking children out of the classroom; you go into the classroom and equip the teacher” (D4). A deputy principal acknowledged, …we’ve got a responsibility to retain staff…there is a high [teacher] drop-out rate, so we’ve got to try and keep these people in a job, and to protect them. (Field data: E3)

This act of trying is inherently supported by school leadership engaging with the realities in the classroom and encouraging a culture of openness about the change and transformation the phenomenon brings to the school and to stakeholders’ experiences in these environments. I argue that we can manage the implications of the phenomenon on the retention of teachers, the quality of teaching and students’ learning, and advocate that the starting line is micro-education strategies and frameworks. Policies can act as resources to develop and support quality teaching and student learning and so construct the space of teaching and learning. Expectations of what this space should look like are influenced by perceptions and experiences of teachers, leaders and other stakeholders such as parents, students and politicians. Critically, however, open and honest sharing of real-life experiences is constrained among out-of-field teachers when their lived experiences are overlooked or set aside by leadership and in policy development. A lack of openness by leadership to hearing feedback about the kind of support schools provide or teachers expected, as well as an absence of frameworks and pathways for creating cultural changes within outof-field classroom contexts mean that out-of-field teachers struggle with additional challenges of their everydayness in the classroom without having the reassurance of the relational connections that uphold all teachers’ work. These teachers continue to teach under strain and disconnected from their leaders, and their experiences of disconnectedness and isolation develop cultures inside classrooms (and beyond) that further corrode teachers’ confidence, capacity and ability to develop quality teaching and learning environments. Appreciation from leaders at school level needs to be constructed at systemic level by micro-education policies that also appreciate—and actionably recognise— the intensity of the challenges out-of-field teachers experience and enable school

5.3 The Politics of Out-of-Field Classrooms

125

systems to engender feelings of trust and respect that encourage a culture of openness. In discussing their out-of-field experiences and the attitudes of leadership, an experienced teacher in an out-of-field position observed, One thing that I would have liked early on was more positive feedback…no one [accentuated] from up above said anything positive. A nice caring principal would be checking whether they all have been supported. (Field data: C1)

The truths of out-of-field teachers’ experiences in various contexts are powerful and misconceptions only add to these teachers’ already compromised perceptions of selfefficacy. Out-of-field teachers shared that they also feel isolated and misunderstood by colleagues. Constrained leadership behaviour around the flow of information such as the feedback teachers in challenging and complex out-of-field teaching positions can give and receive illustrates the disconnection between leaders’ perceptions and the realities experienced by these teachers. One out-of-field teacher in the second year of teaching shared the effects of their experience of a combination of leadership assistance and constraint: The head of department is brilliant, but Admin [principal and deputies] no, there was— Deputies…no…[eyes becoming teary]…when I had my freak out…the Dean of Staff was brilliant, he said, “Look take a week off, you need it. Get yourself sorted out.” They took the three curriculum enrichment classes off of me [teary eyes] because the Dean of Staff had a word and settled it. When I was speaking to him the principal came in and said he had a hard time too and he gave me some cards for counsellors. (Field data: E5)

School leaders who overlook the details of out-of-field teachers’ lived experiences and summarise or categorise out-of-field teachers’ classroom challenges in the same terms as specialist teachers’ challenges lose opportunities to manage the implications of the phenomenon in a manner that will benefit teachers, and ultimately education, while those that engage with teachers’ struggles can provide legitimacy and compassion that carries the weight of systemic support. The evidence presented here also demonstrates that there can be disconnections, not only between leaders and teachers, but also among leaders in different leadership positions within the same school. These disconnections can influence the way in which the issues identified by out-offield teachers get noticed and addressed by school improvement policies (Du Plessis et al., 2018), and are an indication of the status of the out-of-field phenomenon in school contexts generally. It is expected that classroom climates and contexts will provide healthy and positive teaching and learning environments, and that the teacher, as classroom leader, will fill the role as the knowledgeable other who carefully guides students’ learning; and this is not an unrealistic expectation. I, however, question how realistic this expectation is for the enduring out-of-field phenomenon and for teachers and students experiencing it without the assistance of well-developed policies and support programmes. The out-of-field teacher’s classroom is a fragile context that can easily develop into a volatile situation.

126

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

5.3.2 Policy Approaches to Professional Support: Official and Unofficial… There are official and unofficial policies at play in school environments. Individual perspectives on official policy approaches form the basis of what are effectively unofficial expectations of how classrooms will be managed. The disconnection between what is actually actionable and what is considered only talk can cloud teachers’ perspectives of what is really expected from them. As noted, the demands of out-offield teaching and the hidden unfairness that out-of-field teachers absorb are deeply embedded in the expectations within school and community cultures; one of these is that all teachers are to know both the official and unofficial policy approaches that relate to their subjects or domains. Teachers in demanding out-of-field positions feel unsure until they get the picture (understand expectations and related responsibilities)—which may then frustrate them when achievement expectations seem misaligned with the level of support that is provided for their fulfilment. Out-of-field teachers’ experiences of policy discourse, with its official and unofficial layers, have the potential to provide leaders with rich detail to adjust and improve the types and levels of policy support available for out-of-field teachers; it is details such as these that I argue are essential grist for a continual, reflexive, contextconscious micro-education policy dialogue. Professional support policy approaches within schools, official and unofficial, need to intersect with out-of-field teachers’ skill development needs, as these can determine how quickly and/or smoothly they are able to adjust their pedagogies. An out-of-field teacher discussed her experiences of school leaders’ strategies and approaches and how these impacted her decisions about professional development opportunities, saying, “Because everybody knows that I won’t be doing this again next year…[silence] doing that [professional development] wouldn’t have been valuable for the school long term…[silence]” (Field data: D7). School leaders’ strategies and approaches, too, whether official or unofficial, are influenced by their individual intentions, beliefs, understanding and level of experience, and these approaches affect a school’s staff stability and the way policies are implemented. A specialist/lead teacher remarked on this in their specific school environment: “A lot of time in the country [remote schools], the principals are new principals, they come from the city to get their experience” (Field data: F1). Inexperienced school leaders accept promotion opportunities in remote schools with the intention to stay “5 years” before they apply for metropolitan positions. These school leaders are not always aware of the specific needs in the wider school community, a situation which can create a larger gap between the official and unofficial efforts towards targeted policies for change of any kind. Furthermore, the intention to stay 5 years means that a regular turnover of school leadership not only develops a school culture of continuous transformation and adjustment of policy and unofficial approaches, it creates staff uncertainties about the official and unofficial expectations of policy implementation. Leaders shape policy; if leadership keeps changing,

5.3 The Politics of Out-of-Field Classrooms

127

so too do administrations of policy and change, affecting the overall sense of stability of the school environment. In contrast, context-conscious micro-education policy development shifts policy awareness from the top-down to the bottom-up and creates frameworks for change that empower all stakeholders to productively engage and notice the way in which issues, difficulties and needs within a specific context influence the individuals that function within it, as well as providing structures for support, such as mentoring. An experienced teacher with experience of out-of-field teaching underlined that school leaders see out-of-field teaching placements as part of common practice but that teachers in these positions “need to be nurtured and they need to be taken care of ” (Field data: D1). This teacher confirmed that being out-of-field goes beyond the classroom walls and that it influences perceptions about the teaching profession in the wider community. Out-of-field teachers who find themselves floundering for real reasons also experience, with implications for their well-being that affect those close to them. The teacher noted the effect that out-of-field teaching had had on his parents, who were both teachers, as he was growing up, and said that their experiences had challenged his own teaching aspirations: “I have seen my mother being encouraged and I have seen my father being discouraged, I have seen him just awful. I just want to go nay [no] I am not interested….” Further, it is often the unofficial and unspoken expectation (that teachers in out-of-field teaching positions will know exactly what to do and how to manage the teaching and learning space) that creates the problems these teachers experience that then flow to school and community perceptions of their competence. Unofficial policy approaches and expectations have different meanings for out-of-field teachers: unwritten policies, for example, that subject teachers will adjust and develop the curriculum requirement to address their students’ needs have no caveats for those without the content and pedagogical knowledge to easily or effectively do so. This common situation tilts out-of-field teachers’ dependence towards their collegial relationships, causing concern about what is expected from these professional relationships that is outside the norm. Moreover, out-of-field teachers’ colleagues observe the influence of official and unofficial policy approaches on these teachers and naturally reflect on their own experiences and professional identity and place in the teaching profession. This same teacher underlined the importance of carefully designed and well-developed mentoring policies that show visibility and accessibility: They [out-of-field teachers] need mentoring in delivering their lessons and their teaching. The principal coming in—it starts from the top down—the principal leading by example…the principal can make it a positive experience—“I am here as guidance and if you got a problem you come and talk to me.” (Field data: D1)

The unofficial policy approach in this context, “I am here as guidance and if you got a problem you come and talk to me,” demonstrates an expectation of leadership availability; however, the reality within school contexts is often the opposite. Strategies of leaders, official and unofficial, need to nurture, mentor and support out-of-field teachers, and should acknowledge, as a parent clarified, that out-of-field teachers “are out of their depth” (Field data: D3). Out-of-field teachers do not have the content,

128

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

pedagogical content and pedagogical knowledge to support in-the-moment decisions to adjust their teaching practices according to the expectations embedded in official and unofficial policy approaches. This parent further stated that out-of-field teachers “are not skilled” enough in a specific subject area or year level to guide deep learning or even reflect the needed ownership and confidence that would describe exactly what kind of support they need. The parent further highlighted how support expectations need to be rooted in the unofficial policy approaches of school leaders, stating that “[school] management needs to come alongside and support the teacher” with guidance and assistance. In this sense, the unofficial policy approach of the community demonstrates an expectation that schools have a duty of care and a responsibility to build a culture of care. The official and unofficial policy approach towards teaching is that it is a collaborative effort. However, the unofficial policy approach towards teachers in out-of-field positions is often that of “time will fix” issues and that these teachers will adjust to their role in an out-of-field teaching position on their own.

5.4 Out-of-Field Teaching and Teachers: The Role of Policies and Out-of-Field Inhabitancies Once teachers arrive at a new school, they get assigned to subjects and/or year levels by the principal. These decisions are rarely informed by an understanding of the phenomenon’s impact on schools and classrooms but rather are based on contextual staffing needs. Research shows that the main reason why teachers find themselves in out-of-field positions is because their school leaders request that they accept them (Du Plessis et al., 2018). As already observed, the consequences of out-of-field teaching practices are not only observable in learning environments (see Sect. 5.3) and in student achievements, development and outcomes but also have an effect on teachers’ in situ career expectations (i.e., attrition and turnover). I argue strongly that misunderstandings embedded in restricted knowing about the phenomenon and its subsequent current use can be addressed by educational leaders’ epistemological reflexivity. In order to manage their staff, educational leaders need to and are expected to reflect on what is best for their teachers and students based on their understanding, knowing, noticing and engaging with classroom practices and teachers’ being. This requirement is even more critical when teachers are teaching outside their field of qualifications; however, most often, the decision-making processes of school and educational leaders indicate that decisions about out-of-field teacher assignments are based mainly on workforce needs and are disconnected from the effects of its regular inhabitancies, such as those that continue to plague beginning teachers, expert teachers, primary and secondary school teachers, students, and parents. Policy needs to reconnect with lived experiences.

5.4 Out-of-Field Teaching and Teachers …

129

5.4.1 The Focus of Policies: Beginning Teachers in Out-of-Field Classrooms The quality of the teaching experience that beginning teachers have in their first year of teaching affects their attrition or retention decisions (Mayer, 2005). Research shows that professional interrelationships and school leaders’ engagement are influential in how beginning teachers perceive the value they add to the teaching and learning environment. Decision frameworks that strategise the recruitment, assignment, placement and support of beginning teachers are necessary if the influence of these first years of teaching is to be made essential to teacher workforce management. Beginning teachers who find themselves in out-of-field positions often reflect on their intrinsic motivation and their decision to become teachers (Du Plessis, 2019; Du Plessis et al., 2018). In particular, inexperienced teachers striving to succeed need performance support, directing attention to the influence of the phenomenon on beginning out-of-field teachers’ colleagues when close collaboration becomes essential. Suitably qualified specialist teachers with specialist content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge who have supported beginning out-of-field teachers are able to identify issues that need to be taken into account when leaders listen in and work to develop improvement strategies that intentionally support these teachers. Specialist colleagues do notice their near colleagues’ challenges, as one teacher shared, What you know about children of that age level and their development and how they should be learning impact your teaching…It is hard when you…see something that is not being done the right way or not matching the children’s needs and abilities and their trust. (Field data: C3)

Education systems and their wider school communities demonstrate high expectations for quality teaching and student achievement. The role teachers play in guiding students’ learning (Hattie, 2009) and their status as in loco parentis (Van Manen, 2016a) emphasise the accountability that not just teachers, but educational systems bear to carefully introduce students to the wider world outside their homes. The focus of micro-education policies for beginning teachers in out-of-field classrooms needs to be a systemic embracing of decentralisation of authority so that school leaders have greater control and autonomy to make operational decisions. The way school leaders engage this pedagogical accountability influences schools (Bédard, 2015), and Cranston, Ehrich, and Kimber (2003) have highlighted the moral and professional accountability of school-based leadership. School leaders’ approach to pedagogical accountability determines where they place their focus and what takes first place in their decision-making for the school improvement strategies they develop. Pedagogical accountability brings school leaders inside out-of-field teachers’ classrooms to offer support and frameworks to effectively manage their experiences of the phenomenon. I argue that school leaders are morally, professionally and pedagogically accountable for beginning teachers’ development in the first years of their teaching careers. It is during this time that beginning teachers discover who they are as teachers, and their professional identity is formed based on their lived experiences in these

130

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

initial school and classroom contexts. Micro-education policies have the potential to offer strategies and frameworks to leaders to construct a context in which beginning teachers’ teaching developing professional identities are respected. Moreover, policies need to enable beginning out-of-field teachers to see their challenging positions as an opportunity for professional development and support them developing the expected expertise. Such policies need to take into account and remain invested in the time required to achieve this development. A teacher who had been utilised in an out-of-field position admitted that it had taken 5 years to develop to the point where their self-efficacy and self-reflection allowed them to feel that they were a specialist in that particular field. The teacher accentuated that it was complex to develop strategies to help with this development process, saying, “to know how to support them can be really tricky” (Field Data: D1), a conceptualisation that neatly captures the multilayered implications of the out-of-field phenomenon for teachers and their teaching practices. I argue that for teachers to become what they teach (Van Manen, 2016a), strategies need to be put in place to encourage and support out-of-field teachers to develop a healthy professional identity. The professional development of out-of-field teachers may be tricky, but the role of focused policy frameworks needs to engage with the workforce management issue of encouraging and supporting them to develop a professional identity in out-of-field positions, rather than allowing inevitable practices of resource allocation to end in teacher self-doubt, exhaustion and attrition. Research data about out-of-field teaching practices clarifies that “a lot of pressure” (Field data: G3) is being placed on beginning teachers assigned to out-of-field positions without realising what it means to teach in an out-of-field position. This school leader, who was from a lower socioeconomic school context in Australia explained: “There’s a lot of pressure put on young teachers. In terms of workload and class sizes—it’s difficult, it’s a huge responsibility.” A deputy principal from another school shared, There was a bit of inequity in terms of distribution of classes—the heads of the learning area decided who teaches what. They’ve feathered their nest—that led to a lot of inequity, you’ve got inexperienced teachers teaching all lower school classes the size of thirty kids and that’s just very hard yards… (Field data: E3)

Beginning teachers are still learning to effectively align theory and practice and manage their extensive workloads (Du Plessis, 2018b). I argue that the extra pressure of additional teaching complications such as large class sizes, diverse student cohorts, more students with challenging behaviour and an extracurricular workload are elements of beginning teachers’ early teaching lives that need to be managed by school leaders with micro-education policies that ensure beginning teachers’ placements are realistically managed for their long-term vocational security. In the end, however, any assignment to a position outside their field of ITE qualification or professional identity expectations intensifies the demand beginning teachers’ experience. Their teaching responsibilities can rapidly become challenging to manage if beginning teachers are not able to quickly acquire the specific skills and abilities they need or get support through policies. Considering the developing nature

5.4 Out-of-Field Teaching and Teachers …

131

of beginning teachers’ pedagogical skills, I emphasise that the workforce planning and utilisation of these teachers in out-of-field positions is a clear indication of where current assumptions about out-of-field teaching fail the education system.

5.4.2 The Focus of Policies: Experienced Teachers in Out-of-Field Classrooms School leaders in Australia shared evidence that more experienced teachers have greater capacity to manage the out-of-field teaching phenomenon in a manner that minimises its influence on students and the classroom climate. The fundamental professional identities of experienced teachers are more developed; their previous teaching experiences solidify their skills, and although they might not be suitably qualified for the specific subject and/or year level to which they are assigned, their prior pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge give them a level of insight into how to approach unfamiliar teaching situations and content. However, a lack of awareness of the effort that experienced teachers in out-offield teachers put in to maintain the same level of effectiveness that they demonstrate in teaching positions for which they are suitably qualified can still reinforce the misconception “that out-of-field teaching is not an issue” (Field data: Director 3). These misconceptions lead to an acceptance that teaching and education quality will be less influenced if school leaders assign more experienced teachers to out-of-field positions, another misnomer that itself has implications for the development of the micro-education policies that are required to support teachers and teaching in these assignments. A school leader who was a vocational education and training coordinator shared a perception that “up to year 10 a good teacher can teach anything. There are such things as good, basic teaching practices” (Field data: G3). Such perceptions do not take into consideration the effort teachers will to go to in order to maintain their image of “being a good teacher” (Field data: E5) in spite of being assigned to an out-of-field position. The accomplishment of being seen as a good teacher in the wider community is a currency that entails long hours, hard work and extensive commitment; teachers will try their utmost to maintain this accomplishment and the effectiveness that underpins it, as well as their students’ outcomes, but I argue that this effort often comes at the expense of their own well-being and that this cycle needs policy attention.

132

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

5.4.3 Micro-Education Policies: Primary Schools and High Schools The discrepancies that exist between perceptions of the phenomenon in primary schools in comparison with high schools need to be addressed by the micro-education policies that are developed to support quality teaching in these different environments. As discussed, research has shown that the out-of-field phenomenon has meaning for a complex group of educational factors, including development of curricula, enacted curricula, deep learning, interpersonal relationships, leadership effectiveness and healthy school communities, to name just a few (Du Plessis, 2014, 2017, 2018a, 2018b). In high schools, correctness and depth of content knowledge in assessment need to be the focus of policy, while in primary schools, strategies and frameworks need to focus on behaviour, student needs and support, and on (as per Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning philosophy) carefully guiding and accommodating all students’ learning needs. The influence of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon is not less significant in primary settings because, as discussed, the fundamental principles and the foundation of learning approaches and pedagogies are formed in primary schools (see Sects. 3.2 and 5.4.4). Despite this, research demonstrates perceptions among educational leaders that the out-of-field phenomenon is not a concern in primary schools (Du Plessis, 2014). Out-of-field teachers and parents of primary school students in out-of-field classrooms, however, shared lived experiences that describe the opposite view (Du Plessis, 2018b). In-depth conversations about the “various beliefs and expectations of adults” (i.e., those that the parents have of the teacher; Hattie, 2009, p. 71) are needed to inform and support these classrooms, and micro-education policies can uphold the value of engaging in such collaborative efforts to reach towards quality education expectations. The common practice of assigning out-of-field teachers to primary year levels and diminishing the impact it has on students pushes against the development of targeted micro-education policies in this area. These misunderstandings suggest that the influence of the phenomenon is more damaging in secondary schools—and specifically, more damaging if it happens in certain subject areas or domains. Misunderstandings such as these affect the direction and proportion of the effort that goes into the development of targeted policies and strategies, and the effectiveness of decisions that are made by educational leadership about out-of-field practices.

5.4.4 Fit-for-Purpose Policies: The Value of Micro-Education Policies for Different School Environments The issue is that both primary and secondary school environments are greatly influenced by the out-of-field situation, but in different ways (see Fig. 5.1). Policy development for the out-of-field phenomenon in these different contexts needs to demonstrate

5.4 Out-of-Field Teaching and Teachers …

133

Policy Impact: The out-of-field teaching phenomenon

Policy needs in primary schools

The issue Age-appropriate development expectations Instil healthy learning approaches—pastoral role of the teacher Classroom management

Behavioural management

The value of professional interrelationships

Curriculum interpretation and adjustments

Vulnerable students with high level learning needs

Policy accountability Support teacher and student knowledge/skill development Well-being of teachers and students A resource to enhance organisational stability and operational effectiveness Guidelines and operational strategies to support and improve students and teachers’ well-being Well-designed frameworks that stimulate collaboration and team decisions School improvement strategies to guide and inform teachers, and ensure collaborative planning activities Frameworks that guide teacher placements and assignments

Policy needs in secondary schools

The issue

Policy accountability

Sound subject content

Target professional learning, peer coaching and professional development strategies to support subject and content specialist and expert development Fit-for-purpose recruitment and placement frameworks; classroom observation opportunities in specialist classrooms Well-designed frameworks that stimulate collaboration and team decisions Strategies for collaboration and team discussion opportunities School improvement strategies to guide/inform teachers and ensure collaborative planning activities Guidelines and operational strategies to support and improve students and teachers’ well-being Teacher recruitment and placement strategies

The teacher as expert—a knowledgeable other

Professional interrelationships Teacher’s capacity to assess student work Curriculum interpretation and time management

Behavioural management

Developing interest and passion for subject fields

Fig. 5.1 Conceptualising policy development in primary and secondary schools

a context-consciousness. Developed through evidence provided by parents, teachers and school leaders from both secondary and primary school contexts, Fig. 5.1 identifies influential areas and conceptualises policy development for the out-of-field phenomenon in schools. The out-of-field phenomenon is manageable, but school leaders need to zoom in on out-of-field teachers’ challenges and needs. Figure 5.1 summarises and asserts these needs in different school contexts. Figure 5.1 demonstrates the influence of fit-for-purpose policy frameworks in primary school contexts where students are greatly influenced by the classroom climate and learning culture a teacher develops, and where they depend on the pastoral guidance of a suitably qualified teacher who is clearly aware of the developmental learning milestones that are relevant to their specific year level. Empirical data (Du Plessis, 2014) suggest that out-of-field teachers in primary school classrooms had a serious effect on students’ learning experiences and outcomes. Particularly at primary level, students’ enjoyment of learning approaches and exploration of new learning approaches relies on a positive classroom context. A parent explained her

134

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

concern, saying, “…it’s really hard—because these are foundation years—they are just so important” (Field data: F5). Specifically, students’ disruptive behaviour in the foundation phase/early childhood phase has the potential to quickly get out of control and develop the classroom into a space where students’ (and teachers’) lived experiences involve emotional challenges and trauma (Du Plessis, 2014). Another parent shared her devastation about her at-risk child’s regression while he was in the care of an out-of-field Year 2 teacher, stating, “…[his] hearing has a 25% deficiency—so if the class is so noisy—he just couldn’t hear the instructions. He did say that she screamed a lot” (Field data: C3). Further, teachers who are unsure about what realistic pedagogical expectations look like in the different levels of primary school education and its specialist subject areas (such as music, art, physical education and STEM domains) find it challenging to keep students engaged and instil a passion for these subjects among their students (Becker, 2000; Du Plessis, 2018b). The year-level inhabitancies of out-of-field teaching practices and their associated assumptions get sidelined by school leaders focussed on staffing schools. Harris and Jensz (2006) have claimed that the lack of policy attention in this area has allowed “experienced teachers [to be] moved from lower year levels to cover senior school mathematics” (p. 58), a remark that describes the state of the out-of-field phenomenon in some schools in Australia. While it seems clear that teachers’ “beliefs alongside their expectations for learners will interact with knowledge about how to teach in a particular discipline to determine what kind of learning experiences should be planned and implemented” (Groundwater-Smith et al., 2011, p. 189), the full epistemological nature of out-offield teaching experiences can only be grasped through teachers’ and school leaders’ shared experiences. In discussions about the effect of out-of-field teaching practices in a primary school environment, an experienced teacher who had taught music for 15 years was asked by her school principal to teach general science and mathematics to Year 6 students. The teacher shared the pressure she experienced to achieve the expected results and how she hated teaching out-of-field science lessons because she particularly did not know how to teach general science in a manner that would engage students, since science was not her passion or interest. I argue that both primary and secondary schools are accountable to offer all students a quality education in all subjects regardless of teachers’ preferences, passion and/or potential for various fields or subject domains, and place emphasis on school leaders’ pedagogical accountability to ensure students have a positive learning experience that upholds such quality education. In comparison with the needs of primary students, secondary school students need specialist teachers with strong, sound content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge (Shulman, 1986) to support the high value that is placed on the depth of secondary students’ learning and their capacity to integrate and apply new knowledge and information in real-world situations. Effective construction of new knowledge is based on clear, high-quality content, pedagogical approaches that link theories and realities with new concepts, critical analysis of newly constructed knowledge, and pedagogies that support critical reflection on both concepts and their value for students’ achievements and development.

5.4 Out-of-Field Teaching and Teachers …

135

Fit-for-purpose micro-education policies at school level need to effectively support classrooms that provide such content, create opportunities for students to link subject theories with real-world situations and uphold a focus on in-depth subject matter discussions around findings. It seems straightforward that policies should provide adequate undergirding for these activities by prioritising the placement of teachers with the skills needed for critical reflection on specific knowledge construction (see Sects. 8.3 and 8.4). I caution again against exclusively focussing on what the out-of-field teaching phenomenon means for STEM subject domains, and question the processes which purport to rectify the problem with rapid policy decisions that ignore similar difficulties present in other subjects. As already noted (see Sect. 3.2 and Fig. 3.1), Weldon (2016) has shared statistics from Australia demonstrating that there are more subjects at risk of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon than just those in STEM subject domains. Further, the inhabitancies of out-of-field teaching intertwine with concerns that extend beyond solutions aimed solely at STEM areas: Field data revealed that despite some systemic-level educational leaders’ expectations and perceptions that out-of-field teaching practices would not occur in their districts in the important senior (Year 11 and 12) levels of high school, teachers in their districts were teaching out-of-field in these year levels, both in STEM subject domains and in other areas, and some of these teachers were beginning teachers (see Sect. 9.3.2). Cooper and McIntyre (1994) have noted that teachers with a lack of in-depth knowledge rely on teaching approaches that restrict inviting or allowing students to engage them in in-depth subject matter discussion. Such teaching constrains the formation of knowledge that makes connections between the concepts learned and the real world. Out-of-field teachers often tend to have a disproportionate reliance on textbook-orientated teaching strategies that prioritise content outcomes, and shy away from complicated subject matter themes and sections of coursework that are outside their expertise in an effort to compensate for their restricted competence in a subject or year level. Furthermore, their classroom management strategies are either to strict or too unstructured, and these can be detrimental for students’ passion for a subject or their love for learning and school by creating uncertainty in the classroom environment (see Sect. 5.3.1). These situations hamper the development of professional trust relationships between the teacher, their students, students’ parents, and other teachers, not least because out-of-field teachers experience feelings of guilt about their restricted knowledge, skills and expertise in a specific subject area or year level. The openness of teachers in both primary and secondary schools and their willingness to collaborate to fulfil expectations of pedagogical accountability are underpinned by these teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy, inadequacy, or passion regarding the specific fields or positions to which they are assigned. Out-of-field teachers’ collaboration with colleagues and parents is influenced by their confidence about the depth of their subject matter knowledge. In particular, the expectations parents hold for teachers as in loco parentis make close collaboration with parents essential; however, collaboration with parents is more difficult for out-of-field teachers and so needs to be cultivated through carefully designed micro-education policy frameworks. The involvement of the home and the school in constructing a positive

136

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

learning environment and opportunities for students is one of the first steps towards quality education (Epstein et al., 2018). It is clear that stakeholders have expectations that are embedded in their beliefs about what education should look like and that these involve such things as positive learning experiences in a safe and positive learning and teaching environment, differentiation, or respect and accommodation of unique learning needs, and careful introduction of students to the wider world outside the home. Micro-education policy implementation can enable teachers’ close connectedness to and knowing of students’ needs as well as parents’ openness to share concerns. Van Manen (1991) has claimed that if teachers can link students’ present experiences to their futures, they can unlock these futures, a thought which describes the important capacity of teachers to create classrooms as microcosms of society where students connect up their understandings and learn about their place in society. This manner of engagement with pedagogical accountability and thoughtfulness is no less important in primary schools than it is in high schools, and I argue that the importance attached to the development of fit-for-policies in these environments needs to carry the same weight. Teachers in both primary and secondary schools need to be able to rely on policy strategies that uphold and encourage • • • •

a close connectedness between teachers, students and parents; the unlocking of students’ futures; the skills needed by teachers to support students’ introduction to the world; and the truth about progressing student citizenship.

The truth, then, is if teachers are to unlock students’ futures, students’ development in their foundation phase must be seen as being of equal importance as their final year in school. The development of fit-for-purpose policies and strategies to manage the out-of-field teaching phenomenon across primary and secondary schools becomes the shared responsibility of educational leaders, school leaders and teachers across school sectors and year levels. The influence of the out-of-field phenomenon is not contained to a certain sector, subject or year level but influences quality teaching and learning across all borders. As has been described, the development of teachers’ identity within the school community is a product of their classroom practice. Similarly, how out-of-field teachers take ownership of their classrooms and the subjects assigned to them is intertwined with perceptions about their performance there, but further, can then become connected to and inextricable from the views that subsequently develop about their specific subject area. Out-of-field teachers’ struggles to step into the role of the knowledgeable other and to fulfil subject achievement expectations affect students’ perceptions of that subject; students will claim they hate a subject, when the issue may actually be with the learning environment. When a teacher starts screaming, the climate and atmosphere of the classroom change (Du Plessis, 2017), but this event reflects only half of a teacher losing control and ownership of the teaching and learning space. In the field, school leaders shared that teachers start screaming at their students because they have already lost leadership of the classroom and are

5.4 Out-of-Field Teaching and Teachers …

137

unable to keep students engaged, passionate and curious owing to the flow-on effects of their dislodged role as knowledgeable other. A disconnection between teachers and students therefore influences students’ engagement and dispositions in the subjects and/or year levels to which these teachers are assigned. Although a disconnection can develop in any teacher’s classroom, the probability is higher that it will occur in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms because the effect of restricted content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge influences teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy and, as DarlingHammond (2010a, 2010b) has noted, confidence and experience. Out-of-field teachers’ classrooms are thus at higher risk of being the kinds of challenging teaching and learning environments that cause students to develop aversion to subjects because of difficulty internalising, understanding, and linking concepts offered by a teacher who does not have the knowledge to carefully guide these learning processes. Out-of-field teachers who do not know what specific skills should be taught or how to teach them harbour uncertainty and develop self-doubt regardless of whether they are teaching in primary or secondary schools.

5.5 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Policies and Performance “A capability is only as good as its execution” (Bandura, 1982, p. 122), and execution is influenced by situation-specific and context-specific lived experiences. Teachers’ cognitive and social skills and behaviour inform their performance, and according to Bandura, the way these skills are managed influences teachers’ operational competence. An epistemological stance towards the development and execution of micro-education policies therefore involves a microanalytic process of exploring teachers’ perceived efficacy, the actions they take and the results that flow from these processes. This stance entails the commitment of school leaders to a continuous reflection on both classroom and performance incidences regarding the out-of-field teaching phenomenon. As noted in Chap. 2 (Sect. 2.5), a hermeneutic approach towards policy decisions and development acknowledges, appreciates and notices the lifeworlds of stakeholders involved in education. Added to this is the Gadamerian philosophy, which observes the development of understanding that comes from involving and opening a variety of lenses and perceptions or horizons (Gadamer, 1976/2008), and which is invaluable for the development of operational structures such as micro-education policies that are then a reflection of a context-consciousness. Figure 5.2 describes how teacher and student performance are influenced by their lived experiences, and was constructed via analysis of field data, such as that from a specialist teacher who noted the lived experiences of their out-of-field colleagues by saying that out-of-field teachers were

Specialist/Lead/Master teachers The presence of a knowledgeable other Connectedness with a difference Engagement Passion Commitment Confidence (open communication) Effective classroom management skills Sense of belonging and athomeness within specific teaching positions Out-of-field teachers (Beginning and experienced) Anxiety Stress Guilt Fear/distress Self-blame Self-critique Frustration/anger/dissatisfaction Feeling vulnerable and exposed Difficulties managing the “load”

The classroom teacher

Feelings of being trapped between ambition and unrealistic expectations Feelings of burn-out

Attrition

Absenteeism

Disconnect or isolation

Turnover

Job satisfaction

Motivation issues

Intrinsic conflict

Fig. 5.2 The impact of teachers’ lived experiences on the development of micro-education policies in the teaching and learning environments. Adapted from Du Plessis & McDonagh, 2020

School leaders’ decisions and school culture School leadership skills and style School leaders’ pedagogical accountability (focus on teachers, students and parents/caregivers) Classroom climate and atmosphere Context and enacted curriculum Noticing and knowing the needs of being a teacher in a specific context

Micro-education policies and context-consciousness

Effective management of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon in school and classroom contexts

Epistemological understanding of the impact of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon

138 5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

5.5 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Policies and Performance

139

…not feeling satisfied with what they’re doing—they always feel like a hamster in a wheel, there’s just no sense of success. (Field data: D6)

Teachers’ professional identity is aligned with their performance and who they are as a teacher (including what they teach), while students’ self-efficacy is developed through being acknowledged in the classroom, being successful, and/or being part of a social–academic system (i.e., a high or low performing student). I argue that teachers and students are being influenced by informal micro-education policies, and specifically by the commonly held expectation that teachers in out-of-field teaching situations will achieve the same results as their expert and specialist-qualified colleagues. As well, it is expected that these teachers will be able to demonstrate adequate professional growth within the specific context of their out-of-field teaching experiences. In terms of identity and self-efficacy, the implications inherent in unacknowledged challenges that prohibit the usual pathway of the development of learning and achievement mean that out-of-field teachers and students are constrained in their progress towards these necessary goals (of success, achievement and confidence) and from gaining these as scaffolding for future goals. As Darling-Hammond (2010a) has cautioned, out-of-field teachers (and, I add, their students) might not learn “the right thing” (p. 208) from their experiences. The multifaceted out-of-field situation is entrenched in the complex, practical intersections of staffing and workforce requirements, and, as noted, these may involve existing teachers being asked by their school leaders to take on, or move between unfamiliar subjects and year levels (Du Plessis et al., 2018) to satisfy demand. In addition, the need for continuous short contracts and limited vacancies in specific regions or areas are frequent causes of out-of-field placements. Out-of-field teachers admit that they are cautious to discuss these workforce difficulties with school leaders for fear of not being offered another contract (and their performance in these positions becomes weighted with similar significance). Restricted communication between school leaders and out-of-field teachers about the difficulties these teachers have to maintain quality teaching and fulfil expectations stimulates workplace uncertainty. Workplace uncertainties lead to constant critical self-assessment and reflection on personal performance and achievements because of the implications that lived experiences of out-of-field teachers have on the teaching and learning space (see Fig. 5.2). The unspoken anticipation that teachers will deliver consistent quality in education despite out-of-field assignments, however, influences leaders’ perceptions of how teachers are actually performing and coping. Hattie (2009) has suggested that in-depth conversations about expectations and preconceptions can positively impact achievements, and in agreement, I argue that indepth discussions at school level and a continuing reflection on school improvement policies and how they uphold the achievement of quality education should become an integral part of the policy process that supports and manages out-of-field teacher placements. Out-of-field teaching practices have an influence on organisational goals to create quality teaching and learning spaces, but these teachers have restricted control within the teaching and learning space to perform quality processes; their experiences need to be noticed, acknowledged and enabled by policy so that their

140

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

efforts can contribute meaningfully to these ideological goals. Bourdieu (1979) has underlined the power that certain expectations of audiences have over decisionmaking that involves adjustments and/or exclusions to create an expectative space. An expectative space notices contextual factors, as demonstrated in Fig. 5.2. Students, for example, expect to perform well, but the realisation of this expectation is highly dependent on what happens within the teaching and learning space. This space is fundamentally underpinned by context-related expectations for teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and teachers’ capacity to develop students’ love for learning. While honest discussions have the potential to shed light on where the problems actually lie in specific challenging teaching situations (Ingersoll, 2006), I argue that, at present, the lack of policy dialogue about the phenomenon is a direct result of the existing misconceptions and misunderstandings about the effects of out-of-field teaching practices on quality improvement in schools and on the being of teachers. As well, constant changes in the placement and utilisation of teachers affect the ability of schools to offer a stable and quality workforce that has extended professional learning and development opportunities (Cochran-Smith, 2011). The intrinsic motivation for becoming a teacher is that teachers want to make a difference (Gore, Holmes, Smith, & Fray, 2015). Teachers in out-of-field positions are no different and express feelings of guilt when they struggle to maintain quality teaching after being assigned to teach subjects and/or year levels outside their qualifications or expertise (Du Plessis, 2014). Although out-of-field teachers are still motivated to make a difference in their students’ lives and achievements, these teachers acknowledge that their reallife experiences and performance in their out-of-field contexts are quite different from those of their specialist colleagues and what school leaders seem to anticipate. Research demonstrates the need for policy to recognise the phenomenon and develop communication frameworks that uphold acknowledgement of its impact on the education space (Ingersoll, 1998; Weldon, 2016). As a beginning teacher in an out-of-field teaching position highlighted, It [out-of-field teaching] needs to be looked at because these days we seem to have a lot more people around working in areas that aren’t their expertise. (Field data: C7)

While this data points to genuine issues of frequency, as I have discussed, the numbers frame for decision-making seems ambiguous and inconclusive when available statistics are plagued by inconsistencies of definition (see Sect. 3.1). There is an urgent need for policy-makers to reassess the information on which policy decisions are based—not least because objectives formed to manage the phenomenon require an approach that confronts the interrelated issue of the current preoccupation with improving the quality of education. I argue that both the numbers of the phenomenon and the challenges it brings to the teaching and learning context are closely connected to the current systemic approach to education that focuses on the achievement and performance outputs of students and teachers. Inclusive of this current trend is the constant and rapid transformation of curricula, a push which creates a rapidly changing education environment with increased workforce challenges for school leaders. Recruiting suitably qualified teachers and effectively utilising staff is a struggle that

5.5 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Policies and Performance

141

is further constrained by resources, and in agreement with Wirt et al. (2004), school leaders admit that the situation results in the increased use of the quick-fix strategy of assigning out-of-field teachers. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) have suggested that teacher learning is a concern for the “educational establishment” (p. 249) and highlights the assumption that “it is impossible for teachers at any level to teach students effectively and/or to meet the standards of the various subject matter professions without fundamental knowledge of the disciplines they teach” (p. 258). Shulman (1986) has noted that subject content knowledge needs to be paired with a sound “subject-specific pedagogy” (p. 258). I argue that attention needs to be given to the interdependence of sound content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge and what this interdependence means both for teachers’ sense of self, teaching identity and self-efficacy and (conversely) for their feelings of unworthiness when they do not have the appropriate knowledge to support in-depth discussions or assessment processes in out-of-field subjects. Considering that out-of-field teachers admit they start to flounder in the goldfish bowl of school community observation, it is unsurprising that their internal feelings of guilt and pedagogical accountability both reach the learning environment where they teach and develop perceptions that teachers in out-of-field positions are the problem. I assert that the out-of-field phenomenon is about much more than teacher competence, the ability to produce quality, or commitment—an entity which reflects teachers’ intrinsic desire to make a difference—but has its roots in the current approach to education that prioritises policies which swirl around the push for quality but remain disconnected from the events in classrooms (including those that flow on from “quality” policy-making). Small wonder that out-of-field teachers’ confidence and well-being start to show signs of wear as a result of their exposure to a miasma of expectations, not just those of policy, school leadership and the school community, but also their own. The assumption that highly qualified teachers perform at a higher competence level and are able to manage complex teaching and learning challenges is based in Shulman’s (1986) view of teacher knowledge and in Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (1999) notion of teachers’ “state-of-the art knowledge” (p. 259). Such expectative and idealised perceptions leave unsuitably qualified teachers questioning their professional identity and effectiveness, and striving harder towards their own desire to realise it. A first-year teacher in an out-of-field position described the constant exertion of their teaching situation: It’s bad, I am never in the staffroom because I’m always running around doing things—I’ve got a science club, I’ve got maths tutoring after school and tutoring kids during my dot [non-contact] time. I walk through the staffroom to my pigeonhole to get some stuff and they’re all sitting and having a good time. I just feel really bad. (Field data: G5)

This teacher was a beginning teacher in their first year of teaching, assigned to an out-of-field position in a low-socioeconomic school context, with a desire to do a good job and fulfil the school principal’s expectations as well as “do what is right by the students.” The teacher was specially recruited for being a star ITE graduate; she got assigned to teach in a senior mathematics subject as an out-of-field

142

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

teacher and was desperately trying to live up to her own expectations both because of her previous identity as a high achiever and the expectations placed on her by the principal. The teacher explained that by the end of the third term she was “really ill.” Out-of-field teaching positions cause teachers to feel overwhelmed and overloaded; although all teachers experience the pressure of a demanding vocational workload, teaching experiences take their toll when teachers are not suitably qualified for the positions in which they teach, are under the same expectations, and are unsupported. Constant critical reflection on personal competencies, professional identities and emotional experiences stimulates feelings of burn-out (Lloyd & Sullivan, 2012; see Fig. 5.2). McConney and Price (2009a, 2009b) have noted a gap in knowledge about the out-of-field phenomenon and teachers’ efficacy, well-being and beliefs, and the interrelationship between out-of-field teaching practices and teacher stress, burn-out and attrition. Blase, Blase and Du (2008), too, have claimed that the continuing misuse of teachers over an extended period of time impacts health and self-esteem matters, with detrimental outcomes for these teachers’ families, friends and economic means of support. Teachers’ professional well-being involves their self-esteem and self-efficacy as being confident, competent, and self-managed professionals, and this multifaceted aspect of being is “a critical predictor of teachers’ work performance, absenteeism, retention, and burn-out” as well as “students motivation, achievement, attitudes towards learning and being at school” (Day, Elliot, & Kington, 2005, p. 563). Such a summary directs attention to the specific contextual factors micro-education policies could be used to support and address.

5.5.1 A Constructivist View of Policies: Performance and Feelings of at Homeness Wilson and Cole (1991) have claimed that a constructivist approach to teaching opens reflection on possibilities of authentic versus academic contexts for learning. A safe learning environment with a healthy teaching and learning culture creates a climate, a teaching and learning habitus, where students take more control over their own learning. Central to the constructivist approach is that students are active and confident and engage in developing or constructing their own meaning while being carefully and sensitively guided by the teacher. Teaching is seen as an art of adaption to and accommodation of students’ needs in the process of their new knowledge construction (Peters, Le Cornu, & Collins, 2003). Students who demonstrate engagement and who take ownership of their own learning in spite of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon make it easier for teachers in out-of-field teaching positions. As noted, feelings of guilt and of not belonging in their positions have an influence on these teachers’ pedagogical accountability; however, when their students engage in their own pedagogical adjustments, the teachers’ work becomes easier. Ingersoll (2001) has noted that individual teachers might be able to teach a variety of subject content, but in general, teachers’ competencies to teach specific subjects

5.5 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Policies and Performance

143

are linked to passion, interest and preparation in subject-specific pedagogies, the mastering of which entails their pedagogic content knowledge. Teachers in complex and challenging teaching positions depend on support to embrace pedagogies within unfamiliar subject areas or year levels, and the consistency and quality of the support they receive assists with their personal and professional growth (Zepeda, 2006). Ingersoll and Smith (2004) have further noted that teachers’ capacity to effectively collaborate assists them to integrate content knowledge across curricula and scaffold deep learning. Bruner (1996) has described that knowledge and power, teaching and learning strategies, and the structures within a learning environment, are all interdependent elements of the sociocultural learning context. Sound pedagogical skills and specialised pedagogical content knowledge therefore enable teachers to integrate both existing and new content with their prior knowledge (Hattie, 2003), and this integration is essential because sound pedagogical content knowledge has a significant role in supporting teachers’ awareness and understanding of the diverse learning needs of students in specific subject areas (van Driel & Berry, 2012). Essentially, teachers’ capacity and skill to engage in content knowledge conversations with their students forms the foundation of knowledge construction, where prior knowledge is compared with new knowledge and learning progresses through the different levels/phases of knowing (Bruner, 1996). Interaction of this kind is fundamental for new knowledge construction, and specialist teachers are valued for their specific expertise and knowledge they competently share. These teachers’ self-efficacy and professional identity reflect confidence to adjust teaching practices. Where teachers cannot find the pedagogical “room” to see students as individuals during teaching and learning, however, this not only frustrates teachers but also influences students’ passion for the subject being taught. Social interdependence learning theories (Johnson & Johnson, 2003) thus recognise that learning is a composite social entity and uphold the importance of both teacher and student behaviour for students’ future learning and associated behaviour modification (Bandura, 1977). Teaching practices frequently involve a set way of doing things (Bondesio & De Witt, 2004), especially when teachers perceive the actions as effective and efficient. Teachers are the managers of the classroom space and adopt and rely on specific pedagogical strategies and policies within their classrooms, but the ability to develop and use different strategies is influenced by teachers’ feelings of being at home in a specific subject area or year level. Competent and confident teachers are less self-centred and can place the achievements and development of their students at the centre of their planning decisions. Teachers who are specialists focus on building constructive trust relationships with students and developing positive behaviour through these relationships (Frenzel, Goetz, Stephens, & Jacob, 2009). As discussed, these professional trust relationships impact what happens inside classrooms (see Sect. 5.3.1), and thus, by ordinary process, the future choices and decisions of teachers and their students. In short, behaviour within classrooms doesn’t occur by itself (Tauber, 2007). Bruner (1996) has added that passion and emotion are part of learning, constructing reality and developing meaning. Feeling at home in a subject or year level is represented in teachers’ commitment, enthusiasm and confidence.

144

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

Confident teachers partner with students in constructive learning undertakings and strategically build positive interdependence with a focus on social learning and integration (Joyce et al., 2000). As noted, however, research shows that the out-offield phenomenon stimulates lived experiences that hamper interaction and social interrelationships (Du Plessis, 2018b). I argue again that expectations for high levels of achievement in classrooms where the details of out-of-field teaching are being ignored create pressure on teachers. I assert that this is especially the case with inexperienced out-of-field teachers, for whom these expectations create a sense of unhappiness and feelings of guilt because of dissatisfaction with the teaching experience and their outcomes. The multilayered and interrelated nature of the factors that underpin effective teaching, and the scaffolding of various assumptions about the presence of these factors that perpetuate the out-of-field teaching practice cycle can be addressed through micro-education policies. Foundationally, I assert that micro-education policies developed in this area need to begin with the endeavour to see out-of-field teachers’ need to maintain their intrinsic motivation to succeed in a different light.

5.5.2 The Link: Performance, Context and Policies A context-conscious approach to micro-education policy design means noticing specific needs in schools (for example, those of particular geographical areas, or of multiculturalism or socioeconomics) and creating useful strategies for utilising teachers in the most effective manner during teacher recruitment and placement procedures. In this sense, policy-developers need a “mind shift.” Contextual factors call for uniquely designed policies that can manage already sensitive and complex teaching and learning environments so that the effects of out-of-field teaching practices don’t further complicate these environments. If not effectively managed, complex teaching environments can have a negative and discriminatory effect on students’ development and achievements, particularly in low-socioeconomic communities and in small and remote schools (DarlingHammond, 2002; Ingersoll, 2003a, 2003b). Research has observed that teachers in hard-to-staff schools are more likely to be assigned to positions for which they are not suitably qualified because school principals experience difficulties recruiting suitably qualified teachers to these schools. This concerns me because it means intensifying what these challenging situations already mean for the learning environment in general. Adding the complexities of out-of-field teaching to such environments can have abiding effects on education outcomes that reach beyond the school context (Du Plessis, 2018b). Stacking the common view of school leaders that “good teachers can teach anything” on top of the existing interwoven needs of complex teaching and learning environments that make decisions about staffing difficult leaves leaders likely caught in misconceptions about out-of-field matters turning a blind or frustrated eye to the specific repercussions of assigning teachers out-of-field in their schools.

5.5 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Policies and Performance

145

Remote, rural and regional schools already face performance and achievement challenges, especially in certain subject areas and year levels, and these have existing implications for students’ drop-out rates and vocational prospects as well as teacher attrition. Gordon (2007) has stated that a country’s prospects rest on the basis of a well-informed and knowledgeable workforce that are prepared through rigorous education. I argue that the foundation for an equitable approach to rigorous education is clear policy frameworks that support the management of all education spaces, including challenging teaching and learning situations, and particularly those of outof-field teaching in contexts which pose geographic and/or demographic difficulties. Chamberlin, Plucker, and Kearns (2003) have claimed that a close and influential link between teachers’ characteristics, qualifications, lived experiences, content knowledge and pedagogies keeps a balance in the teaching and learning space. Policies need to assist school leaders to maintain this balance for teachers functioning in out-of-field positions within their complicated spaces. Teaching is a highly demanding profession (Gore et al., 2015) with significant responsibility, and Linge (2008) has noted that teachers make a difference in students’ lifeworlds. Acknowledgement of the teaching profession as demanding and highly skilled highlights the wrongness of assigning teachers to out-of-field teaching positions without tailored micro-education policies in place to effectively support them. Further, limited acknowledgement of these teachers and their situations has a significant impact on policies, and as such on performance and (cyclically) contextual policy development. The wrongness of unsupported out-of-field assignments, particularly in hard-to-staff contexts, is bound together with the social justice of quality teaching and learning because of the deficits it creates in teachers’ ability to deliver content and pedagogical content knowledge (Zepeda, 2006), and, I add, the professional learning and development constraints it imposes on teachers in such positions (Ingersoll and Smith, 2004). In spite of the necessity of using staff in out-of-field teaching positions, research evidence (Du Plessis, 2014) demonstrates that the implications are manageable and positive outcomes are possible if the phenomenon is effectively managed through tailored microeducation policies that are developed from the details of out-of-field teachers’ coping strategies and lived experiences.

5.5.3 Performance Is More Than Results: Truths from the Field As discussed, teachers’ in-depth knowledge of subject matter and/or their expert knowledge of year-level developmental milestones influences their professional identity and their (and others’) perceptions of their achievement and performance. Indeed, Hattie (2009) has emphasised that the professional identity of teachers is planted in being seen as capable and competent. Acknowledging truths from the field entails “breathing in” the real-life experiences that surround “the thing-in-itself” (Gadamer,

146

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

1975, p. 307) to inform deeper understanding. Critically, teachers’ real-life experiences become one with the landscape in which they teach (Clandinin, Connelly, & Bradley, 1999) as they become what they teach (Van Manen, 2016b), drawing attention to the need for policy that fosters teachers’ positive lived experiences and environments. Key truths from the field that need to speak include the following: • the lived meaning of being out-of-field for the development of classroom cultures and student performance; • tailored micro-education policies for teacher performance expectations in out-offield classrooms; • micro-education policies for school improvement concepts; • a mind shift in policy from quick-fix solutions to strategies for long-term frameworks; and • micro-education policies that address out-of-field classroom realities such as behaviour, respect and trust-relationships (classroom truths) and their impact on performance realities. School accountability influences student performance (Hanushek & Raymond, 2005), and micro-education policies need to be developed with this in mind and thus with a close connectedness to the context in which out-of-field teaching practices occur.

5.5.3.1

The Truths About the Meaning of Being Out-of-Field for Classroom Cultures

As noted, out-of-field teachers’ being influences classroom cultures, learning approaches and subject depth and how they manage the teaching and learning space in which they function. Even out-of-field teachers who perceive out-of-field teaching as a positive experience emphasise that being out-of-field poses specific challenges for their performance and interruption/s to their existing expertise/skills and their professional skill development. Out-of-field teachers adopt coping mechanisms in an effort to maintain both their own and their students’ quality performances. The concurrent difficulties this situation presents to the classroom have been outlined, but the truth from the field is perhaps best described by a school leader, who shared that “…students can often pick up on it [the level of expertise]; they know” (Field data: G4). The habitus of teaching and learning includes the action and reaction of all of its parts: When a teacher is out-of-their-depth or is floundering in a subject field and/or year level, the balance of power, the safety and learning freedom available, and the focus of goals in that classroom shift. The truth from the field shows that floundering out-of-field teachers’ classrooms reflect a culture of “a hamster [running] in a wheel” (Field data: D6). The current absence of policies to address the cascade of issues situated in the out-of-field teaching phenomenon puts more pressure on teachers in out-of-field positions to manage on their own. Without information from the classroom, policy and

5.5 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Policies and Performance

147

policy-makers remain unaware of the pressures and challenging lived experiences that out-of-field teachers carry in an effort to maintain their commitment to quality performance (see Sect. 5.5.3.2). A discourse of teacher coping strategies “project” control or ownership of the subject- and/or year-level position, and in some cases leads to behaviour that aims solely at covering up their inadequacy. Strategies and frameworks are needed for upholding teachers’ pedagogical strength, in order to confront the problems of corroboration/complication that develop for students’ knowledge construction (and schools’ accountability to ensure knowledge construction); pedagogy needs to be supported by micro-education policies.

5.5.3.2

Tailored Micro-Education Policies and Performance Expectations

The development of tailored policies has the potential to confront out-of-field teachers’ performance challenges, their perceived inadequacies, their vulnerability and their fears that openness about their struggles might have implications for the respect of colleagues or for future teaching contracts. Ongoing lived experiences of not being good enough leave teachers’ feeling overwhelmed, and in some cases motivate a decision to leave the teaching profession (Du Plessis, 2014). As an experienced teacher with both personal exposure to out-of-field teaching practices and experience with supporting colleagues in similar positions noted, “If they realise that they’re going to have to continue to perform in that area—I’ve known people to go—‘I can’t stand that anymore’ and they go off somewhere else.” These truths about out-of-field teachers’ performance issues have the potential to contribute to knowledge development so that policies can be tailored to address these issues and effectively retain teachers who find themselves in ongoing challenging teaching positions. In other evidence, dedicated and committed teachers in out-of-field positions stated that they tried to excel in spite of being out-of-field; they admitted that they learned lessons and content by rote so they could teach them the next day: …learning it all the night before—which is what I do—even in Grade 7—there are areas that I don’t know about and you have to teach yourself. (Field data: D4)

5.5.3.3

Micro-Education Policies and School Improvement Concepts

School improvement policies need to make provision for additional support for these teachers. While inside school environments it is general knowledge that out-of-field teachers’ initial experiences in out-of-field situations are highly stressful (Du Plessis, 2014), I am often given arguments that “all teachers are stressed” and that all teaching positions cause some level of stress. Despite this reality, the extreme tension teachers in out-of-field positions absorb is confronting. The following quote from Van Manen (2016b) explains the landscape of deeper knowing that teachers need to not only display but also feel:

148

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

To know a subject does not only mean to know it well and to know it seriously in the fundamental questions it poses. To know a subject also means to hold this knowledge in a way that shows that it is loved and respected for what it is and the way it lets itself be known. (p. 61)

In stark contrast with this, a parent, also a qualified teacher, shared, “If I have to go and teach something that I know nothing about I’ll be a nervous wreck” (Field data: G1). Realising that these feelings do not go away for teachers in out-of-field positions means acknowledging that the pressure to carry on is ongoing: Each new subject theme or topic in an out-of-field subject area becomes a new challenge. Feelings of guilt about students’ performance, development and missed opportunities in the classroom because of their restricted competencies frame out-of-field teachers’ struggle to overcome adjustments to their new position. Out-of-field teachers express feelings of ongoing tension, pressure and burn-out linked to their own expectations of delivering quality teaching and maintaining quality performances. Van Manen (2016b) has claimed that teacher burn-out is “the condition of no longer knowing why we are doing what we are doing. Burn-out is the evidence of hopelessness, of no longer being able to find a positive answer to the sigh, ‘What’s the use?’” (p. 84). Policy frameworks which allow or condone teacher assignments that leave teachers feeling disillusioned about the teaching profession can only lead to the attrition and turnover that contribute to further teacher workforce challenges and perpetuate the cycle of out-of-field teaching. I emphasise that school leaders who gain an indepth understanding of these teachers’ real-life experiences will question their own decisions to assign teachers to unfamiliar subjects/year levels or to constantly move teachers between unfamiliar subject- or year-level assignments.

5.5.3.4

Mind Shift in Policy Strategies from Quick-Fix Solutions to Long-Term Frameworks

There are no quick-fix solutions for becoming a specialist teacher in an out-of-field subject area or year level: it takes time and commitment. A teacher who had begun as an out-of-field teacher but who, after 5 years in his out-of-field position saw himself as a teacher with specific expertise, shared, “It [out-of-field teaching] allows the teacher to grow. I would—[hesitated] discourage a teacher from doing it full time if they are not competent” (Field data: D1). School improvement policies need to understand that a time frame of 3 to 5 years applies to decisions about out-of-field teaching assignments and commit to developing an out-of-field teacher “assignment” into an opportunity to develop a specialist teacher with expertise. The commitment of school leaders to micro-education policies which will provide out-of-field teachers with the stability to develop their professional identities and gain expertise and skills in their out-of-field subjects is part of schools’ accountability for the quality performance of students and teachers.

5.5 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Policies and Performance

5.5.3.5

149

Classroom Truths and Performance Realities

Parents notice the impact teachers have on their children’s learning, achievements and learning outcomes and demonstrate concern regarding teachers who don’t demonstrate the expected or necessary skills. Parent/teacher interactions can become a fragile space when parents who have noticed the out-of-field teacher’s difficulties want to discuss their children’s learning needs or challenges with these teachers, as one parent shared, I only communicated with her on a social level. I didn’t dare say my son had a problem because she had so many bigger problems in that class [long silence]. She seemed to act as though there wasn’t a problem, like, “they are very boisterous”—that was when they were throwing a brick through the window. She didn’t want to talk about it. (Field data: C3)

A tricky out-of-field situation can also escalate beyond what is acceptable for the stakeholders in that context. In a specific case that highlights the vulnerability of certain types of schools, such as those in rural or remote areas, to the phenomenon and its effects, in one school, a high number of teachers in out-of-field positions lead by a principal who was himself outside his field of expertise had created a school culture of out-of-field teaching. The principal admitted that the school struggled to create a stable learning environment for its diverse student cohort (Du Plessis, 2018b), and that the situation was causing significant challenges beyond what was acceptable for a healthy teaching and learning environment. Effective communication and collaboration among teachers, parents and students is just one of the multilayered factors that are affected by ineffectively managed out-of-field teaching situations. Expressed through the eyes of parent with a need for in-depth discussion and communication about their child’s subject achievements and development, this quote demonstrates how complex and interwoven the effects of the phenomenon are: Their communication with parents [fails]—because they want to hide the fact that they’re out of their field and cover up, [they’ll say] children are doing fine when in fact they’re not, the teacher probably doesn’t even know that themselves. (Field data: F2)

Parents expect teachers to value the learning needs of their children, and embedded in such quality education expectations is the anticipation that teachers will challenge and stimulate students to engage in learning through their pedagogical skill, commitment and personal subject passion (Magolda, 2013). As described, quality teaching is underpinned by teachers’ passion in specific subjects and for specific year levels, as well as in their metacognitive ability to read and develop an openness with their students to explore new knowledge while they demonstrate the capacity to adjust their teaching practice according to their students’ learning needs (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Goldhaber & Walch, 2014; Lewis 1996; Van Manen, 2016b). Discussions with parents confirmed their expectation that their children’s excitement for learning and knowing should not be compromised by the teachers’ unsuitability for their teaching assignment. They further acknowledged their understanding that different subjects and contexts require specific pedagogies and learning theories to stimulate student enthusiasm for producing the expected achievements. One parent shared,

150

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

Depending on which area they’ve come from…it depends on personality, it depends on work ethic. If the teacher is a dedicated person but they’re not that qualified, they’ll still go out of their way to make an effort. I can’t reconcile [myself with] the fact that it happens [out-of-field teaching]. (Field data: D6)

It is clear, pedagogically, that what will stimulate student achievement and performance in one subject area or context may not be applicable in another. I return to this again and again because it is so easy for policy to generalise, but it is obvious enough that policies developed to uphold the pedagogy of a teacher in a primary music classroom would not necessarily produce a similarly useful outcome in a senior science classroom—and this is without adding to policy requirements the differences in support needs that may develop according to the teachers’ qualifications and expertise. Teacher quality and teaching quality are about positioning for differentiated teaching and learning. A significant concern in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms is how effective these teachers are to pedagogically accommodate students with special learning needs who receive additional specialist therapy to support their learning. These students show quick regression when out-of-field teachers struggle to uphold or support the individual learning that has been done in specialist therapy sessions. Dysfunctional learning environments and the flow-on effects of their complex interrelationships are too costly for a classroom and school climate not to attempt the development of policies to support these challenging spaces, particularly for at-risk and vulnerable learners. The term “at-risk” in general refers to students who are in danger of not reaching their full potential or not successfully completing their schooling. Jones and Jones (2007) have explained that at-risk students are vulnerable learners who find it difficult to adjust to complex teaching and learning environments, resulting in a struggle to make transitions towards being successful members of society. I unhesitatingly argue that micro-education policy frameworks are necessary that ensure that vulnerable students are not placed in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms where their performance and development can be significantly interrupted. A further effect of dysfunctional classrooms is the exacerbated attitudes and dispositions of negativity towards school attendance that can appear when the classroom environment is not healthy. The out-of-field classroom culture becomes challenging for teachers and students, as one parent shared: “He doesn’t want to go to school all morning and then comes home to do another two hours—he goes to school to learn” (Field data: F5). Students can develop dispositions of avoidance that stimulate absenteeism as a coping mechanism, a strategy that affects their overall academic performance and adherence, an outcome that is especially concerning in a rural school context, particularly when these schools frequently have a higher percentage of out-of-field teaching. A school leader explained their experiences with a student with special learning needs who had been placed in a struggling out-of-field teacher’s classroom: One boy was disrespectful—he was saying things like, “I don’t want to be at school, I’m going to do things so that you will expel me. I don’t want to live anymore.” We decided that the best way to handle him would for him to come in the office here and sit down with me. That created something positive in the classroom. (Field data: F3)

5.5 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Policies and Performance

151

Dysfunctional classroom contexts leave students feeling frustrated and aggravated, and these dispositions can be carried into the next classroom, and ultimately reach into students’ sociocultural development. Attitudes towards learning, teachers and peers can become challenging; yet, targeted policies which support the specific challenges of out-of-field teachers and provide a consistent behaviour code or frame within which students can experience feelings of safety and security to explore learning approaches are still absent. Van Manen (2016b) has noted students’ perceptiveness to “inconsistencies” and stated that they “cannot be misled by a teacher’s fake enthusiasm or false expertise. A teacher who does not know what he or she is talking about is soon unmasked” (p. 57). The key perceptions captured through field research observations of out-of-field teachers’ classroom contexts demonstrate that out-offield teachers do struggle to maintain consistency in their classrooms and that this stimulates uncertainties among students who then act out behaviour and performance in accordance with uncertainty. Students’ performance in classrooms is more than the results they achieve; their performances reflect not only their personal truths but also who they become within a specific context. An awareness of self and of others is fundamental in actions and behaviour, and students who do not perceive their teachers as the knowledgeable other will display certain performances that relate to this truth. Absenteeism as a result of out-of-field experiences is a concern not only for students but also for the teachers in these challenging teaching positions. An out-offield teacher discussed their strategy to cope with an out-of-field teaching situation, saying, “The plan was to take six months leave without pay and work somewhere where I just do not have to deal with [crying again] stress and—just to calm myself down” (Field data: E5). These situations are not unique to one school; an experienced teacher asked to fill-in in an out-of-field position described similar lived experiences: “This is not for me. The kids don’t have respect. I can’t control them.” The teacher further shared, “I mean I’ve known people to give up and go on extended sick leave and things like that because of not being able to cope” (Field data: F4). Out-of-field teachers admit that strained relationships with students and parents create feelings of tension and anxiety and cause them to struggle to confidently manage classroom pedagogies. Out-of-field teachers can struggle to control content and behaviour issues at the same time; perceptions of their competence then have flow-on effects. A parent shared, It just didn’t seem as if she had control over the class. My son needs guidelines, boundaries. I noticed the kids were milling around, they were shouting at each other. She couldn’t get control… (Field data: C5)

Once classrooms are perceived as disorderly and disruptive it becomes almost impossible to turn the situations around because of a lack of respect from students. In frank conversations, both teachers and parents explained that inconsistent actions, strategies and implementation of behaviour policies by school leaders exacerbated these complex situations, as well as how they could take ownership of their accountability within these situations. I argue that such outcomes are a product of school leaders misunderstanding the specific effects of the phenomenon on behaviour and classroom

152

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

climate, and as a result choosing contextually disconnected school policy actions (see Sects. 5.5.4 and 5.6.1). Although classroom management is discussed by many teachers as a key challenge of teaching, this challenge becomes a major issue in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms, and even more so if they are inexperienced teachers. The implications of the detailed truths inside classrooms and what these means for students’ performance often get overlooked because of the pace of teaching and learning that teachers’ have to manage. Heidegger has discussed how easy it is to overlook the realities within the social context (Gadamer, 1976/2008) because of prejudice, pre-understanding and personal understanding. I argue that the real-life experiences of teachers assigned to out-of-field teaching positions (and those of their students) are often disregarded as temporary and the impact of ineffective policies to do other than increase their various dilemmas and issues goes unnoticed.

5.5.4 Performance Perceptions, Policy Frameworks and the Wider Education Community In terms of current policy about staffing and staff assignments, pressure on school leaders means that staff need to be placed out-of-field. Policies dispensed at school level about subjects, education improvement—as well as other local level changes of staff movement and cohort sizes—leave openings that school leaders urgently need to fill, resulting in unreasonable or challenging assignments, unfair reassignments or where-needed offers. This may be arranged via a conversation between the school leader and the teacher; however, a desire for compliance with requests from school leaders often motivates teachers in these situations to agree to teach subjects outside their field of qualification and expertise (Du Plessis et al., 2018). In comparison with this tendency, research shows that teachers generally desire long-term or fulltime employment rather than short-term contracts (Du Plessis et al., 2018). I argue that human capital concerns need to be seen as an integral composite part of quality education provision. Internal reassignments and challenging teacher placements need better management because of what they mean both for teachers’ well-being and effectiveness, and for quality in the classroom. Ling (2008) has underlined that quality teachers influence quality education systems and added that teachers influence nations’ economic validation. Expectations for quality education systems are intrinsically connected with perceptions of teacher competence, teaching quality and teacher quality: Education quality means student performance and achievement are the result of quality teaching. This suggests the question, “Is there an extreme focus on the end product without appreciating the processes of performance that build towards these expected achievements?” Certainly, perceptions of the wider school community about quality education, in terms of quality teaching and outcomes, form the foundation of any assessment of a school’s

5.5 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Policies and Performance

153

effectiveness to offer students quality learning opportunities. While I assert that accurately and fully conceptualising quality teachers and quality teaching are complicated and context-dependent on classroom truths (Eppley, 2009), the issue of demanding quality from systems via appraisal of teachers alone neglects that quality issues are often rooted in inconsistencies in policy development or implementation within schools; the out-of-field teaching phenomenon is an example. Unfortunately, perceptions about teacher performance can quickly connect to the school culture or image; further, perceptions about schools’ quality teaching and learning status then influence teachers’ career decisions. Olson (2000) has noted that teachers with expertise or specialist experience are more likely to leave schools where behavioural issues go unresolved, or where the school environment is otherwise perceived as dysfunctional. Out-of-field teachers admit that they are highly stressed when they feel that they are not in control of their teaching situation (Du Plessis, 2005), and notice that the wider education community link teacher and student performance appraisal to the level of power, knowledge and ownership teachers have over their teaching positions. And yet, these teachers still feel that they have to be able to fulfil the required quality expectations, even when this is unrealistic in their out-of-field teaching position. Not being able to fulfil performance expectations greatly influences their vocational motivation, as noted, but I argue that it also implicates their rights as employees. Furthermore, existing policy frameworks that fail to acknowledge the phenomenon—such as, for example, standard appraisal and performance assessments of teachers while they function in out-of-field positions that are administered as if they are fully qualified for these roles—have further implications for out-of-field teachers’ professional image, the perceived value they add in the eyes of their employers, and for their vocational rights. I argue that educational and school policies need to make particular provision for teachers in these positions to have access to detailed professional support and development. Mayer (2005) has highlighted that the purpose of educational accountability models is for “government agencies to implement mechanisms to assure the public that all students are achieving the same acceptable standards of achievement” (p. 177). Where such mechanisms are invisibly skewed towards expert teacher/teaching situations, it is difficult for necessary concerns to surface that go beyond the level of education students are receiving from teachers and begin to intersect with the fairness of the tests themselves as generic mechanisms. Until out-of-field teaching is acknowledged by leadership, how quality concerns are affected by those teachers being assigned to out-of-field positions, as well as how these particular implications on student achievement can be better managed, will remain “under the carpet.” Policy-developers need to develop an in-depth understanding of out-of-field teachers’ predicament of constant self-evaluation, self-criticism and questioning of their professional identity, as well as what this means for their daily in situ performances: Ongoing feelings of doubt affect a teacher’s ability to set and reach goals in their classrooms (Brouwers & Tomic, 1999). Suitably qualified, specialist teachers confidently build effective and progressive learning contexts free from indecision. Darling-Hammond (2003) has shared,

154

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

…the most important thing a school administrator at the school or district level can do to improve student achievement is to attract, retain, and support the continued learning of well-prepared and committed teachers. (p. 2)

The nature of out-of-field teaching, on the other hand, constrains the breadth of a subject area (or the development of students within a specific year level) across the scope of teaching and learning, mostly because of teachers’ restricted content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. In comparison with suitably qualified and knowledgeable teachers, who are able to identify and apply productive pedagogies in coherence with course design requirements for knowledge integration (Dorman & McDonald, 2005), out-of-field teachers admit that they lack the skills and confidence to develop unfamiliar curricula and develop feelings of self-doubt. Without a sound knowledge of the most appropriate pedagogical content knowledge, out-of-field teachers are hesitant to explore new, needed pedagogical approaches, but still retain their intrinsic motivation for the performance expectations that have become misaligned and unrealistic. A fear of not fulfilling student achievement expectations and feelings of guilt because of the undesirable outcomes their restricted skills have for their own performance, students’ achievements and how the wider school community will perceive them all exacerbate dispositions of anxiety. Further to this progression, Hall and Hord (2001) have claimed that unsatisfied teachers can transform into self-centred teachers when they continue to teach at a level of constant uncertainty; their usual pedagogical objectives turn into short-term (day-to-day) goals and teaching strategies of survival. Yet, even with these truths in hand, a need for clear understanding of the particular impact of the out-of-field phenomenon on teachers and teacher behaviour and efficacy (as well as on student outcomes and beyond) must return to the importance of targeted policy development that is continuously reflexive, so that policies can be reassessed for their suitably to reach the issues that appear in specific contexts. Bruner (1996) has accentuated that learning is a social/communal activity embedded in the social structures or micro-societies of classrooms. School policies set up by school leaders that directly link micro-education policy development and implementation to classrooms can develop a school culture that prioritises the efficacy and health of the teaching and learning environment. Such frameworks and strategies for the construction of classroom societies are essential in the development of learning cultures and experiences that fully support all students’ learning and teachers’ teaching. It is fatal to overlook teachers in the process of policy development; as both Hall and Hord (2001) and Hattie (2009) have claimed, teachers are the most influential resource of any effective change or transformation process in education. Once policy-developers, decision-makers and school leaders acknowledge the importance of teachers to quality education they have to acknowledge their pedagogical accountability regarding teacher-related decisions. The influence of out-of-field teacher placements and assignments on the smooth progression, adjustments or rapid transformation in education influences the quality perceptions of the wider education community. Education policies and school improvement policies cannot expect to

5.5 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Policies and Performance

155

be effective while they continue to ignore the intertwined and multilayered impact of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon within schools. Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivist theory underlines the role of the knowledgeable other to guide and successfully facilitate learning as part of creating a stable and safe learning space for students to explore new concepts. I highlight that the role of educational and school policies is to stay connected to the realities of classrooms and schools and to scaffold the specific development of these spaces for all teachers, especially those who lack the necessary qualifications for their assigned roles and so struggle to effectively establish these spaces.

5.6 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Dispositions and Policies Teaching is an emotionally laden, situated social process; contextual factors greatly influence the dispositions that occur in the classroom environment. The dispositions of out-of-field teachers and their students are reflections of their lived experience, and the arguments and empirical research evidence already presented demonstrate how these interrelated dispositions and lived experiences influence the learning and teaching environment. As discussed, out-of-field teaching placements challenge teachers and students and compromise performance, as well as corrode the learning culture and frustrate teachers and students if they do not achieve the results expected (Nielsen, 2007). Key dispositions that influence the teaching space involve anxiety, tension, guilt, blame and lack of acknowledgment. Some school leaders recognise that negative dispositions among out-of-field teachers are stimulated by their lived experiences while in these positions. As an educational director summarised, Teachers take it [out-of-field positions] and don’t like it, and go under. When they’ve got three classes out-of-field, they’re in strife, the psychology, in the end they don’t want to do the course, it’s just too hard. (Field data: Director 1)

As noted, teachers’ passion for a specific subject area or year level (Gore et al., 2015) is part of their intrinsic motivation for teaching and contributes to experiences of satisfaction within classroom contexts. This educational director further explained the depth and breadth of teachers’ emotional engagement and commitment, and how more specific dispositions rooted in feelings of guilt, belongingness and uncertainty are linked to teaching beliefs, perceptions of self-efficacy, values and commitment, and acknowledged that these dispositions were products of teaching complexity: The pressure out-of-field teachers experience involves their own and others’ expectations for outcomes, identify and satisfaction. The educational director stated that knowing they are not achieving community expectations leaves out-of-field teachers feeling vulnerable and exposed:

156

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

Causing a lot of stress, it’s unhealthy—we’re all to blame for it, every system is to blame— we do our own internal analysis of school results. Your performance is openly measured, that’s out there. (Field data: Director 1)

I question whether current policies are targeted to accommodate, protect and support teachers in these vulnerable positions. Are policy development decisions there to judge and manipulate, or to support and guide? Yet, high expectations for achievements and results that are disconnected from the realities in contexts continue to stimulate a discourse of teacher and school leader quality accountability. Acknowledging this discourse, including its pressure towards assessment policies, means recognising the need for an awareness of the dispositions of distress that are stimulated by these contextually unrealistic expectations for achievement and accountability. A school principal highlighted that the preponderance of such discourses that give no recognition to lived experiences stimulates out-of-field teachers’ feelings of being punished: The level of accountability, it’s the big stick. It’s out of kilter. There’s no vision. There’s no speech that makes you think. (Field data: G2)

Teaching is not an act of going to work and back again. Teachers have to love what they are doing to excel and achieve quality outcomes. Research shows that out-offield teachers’ continuous exposure to pressure and feelings of anxiety stimulates dispositions of burn-out (Du Plessis, 2014; Van Manen, 2016b), an issue which leans towards teacher motivation, job satisfaction, health and career span (Pietarinen, Pyhältö, Soini, & Salmela-Aro, 2013). These dispositions provide understanding of the interrelationships between teachers’ professional social context (and the voice they have there), their feelings of at homeness in their working environment, and their strategies to cope, insight which arguably has urgent implications for education policy development.

5.6.1 Dispositions and Accountability Colleagues teaching next to out-of-field teachers express concerns about the realities inside out-of-field classrooms. It is expected that that out-of-field teachers will cope with out-of-field subjects without major disruptions; however, as noted, this is frequently not the case. Specialist teacher colleagues notice the emotional state of students when they emerge from a struggling out-of-field teacher’s classroom, and feel they end up having to “fix” the behaviour and frustration issues that have developed there when the students come to their classrooms. School leaders expressed an apprehension about gaps that develop in students’ learning as a result of out-of-field teaching, as well as, in particular, students’ disengagement from learning and/or a decrease in their achievement motivation. Effective management of the needs and culture within the school entails leaders having an operational awareness and sensitivity towards community unrest, especially that which might impact the image of the school and end up having implications for enrolments

5.6 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Dispositions and Policies

157

and perceptions of the quality of education the school offers. School leaders admitted that they recognised emotions such as angst in out-of-field teachers and that the dispositions connected to these emotions were affecting what was happening inside these teachers’ classrooms. School leaders also indicated that timely management of these dispositions and emotions was essential, and I assert that frameworks and strategies need to be in place (e.g., scheduled meetings and discussion opportunities) to notice and attend to issues as soon as they surface—not just to alleviate classroom situations, but also to support out-of-field teachers with the acknowledgement of leadership and to create a school culture of taking proactive actions. A principal rationalised that [teaching] outside your area of expertise is a burden and anything [accentuated] that is a burden has a cost. (Field data: C6)

This recently appointed principal explained how moving from secondary school leadership into primary school leadership had placed him in an out-of-field position. The principal identified personal emotions of “being out-of-field” as being “very much out of my depth within the Early Years—very much out of my area of comfort” (Field data: C6). These experiences and feelings of not being at home or comfortable in the specific leadership position have implications for leadership decisions, strategies, approaches to teacher placements and school policy development. Another principal with a similar experience clarified, I was out-of-field, I taught SOSE [society and environmental studies] whereas the minute I walked in here [primary school] I felt like I was coming home, whereas up there [secondary school] I had to learn everything every night before. (Field data: D4)

School leaders’ awareness of the role teachers’ intrinsic motivation plays in classroom success will reflect this understanding in the policies they incorporate in their schools. School principals know from experience that teachers’ dispositions and emotions impact the schools’ effectiveness to improve and transform, as shared by a school principal, Those that are unsuitably qualified with the right attitude will make that leap [and], those that haven’t got the right attitude won’t make that leap and it will be an absolute disaster for everybody. (Field data: C6)

School leaders shared that being out-of-field created complicated relationships and issues, but felt that targeted support could develop attitudes that benefitted the teacher and students’ learning. I argue that school leaders also have a pedagogical accountability to ensure they themselves have attitudes that will benefit teachers in out-offield positions, and that they make decisions which ensure the right support for these teachers so they can fulfil expectations.

158

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

5.6.2 Being Out-of-Field Is an Emotional Journey Understanding that the role of policies can be to uphold context-conscious frameworks and strategies that are closely connected to the emotional experiences of out-of-field teachers brings these teachers’ own understandings of being out-of-field into the policy lens. Underlying systemic causes of (at least) some of these emotional expressions turns focus to school leaders’ policy implementation, understanding and development, and whether teachers have to take these positions or whether they want to take them. Key factors that are highlighted through the journey of being an out-of-field teacher include consideration of • school leaders’ power of decision-making and what it means in terms of placing beginning teachers out-of-field; • the out-of-field teaching journey as being emotionally unsafe; • lived experiences as binding dispositions to the emotional journey; and • who out-of-field teachers are in the world of schooling (teacher voice and being). Being out-of-field is an emotional journey from the beginning. A specialist maths teacher shared that, owing to school leaders’ strategic decisions, “teachers get their timetable and see they’ve got four different out-of-field subject areas” (Field data: E2). This manner of subject allocation had evidently happened without discussion or negotiation with the teachers, demonstrating the self-confessed pressure of school leaders’ workforce management decisions. Yet, these human resource situations often developed into highly fragile real-life experiences. An experienced teacher observed that out-of-field teachers quickly start to feel emotionally unsafe, and noted how rapidly teachers’ self-confidence could change under such circumstances. Another specialist teacher acknowledged that out-of-field teachers tried to maintain an image of success at a cost: “They do their best, but they [feel] stressed and burnt out and [will] not last the distance” (Field data: C2). Explanations from out-of-field teachers of their lived experiences ranged from feeling “a bit bare,” to experiencing “a culture shock,” feeling emergent fear—“am I going to be able to keep going with this?”, which was also more acutely expressed as, “will I survive this?” The emotional journey and dispositions that develop because of out-of-field teaching and its meanings are particularly clarified by experienced teachers assigned to teach subjects outside qualifications. Despite their extensive pedagogical strengths and professional skill sets, these teachers still struggle to cope in out-of-field positions. Many admitted that initial dispositions of loyalty towards the school and school leaders lead to their decisions to agree to the out-of-field assignment. They further observed that once in the position, they were “self-critical,” “not comfortable” and “out of [their] comfort zone.” One experienced out-of-field teacher admitted, “last week I went home and thought, what have I done, maybe I should have said no” (Field data: C7). An experienced teacher assigned to an out-of-field position after 15 years in a specialist subject area of primary schooling described strong feelings of burn-out and constant challenge:

5.6 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Dispositions and Policies

159

A massive amount of extra hours—it’s been exhausting, it is a big change, it is a huge responsibility and you have that pressure on you, it’s been really stressful! You are the one that teaches them for their last year [Year 7] in primary school. It’s pretty hard… (Field data: C7)

Van Manen (2016b) has claimed that what teachers “see” depends on “who and how” these teachers “are in the world” (my emphasis, p. 23). Being out-of-field is an especially emotional journey for beginning teachers who are still developing their professional identity. Beginning teachers in out-of-field positions particularly feel the uncertainty of their restricted content knowledge and have only their disconnected (subject/year level) pedagogical content knowledge and relatively untested pedagogical knowledge to fall back on. The journey of uncertainty and related dispositions shared by a first-year beginning teacher was of great intensity: I just constantly think about it, I can’t get to sleep. (Field data: G5)

Beginning teachers need well-designed support structures and strategies to help them make sense of the complex layers of their out-of-field teaching responsibilities before the situation turns sour, as one beginning teacher shared: “I hate this class. I don’t want to be there” (Field data: E5). When these strained or negative dispositions are observed by students, colleagues and parents—for example, collateral data evidence from this school was that this teacher was “a grumpy thing” or was “…just constantly cranky”—it is clear that concern and uneasiness from out-of-field teaching spread into the school community. Pertinently, as another out-of-field teacher admitted, “Your attitude or your behaviour reflects back on the kids” (Field data: E5). The progression of dispositions expressed by out-of-field teachers on the job moves from an effort to like or stimulate interest in the out-of-field subject, to the stress that becomes a major part of the everydayness of teaching, until eventually, teaching itself becomes a burden. Questioning the strength and validity of ITE in preparing teachers for the classroom only holds so much water; I argue that relevant professional learning and development (see Sect. 1.2.4, 11.2.3 and 11.2.4) opportunities for out-of-field teachers need to be prioritised in school contexts. Teachers’ emotional experiences can become severe over an extended period of time spent out-of-field, resulting in deeper issues; some admit ending up in need of counselling for burn-out, restoration of well-being and mental health support. Teachers also admit taking sick leave because of their struggle to deal with their emotional load and with the misconceptions school leaders have about their experiences of out-of-field teaching. Out-of-field teachers often have to work through feelings of doubt and disappointment because of their school leaders’ lack of understanding of the impact the phenomenon has on their competence, confidence, skills and achievements. Among teachers, it is known and acknowledged that the phenomenon pushes teachers to the limits: “I’ve known people to give up and go on extended sick leave and things like that because of not being able to cope” (Field data: F4). Unaddressed implications of the out-of-field phenomenon evidently stimulate extended absenteeism, with one out-of-field teacher admitting that they considered “…leave without pay” and even moving to another job where they did not have to deal with stress and could find some balance in their lives and “calm…down” (Field data: E5).

160

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

An experienced teacher in an out-of-field position explained that most of the pressure teachers experience comes from themselves because they want to do a good quality job. Teachers do not want to let down the students in their care and state that the consequent self-critique and embarrassment are a constant part of the emotional pressure of their out-of-field teaching experiences. These teachers also admit that they often do not feel worthy of sharing personal experiences and perceptions with leadership or other staff, an emotion which itself creates further feelings of frustration because the teacher feels “…so out of my element” but also feels cut off from the support they need because “they [leaders] don’t understand what I’m going through.” The primary emotion out-of-field teachers express as motivating them to leave the profession is “guilt,” and “feeling guilty a lot of the time…” (Field data: E5) because of their own and others’ perceptions that they are supposed to be able to perform quality teaching when they feel that they cannot. These teachers state that they spend extended time reflecting on and becoming stressed about everything they do, which leaves them further exhausted. While admitting to feeling the pressure of out-of-field teaching (see Fig. 5.2), some teachers acknowledged that the position could become more bearable over time: “I can see the light at the end of the tunnel” (Field data: F4). Teachers and school leaders also acknowledged that some out-of-field teachers enjoy the challenge of teaching new and unfamiliar subjects, but that it depends on “the type of person” (Field data: G4) and the resilience of the individual. This is, however, not assurance of quality teaching, although it carries an advantage in that teachers’ passion and interest in a subject area can positively affect their journey to develop into a teacher with expertise in spite of them being out-of-field. The general feeling in schools is that teachers, both specialist and out-of-field teachers, “take the bullet” of the out-of-field experience, with specialist teachers “carrying” struggling out-of-field teachers. Specialist teachers disclosed that they feel partly responsible for out-of-field teachers but are unsure how to support them within a school environment where there are already constant changes being made to their own subject responsibilities.

5.6.3 Dispositions: School Leaders’ Role to Scaffold and Voice Real-Life Experiences As already observed, school leaders admit that they are often compelled to utilise teachers in out-of-field positions because they have exhausted their other options. Many acknowledged that the out-of-field teaching phenomenon stimulates emotional experiences that need to be carefully managed, but also admitted that schools “are busy and crazy environments,” and that there is limited time to pay attention to the needs that arise from challenging teaching experiences. I argue that targeted policy development would provide the support school leaders need to engage with the management of this multilayered phenomenon and so improve the chances of

5.6 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Dispositions and Policies

161

keeping out-of-field teachers, who are doubting their value in the profession. As discussed, the creation of a healthy school culture is the responsibility of school leaders, who need to develop strategies and approaches to address issues that are affecting a healthy culture and to manage related concerns. Policy, therefore, needs to scaffold this process for busy school leaders, so that they are able to proactively notice and prioritise issues of teacher disposition such as that described by one school leader, who stated that out-of-field teachers “have got their guards up,” and do not feel safe within their school contexts or among their colleagues. Issues of trust are corrosive to school workplace cultures. The everydayness of schooling becomes a major challenge when healthy professional interrelationships are compromised, particularly for those already feeling unworthy and struggling to engage with an equality of voice to share their teaching difficulties. Careful leadership management of out-of-field teachers’ dispositions can have positive implications for how out-of-field teachers perceive their lived experiences in classrooms, their belongingness to the school community and their job satisfaction. But when responsibilities are seen as being unfairly assigned, school environments can be perceived as emotionally unsafe, as a school leader explained: We’ve got one learning area…it has imploded this year, in-fighting, it’s just been terrible and that has really impacted on staff. There’s been a lot of hostility and a lot of anger. The burden falls on one or two… (Field data: E3)

Out-of-field teachers dislike being seen as not having an area of expertise as it affects others’ perceptions of them and how they are accepted in the staff community. Continuous exposure to workplace conflicts, disagreements, and a loss of control can lead teachers to stop being creative, show decreased interest in teaching or even to “pull the pin” on teaching (Field data: D1). In such situations, leaders need to be enabled to act. Some school principals managing out-of-field teaching positions admitted experiencing feelings of distress just thinking about the implications out-of-field teaching might have on their school contexts (and expected achievements). One school principal, however, shared the pragmatic view that teachers in out-of-field positions do not last if they are not coping: “They’re not retained. They don’t want to stay and they don’t get pleasure out of the position” (Field data: G2). Restricted dispositions of respect, loyalty and honour influence out-of-field teachers’ voice. When beginning teachers experience that colleagues and students “don’t have respect” (Field data: F4) for them—especially when the realisation comes that this is connected to the fact that they themselves “…can’t control them [the students]”—this can lead teachers to feel that something is intrinsically wrong with their performance and that leaving the teaching profession is the logical option because (obviously) “…this is not for me” (Field data: F4). Self-doubt unveils itself in other ways, too: as noted, in spite of being uncertain, out-of-field teachers may try to project an image of coping and being effective, but if within this self-styled image they still do not have the confidence to take part in specialist teachers’ group discussions, this can lead to misconceptions about the support they actually require, and so further isolate them.

162

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

Research data highlighted a concerning tendency for school leaders to focus on well-maintained administrative tasks “that look good on paper” even when these are actually quite disconnected from the realities in the challenging classrooms of out-offield teachers. Specific needs that develop in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms, such as the behavioural and achievement challenges that cause teachers to lose control and credibility in the classroom and in the wider school environment, need most attention, but policy frameworks to address these kinds of issues are “patchy” (Field data: Director 1). The patchy frameworks, I argue, are a result of school leaders not noticing, knowing and understanding the deeply rooted challenges the out-of-field teaching phenomenon brings to the being of a teacher and the being of students. The connectedness and support of educational leaders to the cascade brought on by unaddressed out-of-field difficulties in schools can bring a significant change to the impact this phenomenon has on the teaching and learning context. Yet, currently, interpretations of the responsibility of support exist because policy frameworks are disconnected from classroom realities, are often ambiguous, are not well structured, or even, in some schools, are non-existent. School leaders’ assumptions that out-offield teachers’ and their colleagues will carry, support and ensure “the follow through” of education quality that these classrooms still need to provide (despite the contextual challenges created by the phenomenon) are unrealistic without set frameworks that guide and direct the improvement needed in out-of-field teachers’ knowledge and experiences in their classrooms. Left as though to manage or resolve itself, the outof-field teaching phenomenon and its emotional effects can ripple throughout the whole school context, affecting not only those in out-of-field classrooms but also general dispositions across the teaching and learning space, resulting in complex school environments where out-of-field teachers’ voices disappear.

5.6.4 Out-of-Field Dispositions: Students’ and Parents’ Longing for Stability Parents can be more aware than leadership of the difficulties out-of-field teachers face inside their classroom contexts because of their close contact with the experiences and dispositions of their children. Students spend so much time with teachers, who “absolutely influence the feelings” of the students in their classrooms (Field data: C3). The emotions students may experience while they are part of an out-of-field classroom, such as anxiety, frustration and/or fear because of the unpredictability of the fragile environment, or finding the classroom disturbing and/or disheartening, can make parents especially attentive to what is happening there. In addition, parents’ priority for maintaining their own perceptions of the school as a healthy and quality environment where students can excel means they notice the issues and dilemmas which appear to impact this goal. Parents notice when teachers are struggling emotionally; as one parent stated, “[it was the] way she was…a couple of times she wasn’t there in the mornings” (Field

5.6 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Dispositions and Policies

163

data: C5). Increased absenteeism provoked by the stress of out-of-field teaching impacts stakeholders’ sensation of the workplace stability of the school, and “can be very disheartening,” as one parent (Field data: D3) noticed, if teachers are coming and going and the school is not equipped with policies or strategies to approaches and manage the related issues that develop for student learning and coping in changing classroom environments. Continuous changes to teacher placement greatly impact the stability of the workplace; those that also involve transformation of subjector year-level responsibilities are well summarised by a parent from an out-of-field teachers’ wider school community, who acknowledged, “it must be soul destroying” for these teachers to try and keep up an image of effectiveness (Field data: D3). A school principal noted that teacher instability also affects subject perception and engagement, saying, “There are people who are looking for jobs but they’re not appropriate as teachers of a subject that many students are already very alienated and disengaged from” (Field data: G2). The perceptual and emotional flow-on effects of out-of-field teaching appear in this case to have run their course and bent back into an even more complicated shape: The school was compelled to acknowledge the issue (noted by another school leader) that a “specialist teacher has more passion” (Field data: E3). The dispositions and effects of out-of-field teaching are not an indictment on particular teachers but are a product of the corrosion of confidence that comes with being “out of [their] depth”; I again highlight the pressure out-of-field teachers experiences to perform their vocational role at a high level of quality when their intrinsic motivation is dislodged, especially as students are quick to “switch off ” (Field data: E6) when passion for a subject is absent. As discussed, classroom contexts where teachers struggle to feel and infuse learning with the passion that engages students can quickly change into dysfunctional contexts where students and teachers struggle to engage in learning. “Boring” environments upset students who want to learn and get on with activities that uphold the fun side of learning. When the out-of-field experience becomes the controlling factor in the classroom, it has flow-on effects for students’ dispositions. As a parent shared, If your child comes unhappy home from school, you’ve got to deal with it, it just impacts on the choices you make as a family to spend time together ’cause you’re ending up drying up tears and sorting out issues like that. So, you’re ending up fixing problems… (Field data: D3)

Understandably, fixing problems has its own implications for teacher–parent professional interrelationships. While I argue that when schools do not have targeted policies in place to manage the out-of-field teaching situations, students’ resulting emotional experiences require parental engagement, I also argue with DarlingHammond (2010a) that key educational resources both inside and outside schools can influence the outcomes of a school. Well-designed policies can effectively and deliberately connect up the resources of parents and teachers to support these complex teaching situations, particularly in acknowledgement of their shared concern for students’ ontological ramifications. In an example that highlights the need for policy frameworks to be deliberately connected to context and emotion, some students pick up on their teacher’s anxiety and stress, and become anxious themselves (Du Plessis,

164

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

2014); the resultant emotional journey of one family with an at-risk primary child in an out-of-field teacher’s classroom was described in detail by one of the parents: It got worse and worse and worse—by week nine there were talks about suspension. In just six weeks it had gone down [soft voice, looking tired and sad], and I didn’t know where it would go from there. I felt bad—suspension—I just thought—wow [long silence]—how much worse can it get? I sometimes felt physically sick…His self-esteem was linked to that. I just struggled [intense voice] with him being so miserable, I struggled with his attitude, his anger because he had problems with his sister; he took it out on her, me and my husband. (Field data: C5)

In such situations, families can suffer greatly when they are disempowered to act because of the unstructured policy environments surrounding complex classroom contexts. School policies need to protect the teaching and learning environment. Leadership acknowledgement of the effects of the out-of-field phenomenon might have pre-emptively restricted the placement of this at-risk child in an out-of-field teacher’s classroom. I assert that procedures for parental consultation in specific cases are warranted. Furthermore, as previously noted, students’ negative emotional experiences at school can develop into negative feelings about school, something that can be particularly concerning in the primary phase of education. One parent explained how her gifted child, who used to enjoy school and loved learning, changed while being in an out-of-field teachers’ classroom: …he doesn’t want to go to school and that is my frustration because he loves school, he loves to learn but in these circumstances he is going to be left behind. Everything has been fine [up to now] but this year was a big shock for me. (Field data: F5)

This parent described that a whole year in the out-of-field teachers’ classroom had made certain decisions necessary for her child: He is so bored! I am so glad it is the end of the year, he is not going to have this. We have arrangements for another school. I am not going to struggle every day to get him to school. (Field data: F5)

Out-of-field teachers struggle to be successful in making students feel valued (i.e., to acknowledge them individually). The emotional experiences students have in classrooms influence how they see themselves as successful in their learning and achievements, and who they feel they are within the classroom community and the society of their peers, an aspect of education that can reach beyond the classroom walls. Students with specific learning needs are more at risk of struggling emotionally in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms. The acknowledgement of students’ uniqueness and their specific learning needs enhances their learning experiences and improves their approaches to taking risks with their learning. Structured school policies for open communication and teacher–parent collaboration about the out-of-field phenomenon can become particularly essential for students who are sensitive or emotionally fragile learners; these different personalities/learners can go through a severe adjustment phase in the unstable environment of an out-of-field teacher’s classroom, with significant implications for their learning. A mother explained what had happened to her son:

5.6 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Dispositions and Policies

165

Isaac [now in Year 2], went through the first term in the midst of a daze because of what was happening in the class. That really made me worry about him—he is already a wee bit behind; I thought, He can’t waste time! [Emotional, intense, long silence]… (Field data: C4)

Moreover, it is not just sensitive students who are affected by teachers’ dispositions and emotions; students who are part of a class where challenging behaviour is not well managed demonstrate changed emotional behaviour themselves. If students are feeling stressed or uncertain in classrooms, school leaders and parents need frameworks to guide action before learning approaches unravel. Parents can be a resource for policies; they know when teaching and learning are coming “unstuck” for their children. As one parent described: Kids were frustrated. The biggest thing was counselling the kids to understand that in life you’ll get these situations happening, I was philosophical about it and said, you’re still to do your best. Teachers get discouraged in their skills and their ability in an area they are not competent—the children see the lack of confidence. (Field data: E6)

Parents trust that schools have students’ best interests at heart and have the necessary strategies, approaches and policies in place to support all students (and their parents). School improvement policies need to allow a collaborative stance between school and home to make it possible for parents to offer out-of-field teachers support. Strategies that uphold the contextually aware contribution of parents who are close enough to know when teachers are struggling may strengthen a situation where students’ emotional and learning needs are being overlooked because of teachers’ focus on gaining adequate control of the unfamiliar subject matter. Micro-education policies developed to support this kind of interrelationship begin with visible systemic acknowledgement of the phenomenon and breed cooperative acceptance at school level. As one parent described: It happens a whole lot more than what we realise. I was unaware that it is such an issue, it concerned me, I try to stay positive to my daughter about the environment, the teacher and the other children. (Field data: C3)

Experiences that seem to diverge from this impact not only on students’ current learning, but also on their subject decisions and future learning, with demonstrated potential to cause alarm and disruption in the family environment. In cases where the out-of-field situation was not managed in time, both mental and physical health issues were experienced by parents, students and teachers. Parents’ perceptions show awareness of the restricted learning that takes place in out-of-field classrooms, and the dysfunctions that can develop when the teacher struggles to present as the knowledgeable other. Parental concerns focus on what the out-of-field phenomenon means for student achievements, directing the attention of policy in this area to the shared value of quality education.

166

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

5.7 Summary The implications of the out-of-field phenomenon on classrooms, teacher and student performances, dispositions, and the emotional and social journey of teaching and learning generate strong questions about the acceptability of the worldwide common practice of assigning teachers to out-of-field positions. While acknowledging the need for teachers to teach out-of-field, the challenges out-of-field practices develop for teachers and students make the reassessing of systemic education policies and micro-education policies to support the phenomenon and its embedded composite parts at school level a necessity. Strategic change and transformation policies cannot overlook the realities inside classrooms or ignore lived experiences that feed dispositions of stress and a lack of self-confidence among students and teachers. Teachers’ pedagogical accountability is linked to their content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, all of which form the foundation for student achievements. The restricted knowledge of out-of-field teachers influences their self-efficacy, and once teachers’ self-esteem is lacking, they become critical of their professional competence. Targeted policy development can play a significant role in changing the out-offield teaching and learning space in a timely manner by noticing, acknowledging and protecting the emotions and dispositions of students, teachers, parents and school leaders immersed in these spaces. Well-developed policies can support and offer guidance to ensure that complexities in these teaching and learning spaces are supported and can therefore provide the stability needed to achieve the expected outcomes. Gadamer (1975) has stated that “the meaning of the word cannot be detached from the event of proclamation—its eventual character is part of the meaning itself” (p. 387). In keeping with this, real attention to the hermeneutics of teaching and learning means gaining an in-depth understanding of real-life experiences from the field in an endeavour to interpret these truths and develop them into targeted strategies that can genuinely improve teaching and learning environments. In agreement with Du Plessis, Carroll, and Gillies (2015), who have noted that different leadership models greatly influence teachers’ lived experiences, evidence demonstrates that the out-of-field teaching experience develops complex emotions and dispositions that are linked to the unrealistic expectations of school leaders. With the help of carefully designed policies that can then influence decision-making and school improvement approaches, “the single word whose virtuality opens up the infinity of discourse” (Gadamer, 1975, p. 498) can change the path of education. Interpretation of the words used to describe these environments has the potential to enrich understanding across multiple stakeholders’ contexts, in agreement with Gadamer’s (1975) view that “to reach an understanding—dialogue is not merely a matter of total self-expression—but [is] a transformation into a communion, in which we do not remain what we were” (p. 341). I therefore urge educational and school leaders to ensure that they are well-informed about the truths of out-of-field teaching practices and what they mean, not only for the outcomes of the classroom and the well-being of those in the teaching profession, but also for the stability and

5.7 Summary

167

quality of the teaching workforce. A consistent approach to effectively managing the out-of-field phenomenon will positively influence how it intersects with the image of schools as quality education providers, the image of teachers as professionals, and the low status of teaching in society.

References Allen, K. (2010). Classroom management, bullying, and teacher practices. The Professional Educator, 34(1), 1–15. Arnold, R. (2005). Empathic intelligence: Teaching, learning, relating. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press. Ashman, A., & Gillies, R. (2003). Guiding intellectual and personal growth across educational contexts. In R. Gillies & A. Ashman (Eds.), Co-operative learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups (pp. 224–238). London, UK: Routledge Falmer. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/003-066X/82/3702-0122100.75 Barbetta, P. M., Norona, K. L., & Bicard, D. F. (2005). Classroom behavior management: A dozen common mistakes and what to do instead. Preventing School Failure, 49(3), 11–19. Barlow, D. (2002). Putting the right teachers in the right places. The Education Digest, 68(4), 64–67. Becker, H. (2000, April). Secondary teachers of mixed academic subjects: “Out of field” problem or constructivist innovators. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Irvine, CA. Bédard, M. (2015). Pedagogical autonomy and accountability: A recipe for improving academic results. MEI: Economic Notes. Montreal, Canada: Montreal Economic Institute. Retrieved from https://www.iedm.org/sites/default/files/pub_files/note0815_en.pdf. Blase, J., Blase, J., & Du, F. (2008). The mistreated teacher: A national study. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 263–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810869257. Bondesio, M., & De Witt, J. (2004). Personnel management. In P. van der Westhuizen (Ed.), Effective educational management (12th ed., pp. 239–343). Cape Town, South Africa: ABC Press. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1979). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (1999). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived selfefficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2), 239–253. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8. Brown, B. (2008). Teacher migration impact: A review in the context of quality education provision and teacher training in higher education in Southern Africa. South African Journal of Higher Education, 22(2), 282–301. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational leadership and management (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications. Caena, F. (2014). Initial teacher education in Europe: An overview of policy issues. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/policy/strategicframework/expert-groups/documents/initial-teacher-education_en.pdf. Chamberlin, M., Plucker, J., & Kearns, A. (2003). Highly qualified teachers in Indiana. Education Policy Briefs, 1(4), 1–6. Clandinin, J., Connelly, M., & Bradley, J. (1999). Shaping a professional identity: Stories of educational practice. McGill Journal of Education, 34(2), 189–191.

168

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

Cochran-Smith, M. (2011). Does learning to teach ever end? Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47, 22–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2011.10516719. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0091732X024001249 Cooper, P., & McIntyre, D. (1994). Teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of effective classroom learning: Conflicts and commonalities. In M. Hughes (Ed.), Perceptions of teaching and learning (pp. 66– 79). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Cranston, N., Ehrich, L., & Kimber, M. (2003). The “right” decision? Towards an understanding of ethical dilemmas for school leaders. Westminster Studies in Education, 26(2), 135–147. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0140672030260206. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–44. Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Research and rhetoric on teacher certification: A response to Teacher certification reconsidered. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(36). Retrieved from https:// epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/viewFile/315/441. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters and what leaders can do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6–13. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010a). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010b). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 35–47. Day, C., Elliot, B., & Kington, A. (2005). Reform, standards and teacher identity: Challenges of sustaining commitment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 563–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tate.2005.03.001. Doll, D., Zucker, S., & Brehm, K. (2004). Resilient classrooms: Creating healthy environments for learning. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Dorman, M., & McDonald, J. (2005). Engagement by design: Marrying pedagogy and technology for better learning conversations via asynchronous electronic discussions. In J. Son & S. O’Neill (Eds.), Enhancing learning and teaching: Pedagogy, technology and language (pp. 119–131). Flaxton, Australia: Post Pressed. Du Plessis, A. (2005). The implications of the out-of-field phenomenon for school management (Unpublished master’s thesis). Pretoria: University of South Africa. Du Plessis, A. (2010). Continuing professional development and the out-of-field phenomenon: The implications for school management (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pretoria: University of South Africa. Du Plessis, A. (2014). Understanding the out-of-field teaching experience (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:330372. Du Plessis, A. (2017). Out-of-field teaching: What educational leaders need to know. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Du Plessis, A. (2018a). Barriers to effective management of diversity in classroom contexts: The out-of-field teaching phenomenon. International Journal of Educational Research. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.002. Du Plessis, A. (2018b). The lived experience of out-of-field STEM teachers: A quandary for strategising quality teaching in STEM? Research in Science Education, 1–35. Online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9740-9. Du Plessis, A. (2019). Professional support beyond initial teacher education: Pedagogical Discernment and the influence of out-of-field teaching practices. Singapore: Springer. Du Plessis, A. E., & McDonagh, K. (2020). Leadership for well-being: Managing the implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon. Manuscript in preparation. Du Plessis, A. E., Carroll, A., & Gillies, R. M. (2015). Understanding the lived experiences of novice out-of-field teachers in relation to school leadership practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 4–21.

References

169

Du Plessis, A. E., Hoang, N., Wang, J., Schmidt, A., Mertens, L., Cullinan, M., & Cameron, V. (2018). Invest in the future of education: Building a stable and quality beginning teacher workforce. Critical factors for reform: Evidence from the field (Research report). Australian Catholic University. Brisbane, QLD: Australia. Durlak, J., Weissberg, R., Dymnicki, A., Taylor, R., & Schellinger, K. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010. 01564.x. Engestrom, Y. (2009). Expansive learning: Toward an activity-theoretical reconceptualization. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists…in their own words (pp. 53–73). New York, NY: Routledge. Epstein, J., Sanders, M., Sheldon, S., Simon, B., Salinas, K., Jansorn, N. R., et al. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Publishers. Eppley, K. (2009). Rural schools and the highly qualified teacher provision of No child left behind: A critical policy analysis. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(4), 1–11. Retrieved from http://jrre.vmhost.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/24-4.pdf. Frenzel, A., Goetz, T., Stephens, E., & Jacob, B. (2009). Antecedents and effects of teachers’ emotional experiences: An integrated perspective and empirical test. In P. Schutz & M. Zembylas (Eds.), Advances in teacher emotion research: The impact on teachers’ lives (pp. 129–152). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Gadamer, H. (1975). Truth and method (2nd ed., J. C. B. Mohr, Trans.). New York, NY: The Seabury Press. Gadamer, H. (1976/2008). Philosophical hermeneutics (D. Linge, Ed. & Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Goldhaber, D., & Walch, J. (2014). Gains in teacher quality. Education Next, 14(1), 38–45. Gordon, B. (2007). U.S competitiveness: The education imperative. Issues in Science and Technology, 23(3), 31–36. Gore, J., Holmes, K., Smith, M., & Fray, L. (2015). Investigating the factors that influence the choice of teaching as a first career (Report). Retrieved from http://qct.edu.au/pdf/research/ WhyPeopleChooseTeachingLiteratureReview.pdf. Groundwater-Smith, S., Ewing, R., & Le Cornu, R. (2011). Teaching: Challenges and dilemmas (4th ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning Australia. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Hanushek, E., & Raymond, M. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/ pam.20091. Harris, K.-L., & Jensz, F. (2006). The preparation of mathematics teachers in Australia: Meeting the demand for suitably qualified mathematics teachers in secondary schools (Report prepared for Australian Council of Deans of Science). Retrieved from http://amsi.org.au/wp-content/uploads/ 2014/07/36_ACDS_Prep_Math_Teach_Aus_Jul06.pdf. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Retrieved from ACEReSearch website: https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context= research_conference_2003. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge. Huberty, T. (2013). Anxiety and anxiety disorders in children. Communiqué, National Association of School Psychologists, 41(8), 20–21. Ingersoll, R. (1998). The problem of out-of-field teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 773–776. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/137. Ingersoll, R. (2001). The realities of out-of-field teaching. Educational leadership, 58(8), 42–45. Ingersoll, R. (2003a). The teacher shortage: Myth or reality? Educational Horizons, 81, 146–152.

170

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

Ingersoll, R. (2003b). Out-of-field teaching and the limits of teacher policy. Graduate School Educator GSE Publications. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/143. Ingersoll, R. (2006, January). Is there really a shortage of mathematics and science teachers? Paper presented at the Math Science Partnership Conference. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn. edu/gse_pubs/132. Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2004). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter? NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 28–40. Jennings, P., & Greenberg, M. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2003). Student motivation in co-operative groups: Social interdependence theory. In R. Gillies & A. Ashman (Eds.), Co-operative learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups (pp. 136–176). London, UK: Routledge Falmer. Jones, V., & Jones, L. (2007). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating communities of support and solving problems (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2000). Models of teaching (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Career stories as gateway to understanding teacher development. In M. Bayer, U. Brinkkjær, H. Plauborg, & S. Rolls (Eds.), Teachers’ career trajectories and work lives, professional learning and development in schools and higher education (pp. 29–47). New York, NY: Springer. Kounin, J., & Sherman, L. (1979). School environments and behaviour settings. Theory in Practice, 18(3), 145–151. Lave, J. (2009). The practice of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists…in their own words (pp. 200–208). New York, NY: Routledge. Levin, B. (2001). Reforming education: From origins to outcomes. New York, NY: Routledge. Lewis, A. (1996). Teacher quality. The Education Digest, 62(3), 69–70. Ling, L. (2008, December 17). “Teach first,” learn later: A quick fix. ABC News. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12-17/teach-first-learn-later-a-quick-fix/242826. Lingard, B. (2010). Towards a sociology of pedagogies. In M. Apple, S. Ball, & L. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 167–178). London, UK: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Lingard, B. (2014). Politics, policies and pedagogies in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Lingard, B., Hayes, D., Mills, M., & Christie, P. (2003). Leading learning: Making hope practical in schools. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Linge, D. (2008). Editor’s introduction. In D. Linge (Ed.), Hans-Georg Gadamer: Philosophical hermeneutics (pp. xi–xviii). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Lloyd, M., & Sullivan, A. (2012). Leaving the profession: The context behind one quality teacher’s professional burn out. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(4), 138–162. Magolda, M. (2013). Students’ epistemologies and academic experiences: Implications for pedagogy. In K. Arnold & I. C. King (Eds.), College student development and academic life: Psychological, intellectual, social, and moral issues (pp. 117–140). London, UK: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Marzano, R. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Mayer, D. (2005). Reviving the “policy bargain” discussion: Professional accountability and the contribution of teacher-performance assessment. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 78(4), 177–182. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.78.4.177-182. McConney, A., & Price, A. (2009a). An assessment of the phenomenon of “teaching-out-of-field” in WA schools: Final report. Perth, Australia: Western Australian College of Teaching. McConney, A., & Price, A. (2009b). Teaching out-of-field in Western Australia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(6), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2009v34n6.6.

References

171

McInerney, D., & McInerney, V. (2006). Educational psychology: Constructing learning (4th ed.). Sydney, Australia: Pearson Education Australia. Nielsen, S. (2007). The professional situation and training of vocational teachers in Denmark. In P. Grollman, & F. Rauner (Eds.), International perspectives on teachers and lectures in technical and vocational education (pp. 77–96). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5704-5. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014). A teachers’ guide to TALIS 2013. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/a-teachers-guide-to-talis-20139789264216075-en.htm. Olson, L. (2000). Quality counts 2000: Finding and keeping competent teachers. Education week: Editorial Projects in Education, 19(18), 12–18. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/ articles/2000/01/13/finding-and-keeping-competent-teachers.html. Peters, J., Le Cornu, R., & Collins, J. (2003). A report on research conducted in conjunction with the learning to learn project. Retrieved from https://www.education.sa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net691/f/ towards_constructivist_teaching_and_learning.pdf. Pietarinen, J., Pyhältö, K., Soini, T., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). Reducing teacher burnout: A sociocontextual approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate. 2013.05.003. Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Phillips, D. (2005). Policy borrowing in education: Frameworks for analysis. In J. Zajda (Ed.), International handbook on globalisation, education and policy research: Global pedagogies and policies (pp. 23–34). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Redmond, M. (2010). Safe space oddity: Revisiting critical pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 30(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841230903249729. Rogers, B. (2003). Behaviour recovery: Practical programs for challenging behaviour (2nd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press. Rogers, B., & McPherson, E. (2008). Behaviour management with young children: Crucial first steps with children 3–7 years. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. Spilt, J., & Koomen, H. (2009). Widening the view on teacher–child relationships: Teachers’ narratives concerning disruptive versus nondisruptive children. School Psychology Review, 38, 86–101. Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Thijs, J. T. (2011). Teacher wellbeing: The importance of teacher–student relationships. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 457–477. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10648-011-9170-y. Tauber, R. (2007). Classroom management: Sound theory and effective practice. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing. Tayeb, M. (2001). Conducting research across cultures: Overcoming drawbacks and obstacles. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 147059580111009. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805. van Driel, J., & Berry, A. (2012). Teacher professional development focusing on pedagogical content knowledge. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 26–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11431010. van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205–228. van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. New York, NY: The State University of New York Press. van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. Ontario, Canada: The Althouse Press.

172

5 Are Out-of-Field Teachers and Their Leaders …

van Manen, M. (2016a). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. van Manen, M. (2016b). The tone of teaching. The language of pedagogy (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. van Niekerk, E. (2003). Whole-school self-evaluation as a means to school improvement. Educare, 32(1–2), 160–184. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weldon, P. (2016). Out-of-field teaching in Australian secondary schools. Policy Insights, 6. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context= policyinsights. Wilson, B., & Cole, P. (1991). A review of cognitive teaching models. Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(4), 47–64. Wilson, S., & Johnson, N. (2014). Teaching to difference? The challenges and opportunities of diversity in the classroom. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Wirt, J., Choy, S., Rooney, P., Provasnik, S., Sen, A., & Tobin, R. (2004). The condition of education 2004 (NCES 2007–077). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Zee, M., De Jong, P., & Koomen, H. (2016). Teachers’ self-efficacy in relation to individual students with a variety of social–emotional behaviours: A multilevel investigation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(7), 1013–1027. Zepeda, S. (2006). High stakes supervision: We must do more. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120500448154.

Chapter 6

Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

One bad hiring decision Schumacher, Grigsby, and Vesey (2015) emphasise that “one bad hiring decision” (p. 139) can greatly affect student achievements and jeopardise student wellbeing. Not perceiving or respecting that their teacher is able to guide their learning (Vygotsky, 1978) affects students’ lived experiences and learning approaches in the classroom. Research shows students in complex out-of-field teaching and learning environments display increased anxiety, uncertainty, reluctance to go to school, disengagement, and demotivation. These emotions and dispositions in turn affect the classroom climate and atmosphere, and can restrict student development. Mulford (2011) suggests that schools “work better” (p. 1) when flexibility and collaborative networks are encouraged. In the case of out-of-field classrooms, carefully designed school policies that address the specific needs arising in these environments have the potential to greatly benefit students’ well-being within the school context.

6.1 Introduction Teachers’ motivations undergird their attitudes, emotions and behaviour, and despite the personal and intrinsic nature of these, all become deeply entrenched in the contextual factors of schools (Fernet, Trépanier, Austin, & Levesque-Cote, 2016). As has already been described in previous chapters, research indicates that complex emotions and dispositions are anchored in lived experiences that are part of being in the out-of-field teaching experience: guilt, incompetence, fear, anxiety, stress and lack of confidence (Du Plessis, 2014). Spratt (2017) has noted that well-being is a twenty-first-century policy concern (e.g., Parker, 2018). In keeping with this, the purpose of this chapter is to turn focus to the need for policy-developers to notice the impact of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on teacher and student well-being and to suggest a pathway of integrated policy development to address well-being concerns.

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. E. Du Plessis, Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1948-2_6

173

174

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

Evidence from the field about the practice of out-of-field teaching and the impact it has on teachers’ effectiveness to manage classroom environments underpins the creation of a clear understanding of the potential impact policies can have to alleviate teachers’ and students’ well-being when they are caught up in the phenomenon. As in previous chapters, perceptions from the field (from teachers, school leaders, students and parents) provide a thorough background from which targeted policies can be developed. In addition, the chapter offers a discussion about the impact of unmanaged well-being concerns for teaching workforce stability, teacher confidence and student development. As has been described, the evidence from the field offers an ontological view— a closeness to the real-life being of the truths that exist there for teachers; these everyday lived experiences then demonstrate the significant impact they have on the teaching and learning environment because of the perceptions, expectations and personal emotions they produce. As Vygotsky (1978) has highlighted, observation of the interrelationships between the individual and their social world demonstrates that these are intertwined. Teachers’ lived experiences are both deeply rooted in, and deeply integrated into, the social contexts in which they function. Carlyle and Woods (2002) have noted the intense emotional connection teachers have with their work, while Gore, Holmes, Smith, and Fray (2015) have underlined the role of intrinsic motivation in teaching, and the importance of the passion to “make a difference” that teachers express when deciding on teaching as a career. Teachers show their commitment to maintaining quality and effectiveness, regardless of the complexity of their teaching positions. Out-of-field teachers’ responses show that they are willing to take responsibility for their professional development at their own cost and will work extended hours to maintain the standard of quality teaching and learning that they aspire to provide to their students. Out-of-field teachers’ committed efforts to achieve the expected outcomes and take control over unfamiliar subjects and/or year levels without the security of targeted policies that support them, however, leave these teachers feeling disillusioned, undervalued and upset that their extreme efforts are not appreciated, but instead seem to be taken for granted by the misconceptions of their leaders. Curtiss Williams (2009) has highlighted that teachers’ perceptions and understanding of their own personal needs and difficulties situate how they relate to the beliefs that exist in the contexts they function. However, field data show that the extreme efforts of out-of-field teachers to maintain quality teaching in spite of the out-of-field positions do benefit their students. School leaders’ lack of awareness of these efforts, however, can result in systemic confirmation of the attitude that good teachers can teach anything without thoughtful recourse to the effects on the teachers themselves. Out-of-field teachers admit that they frequently keep the challenges of their extensive workloads and efforts to maintain effectiveness and cope with their teaching assignments to themselves because of the difficulties they experience with selfworth (Du Plessis, 2017; Du Plessis & McDonagh, 2020). Misunderstandings and misconceptions about their lived experiences and what these mean for emotional and attitudinal effects in the teaching and learning environment are perpetuated by restricted discussion and limited literature about the phenomenon. There is a shortage

6.1 Introduction

175

of information about the implications of out-of-field teaching traditions and cultures within schools (McConney & Price, 2009b). McConney and Price (2009a) have acknowledged that school leaders are often reluctant to publicly discuss the extent of out-of-field teaching in their schools because of the vulnerability of the reputation and image of schools. Ingersoll (2003b), too, has noted that secrecy influences the accuracy of reports on the out-of-field situation. This suppression of information consequently impacts the understanding, management and support teachers in these positions receive, but most of all how policy-makers accommodate these teachers and the phenomenon in their strategy development. The level of occurrence of out-of-field teaching in schools also influences school cultures, as noted. Research evidence demonstrates that school cultures are guided by school leaders (see Sects. 1.8 and 3.4), and effectively managing the implications of out-of-field teaching practices for their school improvement strategies requires leaders to lead and manage the school organisation while prioritising their pedagogical accountability (see Sects. 3.1 and 4.4). Quality teaching and learning are possible despite the presence of the out-of-field phenomenon if school leaders are informed and engaged (Du Plessis, 2014). The role and development of micro-education policies (fit-for-purpose school improvement policies) are within leadership decision discourse; it is up to leaders whether this is constrained or empowered. Developing policies that strategise an approach of context-consciousness through staff engagement in policy decisions at different levels will demonstrate respect for different perceptions, teacher dispositions and those aspects of culture and behaviour which stimulate certain student responses (Rogers, 2003). All schools have unique social practices, policies and interrelated social and cultural incidences which mold the school culture. Collaborative, multidirectional communication is a practice that is particularly valuable to school cultures owing to the diversity of their stakeholders, and, I argue, to school leaders who want to work towards functional transformation of the ever-present out-of-field teaching phenomenon in their schools. Collaborative communication can demonstrate noticing and knowing that the out-of-field phenomenon influences the quality of education schools offer, and has the potential to give a voice to the impact of the out-of-field phenomenon on teacher and student well-being.

6.2 Out-of-Field Teaching: Concerns, Feelings and Social Practices Sociocultural events in classrooms and how these are managed influence what future social practices and behaviour are tolerated or acceptable within those classroom settings (Johnson & Johnson, 2003). In this sense, the dispositions of both teachers and students have an important influence on the classroom environment and its capacity for behaviour modification and trust (Bandura, 1977). Aspects of teachers’ effective

176

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

classroom management include social leadership and healthy student–teacher relationships, which require respect, self-control and humanity from teachers (Rogers, 2011a). The social environment predicates the learning experience: Students are quickly aware of a teacher’s level of skills and confidence and their ability to manage their classrooms (Rogers, 2011a), and these perceptions inform students’ behaviour during lessons. Visible dispositions and characteristics of teachers, such as relaxed and confident body language, genuine concern for students’ welfare and care for their learning, combine to create student perceptions of teacher competence and a safe learning space. Student–teacher relationships based in trust, respect and honest communication develop teachers’ and students’ reciprocal confidence in one another and in the social atmosphere of the classroom. In turn, confident and approachable teachers influence students’ engagement during insightful interactions. A safe classroom environment also provides students who tend to create tension in the classroom with the structure and framework of clearly set boundaries within which they know what is acceptable behaviour and what is expected of them. It is well documented that all teachers experience high levels of anxiety (Keavney & Sinclair, 1978) and perceive teaching as a profession that is highly demanding. As discussed, teachers’ sound pedagogical knowledge should provide them a comprehensive foundation on which to adjust, adapt and explore new and best suited pedagogical strategies in relation to unfamiliar subject content or the developmental needs of students in a specific year level and/or age group (see Sects. 1.2.1 and 5.6.4). Teachers’ beliefs influence their competence (Sosu & Gray, 2012), however, and their feelings of at homeness in a particular subject area or year level affects their ability to engage with the exploration of new strategies best fitted for the social context. As noted, research demonstrates that teachers’ levels of anxiety, stress, pressure and doubt increase when they are assigned to positions outside their qualifications or expertise (see Sects. 1.4 and 5.6). I argue that these emotions develop because of a sensation of compromised competency that is connected to restricted knowledge of the out-of-field area (subject/year level). These teachers’ uncertainty about their capacity to perform to the internal and external standard required by their usual professional identity then impacts their sense of belonging to their work and context, which further corrodes their confidence to teach, including the imperative to adapt their pedagogies and teaching practices and take control of the social atmosphere of learning (Du Plessis, 2018a, 2018b). Yet, teaching is a profession that expects teachers to project confidence, ownership of their subjects and/or year levels, and an image of control and expert skill, all of which assist them to fulfil the achievement expectations of their vocation and create the atmosphere for them to do it. Out-offield teachers who doubt their competence struggle to belong to their classroom and to their teaching, with implications for the atmosphere of the learning environment (see Sect. 5.2.3). Roffey (2004) has emphasised that teachers need to ensure that they are well informed about the social needs in their classrooms in order to take control of the social practices within that context. Teachers assigned to out-of-field positions need time to adjust to the particular social practices that are linked to their specific teaching context (Du Plessis, 2010). Sato (2006) has underlined that emotional support

6.2 Out-of-Field Teaching: Concerns, Feelings and Social Practices

177

for teachers who experience challenges and issues in their classrooms can help them to develop their practice in such environments. Social pressure is comprised of the demands or expectations that are present within a certain society to stimulate and restrict certain actions or processes; these demands or expectations often relate to social discomfort. Social practices in schools that are compromised by misunderstanding or ignorance leave room for the development of dysfunctional teaching and learning environments that interact with teachers’ effectiveness to construct meaningful and confident interactions. Students need to be offered confident and appropriate guidance so that they can reach well-formulated objectives without developing negative dispositions about learning or themselves as learners (van Niekerk, 2003). Misunderstood, unknown or mishandled social expectations, atmospheres and dispositions can also hamper teachers’ communication with parents, further increasing the pressure on the learning environment. Teachers in challenging out-of-field positions depend on the support of colleagues via sound policy frameworks for emotional support and the scaffolding of their entry into new social environments. Shulman (2006) has defined teacher support as a “social contract” (p. 187), and I argue that the absence of targeted policies for the consistent management of social issues that develop because of out-of-field teaching practices leaves teachers and students in these environments without the necessary experiential platform to reach their expectations for achievement.

6.2.1 Quick-Fix Decisions? As discussed, the dynamic environments of education pose specific challenges for teacher recruitment and the utilisation of teachers once they arrive at schools; however, it is a “quick-fix” mentality by educational and school leaders to solve staffing and teacher placement problems with unsuitably qualified but available human resources, and it results in an increasing number of out-of-field teachers in schools (Wirt et al., 2004; see also Sects. 2.6 and 5.2.4). The classroom challenges of out-of-field teachers and the impact of these on teacher and student well-being need to motivate the development of a fuller understanding of the role policy can have in changing this decision-making paradigm. When the impacts of out-of-field teaching include compromise to teachers’ efficacy and well-being—stress, burn-out, turnover and attrition (McConney & Price, 2009b)—and key quality education concerns arise over classroom management, behaviour management, student achievement and professional interrelationship management, I assert that the dysfunction created by quick-fix strategies in this area requires long-term policy attention. As noted, misconceptions and limited discussion about the phenomenon result in leaders’ restricted understanding of what is really happening in the social context of the classroom; as Gadamer (1976/2008) has noted, without an appreciation for the specific context in which an incidence is experienced, there is an absence of clear understanding about it. Taken-for-granted attitudes and assumptions result, and this misunderstanding of lived experiences can stimulate feelings of being taken

178

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

advantage of for teachers in vulnerable teaching situations. These feelings of being exploited can extend beyond the commitment of the workload and the effort of difficult obligations in situations where human resource management means repeated unsuitable placements and continuous reassignment of specific teachers to out-offield teaching positions without professional support. This mistreatment of teachers leads to issues of efficiency, quality and teacher attrition, certainly, but inclusive of these systemic entities are personal issues of well-being and self-esteem that flow to teachers’ home lives and families, including their economic security (Blase, Blase, & Du, 2008). Society expects that students’ learning will be guided by suitably qualified teachers (Eppley, 2009). This ideologically situated expectation is not being met by the quick-fix policy solution of out-of-field teaching assignments. Change to systemic beliefs about this strategy can be motivated by policy-makers and educational leaders breathing in of the experiences of the out-of-field phenomenon (the “thing-initself;” Gadamer, 1975, p. 307). Closeness allows meaningful insights and offers valuable new information so that the development of policies can confront the real-life difficulties experienced in the field.

6.2.2 Staffing Issues: Finding Suitably Qualified Teachers for Unique School Environments Research links high-quality teachers to the overall quality of education systems (Ling, 2008), and concerns for quality teaching in the specific context of rural schools have been identified by Eppley (2009). Finding suitably qualified teachers is a challenge for school leaders in rural and remote contexts, and Barnum (2017) has claimed some governments lure teachers, especially beginning teachers, to remote or hard-to-staff schools by offering them such benefits as extra days off (Espinoza, 2015). I emphasise that once teachers are assigned to these challenging teaching positions, they are left without the support of targeted policies that could help schools accommodate their specific needs. Restricted professional support opportunities (owing to budgetary/financial constraints especially in remote schools and school communities) mean that teachers who are unable to fulfil expectations do not have access to professional identity development or teaching performance growth. Policies that are targeted to improve teacher workforce stability in remote schools would be instruments of economic validation. The need to balance the specific needs within schools and school communities with the characteristics of the available teaching workforce makes it necessary to reassess teacher recruitment policies in these areas. Unique needs that have implications for policy support include those of multiculturalism, rural community traditions and socioeconomic disadvantage. Contextual factors, too, such as the remoteness of schools, frequently leave leaders with no other option except to assign teachers to positions outside their field of qualifications. This pressure is greater in small and

6.2 Out-of-Field Teaching: Concerns, Feelings and Social Practices

179

remote schools, as noted by Darling-Hammond (Darling-Hammond, 2002, 2010), who has also observed this tendency in lower socioeconomic communities. Moreover, existing teachers in schools within disadvantaged communities are also more vulnerable to being continually reassigned to positions for which they are not suitably qualified (Barlow, 2002). Out-of-field teachers’ needs and skills need to be part of the micro-education policy development equation. Policy development in this area requires strategies and frameworks that assess out-of-field teachers’ teaching profiles—their existing skills and subject passions—and identify areas where training or strengthening of skills would simultaneously benefit the teacher’s performance, professional identity and professional development. This process needs to reflect a context-consciousness by acknowledging the needs of the school and by upholding and enhancing the teacher’s greater breadth of vocational competence within in it via the long-term strategies and commitment that only policy can execute. A framework of commitment to the quality of the teaching and learning environment brings policy decisions into the foreground as the foundation for attending to out-of-field teachers’ difficulties. Policies need to be developed that assess, accommodate and make provision to strengthen teachers’ skills once they are recruited to new environments to ensure that the framework of commitment to the quality of the teaching and learning environment observes and prioritises both the internal utilisation and the well-being of the teachers themselves. School leaders’ commitment to continuously assess and reassess out-of-field teachers’ teaching profiles and well-being in relation to management policy decisions will offer a strong foundation for professional support. In agreement with Ingersoll and Smith (2004), I emphasise out-of-field teachers’ professional learning and training needs and concerns as fundamental for strategic micro-education policy development. The ongoing professional support for the development of out-of-field teachers’ professional identity once they are assigned to out-of-field positions in the workplace depends heavily on school leaders’ decisions and on having supportive policy frameworks in place as a “practicalisation” of school leaders’ duty of care for these teachers.

6.3 Do Policies Notice Lived Experiences as “Truths”? A micro-education policy discourse that emphasises policies as professional support resources needs to reflect commitment and support for teachers and students— especially during challenging situations, times and experiences—by a discourse of acknowledgement that lived experiences in the teaching and learning environment are truths that are space, time and context specific. I assert again that policies become unrealistic by being unrelated to their specific contexts of execution, and that policies which encourage unrealistic expectations or have unrealistic levels of requirement place pressure on teachers and students.

180

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

More specifically, Hall and Hord (2001) have suggested that unrealistic expectations create a sense of unhappiness and failure and leave teachers and students dissatisfied with the teaching and learning context. In field data, out-of-field teachers who perceived that their truths were being overlooked shared increased emotions of stress and distress about their dysfunctional classroom environments. The disregard school leaders displayed for these lived truths led to a loss of confidence among teachers and students, creating teaching and learning environments that were even more complex to manage. Further, as described in the previous chapter, teachers in out-of-field positions experience emotional stress when they do not have control over the subject content. Out-of-field teachers endure constant critical reflection from colleagues, students, parents, school leaders and from themselves about their competence. Constant critical assessments of this kind without a sound understanding of the actual truths of being out-of-field that precipitate them have repercussions for these teachers’ teaching practices and professional interrelationships (Steyn & Du Plessis, 2007), but also for their emotional well-being. How being out-of-field feels for those in out-of-field contexts is thus a critical factor for policy because it has ramifications for the classroom climate and atmosphere and for the attitudes and views of stakeholders about teachers and the context (Levin, 2001). How emotional contexts are acknowledged, constructed and managed further impacts not only the health of dispositions within that context but also which dispositions will tend to emerge towards proposed change and transformation. Dissatisfaction with schools as being insufficiently “accommodating” environments often stems from perceptions of a disconnected or disengaged environment that does not reach expectations for supporting students’ learning because of a failure to “understand.” Both students and teachers have expectations of being able to discuss their needs in a safe environment and to be heard in a way that will ensure and support the ultimate goal of quality education. Well-designed and effectively implemented policies need to offer teachers and students a safety net in which they can construct relationships and being that uphold the exploration of learning. As the art of teaching, pedagogies strategise the teaching and learning context, but the process and environment of learning always include emotions (Bruner, 1996). Emotions and feelings also represent the culture within schools, and school leaders who respond to the needs of the school community must effectively construct frameworks and strategies to accommodate these emotional realities and ensure an environment that supports healthy meaning-making. Ingersoll (2003a) has called the out-of-field teaching phenomenon education’s “dirty little secret” (p. 5), and I argue that teachers’ well-being is being silently “bundled up” into the discourses of timetabling and workforce necessity. The depth of support policy determines to strategise for out-of-field teachers experiencing distress over the unsupported in situ development of their expertise will be proportionate to the depth of awareness it first acknowledges of the role teachers’ being plays in the teaching and learning context. Attending to emotional factors within the teaching and learning context will improve the chances of policy development which supports and sustains emotions that are part of a healthy learning culture.

6.4 Unfavourable Teaching Environments: Teacher and Student …

181

6.4 Unfavourable Teaching Environments: Teacher and Student Well-being The teaching and learning environment is built on the social interactions that happen there. The ingredients of these social interactions are content, perceptions, beliefs, values, rules (policies), personal agendas, power play and the backgrounds of teachers and students. Teaching environments are highly fragile and sensitive and can quickly become unfavourable for learning if the ingredients get out of balance. I have discussed this already in terms of trust and teacher leadership of the classroom (see Sect. 4.3), but the issue of balance relates to Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural layer of student and teacher being and how it has reciprocal ramifications on inextricable outcomes of coping and learning. Uncertainty in the learning space transforms teachers into vulnerable and uncertain classroom managers with anxious students (Tauber, 2007), and I argue that this uncertainty shifts the balance of power in the classroom, which needs to be a space where a knowledgeable other expertly guides learning so that students feel safe to explore. Well-designed policies can support the creation of balance, and as such safe learning spaces, by offering guidelines so that out-of-field teachers experiencing difficulties with teaching confidence are supported in their endeavour to create a balanced learning environment. Policies that overlook this essence of teaching and learning environments and the meaning out-of-field teaching practices have for it and for the lived experiences of the teachers in these positions demonstrate a policy discourse that is disconnected and itself out of balance or alignment with education objectives. Micro-education policies can only become enacted resources or practice policies if they are closely aligned with real-life experiences in classrooms. Out-of-field teachers’ lived experiences shed light on real situations and incidences that intensify, worsen or improve the various aspects of the out-of-field experience, and a clear understanding of this evidence validates making policy decisions that shift policy discourse into alignment with the essence or ingredients of learning. Without this context-conscious insight, practice policies aiming to improve quality education outcomes can become counterproductive in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms where the foundational ingredients of learning are compromised and out of balance. Spratt (2017) has highlighted that “positive learning experience can enhance emotional well-being and vice versa” (p. 124), and I assert that when out-of-field teachers’ struggling knowledge sets and limited interest or passion for their assigned subject/year level make it difficult for them to uphold stability, consistency and continuity in their classrooms, implications of being flow from the unfavourable classroom climate that results. Both education quality and well-being shift away from ideological expectations in such environments, and I argue that misunderstandings and misconceptions about how lived experiences influence quality teaching and learning environments are the reason that quality improvement in education continues to be hindered in this area. Denying or sidelining the emotional impact of the

182

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

out-of-field teaching phenomenon on teacher and student well-being restricts policy development that could alleviate its effects. The interrelationships between emotions (feelings of anger, sadness, shame) and beliefs, experiences and perceptions affect teachers’ mental states (Smith, 2002). The well-being of teachers, especially teachers in challenging positions such as those out-of-field, influences how effective they are in their positions. How safe and accepted out-of-field teachers feel influences their openness to explore collaboration opportunities, their willingness to build trust relationships within the teaching and learning environment and their readiness to ask for support when it is needed. Having a well-designed framework of policies available that are tailor-made for the particular struggles of these teachers will demonstrate systemic priority for the balanced classroom as the foundation of learning and uphold teaching effectiveness. The voices of those who have a close involvement in the out-of-field phenomenon and real-life experiences of it usually do not have opportunities to voice these experiences (Ager & Young, 1997; Goodnow, 2008; Tayeb, 2001), but the empirical evidence offered by this book from a wide, transnational and multifaceted educational context validates their experiences and opens the field for their viewpoints, enabling supportive debates and discussions. The specific challenges and needs of out-of-field teachers in relation to the teaching environment that they construct can be the foundation of decisions to improve micro-education policies. Empirical research evidence shows that when out-of-field teachers are supported by leadership and targeted policies, unfavourable teaching and learning environments become positive, demonstrating not only that teachers’ being (as a foundation for their performance) has a dominant place in the development of students’ reasoning and conceptualisation of new information (Hattie, 2009), but that supporting it has a dominant place in policy. Van Manen (2016) has noted that teachers become what they teach. I further argue that teachers become how they teach—their professional identity is greatly embedded in how their teaching goes in their classrooms and how they achieve the expected objectives inside the favourable teaching and learning environment they create and maintain. I have discussed already that the out-of-field teaching phenomenon has deeply rooted implications for the development of teachers’ professional identities (Hobbs, 2013), and I argue that policies in this area can either support or challenge this aspect of teachers’ vocational being when they function in positions outside their field of qualifications. Moreover, considering that these fragile and unfavourable teaching environments have become a common practice in schools and occur mostly because of requests made by school leaders (Du Plessis et al., 2018), the recognition and accommodation of education policies seem justified.

6.4 Unfavourable Teaching Environments: Teacher and Student …

183

6.4.1 Interdependent Elements of an Out-of-Field Learning Environment Supporting the multifaceted characteristics of teaching and learning firstly requires policy to recognise the interdependence of certain essential elements of the learning environment. Broadly, these are • providing holistic support for students’ learning; • constructing sound behaviour frameworks, strategies and management and • noticing diverse learning needs. Bearing in mind that teachers’ capacity for an assignment has to do with their suitability for it, the question I put forward is “How can schools’ micro-education policies make provision for the differences in teachers’ capacity that cause out-of-field learning environments to struggle in these areas?” As has been discussed, teachers are the creators of a classroom atmosphere where meaningful interaction for learning needs to take place (Bourdieu, 2010), and it is clear that the interdependent elements of an expert, specialist teacher’s classroom/learning environment are closer to the ideal— where the teacher, as the knowledgeable other, confidently manages the layers and interdependent elements needed to surround students’ constructive and safe passages to learning. In out-of-field teachers’ classrooms, this loss of the knowledgeable other means different underlying elements and characteristics come into play—or, in short, the layers of the learning environment get out of balance and the classrooms become complex. In this light, using the same policies in all learning environments is unlikely to be able to produce the same effects in all learning environments. The support policy provides to schools needs to ensure that the learning environment encourages, supports and stimulates students’ positive learning experiences. Holistic support involves seeing the whole learning picture while still closely examining, noticing and acknowledging the integral role/s of the smaller parts present within the learning environment or classroom society. Policy development that will benefit and support holistic learning in out-of-field classrooms therefore involves acknowledgement of the various layers of lived experiences that students experience in these classrooms. More than this, awareness of the elements, incidences and situations that stimulate instability in out-of-field environments and how the development of dysfunctional classrooms can be proactively prevented seems an educational policy prerequisite if quality school environments are to be prioritised according to stakeholder expectations (Rutter & Maughan, 2002). Learning is a collective activity and becomes part of the society and traditions in which students’ function (Bruner, 1996), understand themselves and become citizens; as microcosms of society, therefore, learning environments become the learning hubs of students’ skill development that prepare them for the wider world. Frameworks and strategies to ensure that these learning hubs remain positive spaces in spite of the challenges that come with the outof-field teaching phenomenon require policy that attends to the complex elements this phenomenon harbours.

184

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

Part of acknowledging the meaning of the out-of-field phenomenon for improvement and transformation in the teaching and learning context means noticing the challenges school leaders experience because of it (Du Plessis, 2005). School leaders managing teachers who are uncertain about their role as knowledgeable other in the learning environment need clearly defined goals that demonstrate deep, intrinsic understanding of the layers of the learning environment. In conjunction with a structured, context-conscious approach, this understanding can then inform the policies leaders develop to support teachers in these teaching situations with proactive guidelines. In turn, guidelines that are closely connected to the learning environment and its challenges will ensure out-of-field teachers are able to be aware of difficulties that can occur because of their unsuitable assignments and feel supported by leadership as they undertake them, so that they are able to thus more deliberately and comfortably manage their classrooms and create less complex, more functional learning environments. Effective classroom management strategies that acknowledge the place of emotions, tensions, personal encounters and experiences, and accommodate these attitudes with the most suitable classroom pedagogies are rooted in teachers’ decisionmaking (Redmond, 2010). In this sense, knowledge, power, teaching and learning strategies and the policy structures that support them within a learning environment are interdependent elements of the social–cultural learning context (Bruner, 1996). As directors of this learning environment and its social–cultural characteristics, therefore, teachers are the most valuable resource for the implementation of education (Hall & Hord, 2001; Hattie, 2009) and their confidence to manage the sociocultural context students represent needs to be upheld. Out-of-field teachers who have the reassurance of school policy structures undergirding their confidence will have the capacity to notice and acknowledge the dispositions that develop within the learning environment and to demonstrate greater ownership of the classroom space.

6.4.2 The Context-Conscious Element and Its Role in Policy Development McConney and Price (2009a, 2009b) have observed that schools (especially small or remote schools) have no choice but to assign top-up or fill-in subjects to ensure teachers’ timetables have the required hours, regardless of teachers’ qualifications for those assignments, in an effort to make timetables work—and I have noted elsewhere that the out-of-field phenomenon occurs for workforce management reasons that are difficult to dislodge, particularly in certain specific contexts. I argue that the role of context-consciousness in policy development is to ensure that the school improvement policies developed within each context are able to align with the needs of teachers and students there, and in consideration of the effects of the phenomenon on the individuals who will inhabit the out-of-field space. As research evidence

6.4 Unfavourable Teaching Environments: Teacher and Student …

185

shows, the out-of-field teaching phenomenon has the potential to slow down and distract school improvement objectives, curriculum development, subject development, and student development and achievements (Du Plessis, 2018a, 2018b) and compromise the quality of education. The role of policy is to notice and action out-of-field teachers’ specific needs for support so that in spite of being assigned to positions outside their field of qualifications, they can be undergirded in their commitment to maintain the effectiveness of their teaching. Proactive support strategies are underpinned by well-developed policy frameworks; the aim is to provide out-of-field teachers with safety nets, or a structured position of acknowledgement that they need time, resources and leadership support to adjust their teaching practices within unfamiliar subject areas and fields. Zepeda (2006) has suggested that it is short-sighted not to respect individual teachers’ needs, and that policies need to develop differentiated support frameworks that accommodate both these needs and those of their students. I argue that context-consciousness provides the foundation for the development of proactive support strategies that acknowledge the impact of contextual factors and demonstrate appreciation of the different needs of both specialist teachers and out-of-field teachers. As Lingard (2011) has noted in Policy as Numbers, it is imperative to keep in mind that there is at all times a lot more going on behind the statistics. Statistical information offers a view of how prevalent a problem or issue is—and information about the occurrence of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon in specific contexts is valuable as it underlines the urgency of reassessing existing policies to keep up with genuine events in the field. Policy-developers, however, generally find high value in statistical information (with a current focus on big data), and the familiarity, availability and accessibility of this method for policy make it the foundational and expected one for strategy development. However, as I have argued, policies become disconnected from reality if they are directed purely by statistical information; a deep understanding of what strategies will most effectively manage the specific issues in schools requires context-consciousness and a deliberate noticing of lived experiences there. Respecting the being of unsuitably qualified teachers means acknowledging their emotion and experience in the development of policies. Ingersoll (2002, 2006) has emphasised the impact of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on schools as organisational entities. Policy adjustments to accommodate the unique needs for organisational support and resources that develop because of these practices can only be tailor-made via an in-depth understanding of the outof-field experience and the context in which it takes place. Policy development and empirical evidence are inseparable. Moving towards targeted policy development that upholds and encourages a clear understanding of out-of-field teachers’ lived experiences, the perceptions of their colleagues, principals and students, and the experiences of the wider school community will be a significant step towards addressing the quality of education. I argue that the impetus for action that the out-of-field thing is lacking is the acknowledgment that the practice affects the quality of education, and state that

186

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

It is not possible to develop targeted, effective and suitable support programmes for specific school and classroom contexts without an in-depth understanding of the lived experiences of out-of-field teaching and what these mean for quality education.

I return to Gadamer (1975), who has cautioned against looking at the whole without taking note of all the parts that comprise it: Quality improvement policies in this area need to reflect a recognition of the considerable influence of the takenfor-granted dispositions that currently exist towards the out-of-field phenomenon in schools and classrooms, and the reality that these dispositions have systemically and specifically affected quality education up to this point. Acknowledging the specific gaps in knowledge about the out-of-field phenomenon (Du Plessis, 2017) has the potential to counteract negative implications and genuinely support efforts to efficiently progress quality school improvement approaches. Equally, frameworks for noticing existing (and future) school contexts that demonstrate and can report positive outcomes from encouraging and supporting teachers in out-of-field positions to excel have significant ongoing value for policy development. These contexts can offer approaches which have been tried and thus add information for approaching other contexts, and as such ongoing development of specific policies for supporting the use of the phenomenon in schools. As well, context-consciousness can play a role in policy development that prioritises professional development for out-of-field teachers, because policies to provide professional development opportunities for teachers in out-of-field positions also need to ensure that such programmes are tailored to address the actual needs of these teachers. Research shows that professional support programmes can positively influence the effects of out-of-field teaching on education, but such programmes need to appreciate how these teachers’ situations of being interact with the success of professional learning and development, and this means careful assessment and design of programmes. Creating policies that uphold targeted professional support means that the resourcefulness of these teachers can be reinstated and their professional identities valued. It is the valuing of teachers in education (Hattie, 2003) which will underline the importance of taking their contextual issues into consideration when support approaches and their measurement and management frameworks are created for teachers in challenging positions.

6.4.3 The Micro-Education Policy Approach: Unsuitably and Suitably Assigned Teachers I now move to highlight policies involving the appraisal, assessment and evaluation of teachers while they are assigned to out-of-field positions. I argue that these appraisals have different meanings in the classrooms of unsuitably and suitably qualified teachers, with significant implications for out-of-field teachers’ vocational rights. The same appraisal or performance assessment procedures are followed without acknowledgment that out-of-field teachers’ performances are being assessed as if they are

6.4 Unfavourable Teaching Environments: Teacher and Student …

187

suitably qualified for these positions, and without consideration that they are in the positions because they were asked to take them by their school leaders. As I have underlined, suitably qualified teachers are effective in deciding on the most relevant pedagogies for a specific course or programme because their specialist knowledge and expertise enable them to act confidently in the teaching space (Dorman & McDonald, 2005). It is expected that it is part of teachers’ professional identity to have the relevant level of pedagogical control over the subject, year level and position to which they have been assigned. Teachers in out-of-field positions, however, constantly doubt their pedagogical reasoning and question the impact of their teaching practices for their students, which corrodes both their sense of competence and their professional identity. Out-of-field teachers’ continuing doubt about their teaching practice decisions also impacts their self-management, with implications for their own and their schools’ goal setting and realisation of realistic objectives (Brouwers & Tomic, 1999). In this framework, it is clear that specialist teachers will experience teaching performance assessments differently (and perform differently in them) than teachers in out-of-field positions and will have different views on policies regarding such assessments. Teachers in out-of-field positions admit that assessment of their teaching performance makes them feel anxious. They know that their teaching efficacy is being influenced by their lack of deep content understanding and relevant pedagogical knowledge, and that they show restricted teaching skill. Out-of-field teachers’ vision can become set on short-term (day-to-day) goals in order to cope with their teaching positions. Restricted exploration of new teaching practices owing to decreased professional confidence can also develop into stagnancy and dissatisfaction, a process that ends with teachers becoming self-absorbed (Hall & Hord, 2001). The combination of these personal and professional emotional experiences can result in teachers experiencing feelings of burn-out, prompting reflection on what standard teacher assessments are really contributing to these teachers’ efficacy. In terms of student assessment effects, as noted, out-of-field teachers’ uncertainty about content and pedagogical strategy have significant implications for both curriculum implementation and curriculum development, affecting the adjustment of teaching strategies and curricula for students’ learning needs and those of the school context and community (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Specialist teachers accentuate the strong connection between the presentation of realistic expectations regarding enacted curricula for student learning and achievement and students’ positive behaviour towards learning (and thus achievement). Teachers in unfamiliar teaching positions and subjects are aware of this reality and express fears about the negative impact of their restricted knowledge on their students’ achievements. Even beyond this, consideration of whether or not schools have frameworks in place to ensure outof-field teachers’ assessment and judgement of students’ work aligns with specialist teachers’ assessment and judgement brings the need for schools to sustain quality in spite of complex teaching situations into sharp focus. The differences between specialist teachers and out-of-field teachers have implications not only for the implementation of teacher and student assessment policies but also for the intended outcomes of these policies. My repeated attention to the

188

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

specific circumstances and contextual factors of lived experiences in this area that culminate in emotions and dispositions of perceived failure, anxiety and burn-out are largely based in the ethical responsibilities of education systems. Armstrong (2006) has claimed that the priority of school leaders needs to be the professional welfare, confidence and positive self-concept development of the teachers they manage, and strategies for teachers’ own effective self-management. In agreement with this and with Nielsen (2007), I argue that attending to teachers’ fears about how their out-offield performances will affect their students’ achievements and subsequently their own careers means attending to teachers’ vocational rights as employees. School improvement strategies cannot responsibly continue to overlook out-of-field situations, circumstances, contextual factors and lived experiences and the dispositions, emotions, decisions and needs that result from them. Targeted policy development has the potential to support schools’ efforts to sustain quality in spite of complex teaching situations; however, school improvement policies need to demonstrate a continuous reflection on the impact the out-of-field teaching phenomenon can have on education quality at all levels.

6.4.4 The Micro-Education Policy Obligation: Vulnerable Students It is recognised that schools are accountable to accommodate the diversity of students’ individual learning needs. Policies play an important role in energising schools to use data and evidence to inform decisions about the most suitable intervention approaches (Powers & Swick, 2014). The duty of care role of schools is to construct a learning environment and school structure in which all students feel safe to explore learning. School cultures that appreciate, accommodate and support diverse learning needs are not a coincidence but develop through a strategic plan and carefully designed school improvement policies. Students with challenging learning behaviours are often seen as demanding and disruptive and identified as uncontrollable (Seidman, 2005). These students are frequently referred to the principal and/or school leaders as a behaviour management strategy, a policy which causes a loss of instruction time and students being labelled as a “problem” that needs to be “removed” from the classroom environment (Du Plessis, 2018a). Such policies leave students feeling exposed and vulnerable and needing to find ways to deal with their compounded emotions, often in an even less positive manner (Du Plessis, 2014). Carroll, Forlin, and Jobling (2003) have underlined that most classrooms in the mainstream education system include students with diverse learning needs, such as those with physical ability differences, separation anxiety, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorders (ASD), to name a few, and the inclusive teaching and learning of these students in the context of a classroom can create challenges for teachers. School leaders’ decisions and the resources they have available impact how national education reform policies are adopted within

6.4 Unfavourable Teaching Environments: Teacher and Student …

189

their specific school contexts (Powers & Swick, 2014). Powers and Swick (2014) have stated that specific factors in school contexts have a significant impact on vulnerable students’ development, particularly where minimal school resources affect how these students are accommodated in school strategies and frameworks. These authors have further suggested that restricted teacher awareness of empirically supported intervention programmes highlights the necessity to “educate school staff” on the value of implementing empirically supported approaches to support vulnerable students in schools (p. 143). Empirical data show that the most vulnerable learners in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms are the already-at-risk students (Du Plessis, 2014). School improvement policies that intend to address issues of learning diversity need to review whether placing at-risk students in an unsuitably qualified teachers’ care is appropriate. I argue that specific and sensitive policies need to be in place to protect vulnerable students and their out-of-field teachers from the often extreme impact out-of-field teachers’ restricted knowledge and skills can have in the teaching and learning environment. Parents shared that unsuitably qualified teachers found it difficult to attend to students with specific needs and that at-risk students got overlooked because of out-of-field teachers’ overloaded focus. Vulnerable students’ learning development is significantly influenced by out-of-field teachers, who struggle to simultaneously get control over subject content, behaviour management and classroom management. Further, Carroll, Houghton, Taylor, West, and List-Kerz (2006) have noted that environmental distractions trigger interactional off-task behaviours in classrooms. These researchers suggested that teacher dispositions and behaviour are responsible for stimulating 25% of challenging student behaviour. Moreover, out-of-field teaching practices have implications for at-risk students in both primary and high schools. Carroll, Baglioni, Houghton, and Bramston (1999) have observed that at-risk primary school students consider physical goals of higher importance than intellectual goals, suggesting why behaviour challenges can severely impact classroom climates in primary school and why carefully designed policies need to protect these environments that form the foundation for students’ future learning approaches. In field evidence, a parent noted that an out-of-field teacher admitted to sending a student with ASD to sit outside the classroom because of the teacher’s lack of knowledge of the pedagogical needs of a specific year level (Du Plessis, 2014). In another incident, a parent explained how the experiences of a student with ADHD were complicated by the constrained skills of an out-of-field teacher who was unfamiliar with the year level and developmental milestones of students in this age group: There were other dynamics involved in this—something has got to change…They were due to go on a school visit and the teacher said she wouldn’t take him because she said she couldn’t control him. He would be sent out, he spent a lot of time outside the principal’s office….it got to the stage where he was standing on tables, he picked up a chair at one stage to see if he could throw it across the room. He has a hearing problem…she was giving him instructions and he wasn’t responding or hearing it…she was raising her voice, she was shouting at him which made him unravel completely… (Field data: C5)

Out-of-field teachers described that their restricted knowledge led them to a point of not knowing how to proactively manage the specific behaviour symptoms and

190

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

learning needs of vulnerable learners, and that the only option they can cope with is to remove the challenging students from the teaching and learning space. As this book advocates a policy think tank approach supported by empirical evidence, this example of a specific incident demonstrates the immediacy of vulnerable learners in out-of-field classrooms, and so underlines the real role school policies can have in offering out-of-field teachers frameworks, strategies and approaches to more effectively manage learning spaces so that schools can ensure the provision of quality and equitable learning opportunities for all students.

6.5 Managing Challenging Learning Spaces Managing the whole learning space calls on teachers to embrace all of their students in a holistic manner, giving attention to the learning development of the individual student in combination with attentiveness to their well-being (Spratt, 2017). Curtiss Williams (2009) and Cornelius-White (2007) have both underlined that teachers have a responsibility to construct classroom environments that accentuate mutual respect between the teacher and the students because learning is significantly influenced by student–teacher trust relationships. As I have already discussed, teachers’ confidence in their ability, knowledge and skills influences their creation of effective classroom environments and their approach to inclusive education (Carroll et al., 2003). Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, research evidence has shown that out-of-field teachers find it challenging and often impossible to simultaneously address the gaps in their knowledge and fully address the individual needs of all their students (Du Plessis, 2018a), but this shift in trust relationships causes further disruption. Rogers (2011a) has emphasised that underlying tension in learning and teaching environments limits students’ engagement and academic interactions. Further, however, the reality for classrooms is that unaddressed, unnoticed and uncontrolled learning and behaviour needs can quickly disrupt teaching and learning spaces. Disruptive behaviour in the learning environment creates more than just dysfunctional classrooms, it changes the learning climate, with shouting teachers and uncooperative students (Rogers, 2011a). School leaders shared that teachers who are not in control of their subject knowledge and struggle to take ownership of their classroom space often rely on meaningless talk, screaming or ignoring student behaviour until it escalates to a level that cannot be ignored anymore. Corroborating this, an outof-field teacher explained that his final strategy was to start shouting in an effort to change the behaviour of the students in his classroom, but he also admitted that students just ignored him (Field data: B6). At another school, a specialist teacher described an out-of-field teacher’s learning space this way: There is a problem with interacting in the classroom, just not an understanding of how to relate to a different age…A pretty disturbed class, it harmed children. They were a difficult class, some of the children had been taken out but it didn’t seem to calm…it seemed to escalate…unfortunately. (Field data: C2)

6.5 Managing Challenging Learning Spaces

191

Such teaching and learning spaces offer limited content discussions and restricted teacher accessibility as teachers struggle to cope, and teacher–student trust relationships are affected, particularly when rigid and extreme behaviour management strategies are employed. The same out-of-field teacher (B6) further explained that leadership was inconsistent in the way they reacted to behaviour challenges, for example, advising teachers to report challenging student behaviour but then failing to consistently act upon reports. One of this beginning out-of-field teacher’s school leaders (B2) shared, “This guy is not going to make it,” while the out-of-field teacher described his situation in terms of subject passion: Teachers who have no knowledge, training or interests towards a subject are not able to effectively manage behaviour and their classrooms. Students notice when a teacher is not fully engaged with the subject that is given. They [students] follow their teacher’s example and misbehave or will not pay attention. (Field data: B6)

This particular teacher was trained as a biology teacher but was teaching language and physical education out-of-field at junior secondary level with class sizes of 30 or more students. The teacher tried to enter into conversations with leadership about his lived experiences but was unsuccessful in convincing them that they needed to make changes to his teaching subjects or to the support he received. He admitted that his disposition changed at this point, and that he became angry and depressed. Out-of-field teachers expect school leaders to support them in constructing a healthy teaching and learning space in the subjects/year levels they have been assigned but admit that they feel that they are on their own most of the time. Rogers and McPherson (2009) have suggested that students who struggle with behaviour challenges experience self-concept issues and stressful incidents as being consequences of their behaviour in the teaching and learning environment. Policy frameworks that are carefully designed for specific contexts need to offer out-offield teachers strategies to avoid negative confrontation with challenging students, and alternatives to falling back on rigid and extreme behaviour management. Careful management of the teaching and learning space develops a classroom climate that is conducive to inclusive quality education. It is of utmost importance to learning that teachers carefully manage students’ learning and behaviour needs, and that they are supported in their endeavours to do so.

6.5.1 Out-of-Field Teachers’ and Students’ Well-being: Exposed to School Leaders’ Disconnect? Out-of-field teachers across the board remark on their need for leadership understanding and support. I argue that this support is necessary for their well-being and that of their students. It is true that schools need well-trained and confident teachers who have the ability to add value to the learning environment and support the aca-

192

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

demic well-being of their students (Obidah & Howard, 2005), but I argue that this requirement extends to school leaders: Schools need well-informed, capable school leaders who prioritise their responsibility for creating a healthy teaching and learning environment for students and teachers. I have noted that the disconnection between leadership and out-of-field teachers’ classroom realities creates situations where the flow of information about the real-life experiences inside classrooms is restricted, which complicates the proactive management of challenges. To begin with, this disconnection impacts the development of policy structures that would strategise the placement of teachers, particularly in primary school classrooms. As I have already discussed (see Sect. 1.1.1, 1.2.2 and 11.5.2.1), perception that out-of-field teaching practices are acceptable in primary school environments is an assumption that shows a systematically held misunderstanding of the skill of expert teachers as well as the fundamental work primary school teachers do to carefully develop students’ foundational learning approaches. Leaders need to be empowered by policy to manage their staff utilisation and placement so that teachers are assigned to positions that are best fitted for their knowledge, passion, interest and qualifications in order to benefit students’ learning. Stepping inside the lived experiences of out-of-field teachers demonstrates a further need for information flows to be empowered by leadership support. DarlingHammond (2010) has noted that schools transform into effective and supportive environments when teachers collaborate in “communitarian” environments (p. 239); yet research has demonstrated that out-of-field teachers are not comfortable to openly discuss their lack of skills, challenging experiences and restricted knowledge (Du Plessis, 2014). These teachers admit that they need to work increased hours to maintain some kind of effectiveness in their classrooms and to try to develop healthy trust relationships with their students, especially those who are vulnerable. Out-of-field teachers describe different strategies, but most report that they require the support of management and specific structures to make it easier for them. The challenges which develop around teachers’ confidence to enter into subject content discussions when they are not familiar with the material and the need to connect with students in areas of their interests and passion and to develop a rapport with the students are key areas of concern. Beginning teachers in out-of-field positions claim that they do not receive the support they need as inexperienced teachers in these positions. These teachers state that they urgently need support structures to develop their teaching skills and capacity to overcome their perceived inadequacy (Du Plessis et al., 2018); in support, Rogers (2011b) has claimed that well preparedness and the ability to be structured are skills which teachers develop via support and collaboration. Hattie (2009) has emphasised that school leaders who create a safe environment where teachers can confidently interact, question and offer learning support greatly improve students’ outcomes. Rogers (2003) has stated that teachers should not have to handle difficult behavioural situations in their teaching environment all by themselves. Well-designed policy structures are required to support out-of-field teachers’

6.5 Managing Challenging Learning Spaces

193

professional identities with strategies and approaches that can assist them in finding the balance between having control over the content and directing or guiding students’ behaviour in their classrooms. Strategising tailored communication for these factors needs to consider that its purpose is constraining the impact of out-of-field teachers’ overstretched self-confidence on the multiple layers of the teaching and learning environment. Rogers and McPherson (2009) have claimed that the capacity and skills for effective management behaviour and leadership are embedded in quality communication and organisational structures. Research, however, showed that parents are saddened by the time it takes for school leaders to get involved in a teaching and learning context where students and teachers are suffering and struggling because of the teacher’s lack of knowledge and expertise (Du Plessis, 2014). Parents report that significant harm was done before school leaders would intervene in an out-of-field situation where major concerns had already developed. The common perception is that school leaders will wait until behavioural distresses in classrooms visibly affect students’ learning or their parents’ dispositions in the school context before they will act. Parents and school leaders are mindful of out-of-field teachers’ struggles to address the needs of students with specific emotional needs and intervene in a suitable manner. Parents shared that they usually know straightaway when the teacher struggles to support learning and employ timely and suitable interventions to manage classroom behaviour. Both parents and school leaders acknowledged a change in student behaviour at school and at home when struggling learners are repeatedly exposed to dysfunctional classroom environments. Further, parents expect that the school leaders’ attention to behavioural problems will be appropriately timely and will fix issues that develop. School leaders’ intervention in complex teaching and learning environments is perceived as being part of their pedagogical accountability and role to ensure the school culture supports effective teaching and learning. Parents also admitted that when things go wrong and “the school” does not manage situations effectively, the school/home partnership becomes strained. School leaders need to shift from misconceptions to awareness and begin to see how fragile classroom environments can become because of out-of-field teaching practices so that these realities can have a significant influence on the school improvement policies they develop to safeguard the well-being of all students. Indepth, context-conscious needs analyses can assist schools to develop frameworks, approaches and strategies to energise collaboration and communication that will prevent the negative impacts of out-of-field teaching practices on students’ learning and assist schools to effectively support out-of-field teachers in their efforts to maintain quality learning environments and student learning. Rogers and McPherson (2009) have emphasised that the kind of support school leaders offer for teachers in challenging positions should be non-judgmental and non-comparative, and needs to respect teachers’ intrinsic intentions to support students’ learning.

194

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

6.5.2 Student Well-being: Knowledgeable Teachers and Interventions Carroll et al. (1999) have noted that teachers need to influence the behaviour of at-risk students before it disintegrates into dysfunctional social behaviour. Intervention is a carefully planned strategy, an approach that intends to make beneficial transformation possible. Darling-Hammond (2010) has discussed that students who perceive that their needs are not being met in the classroom will demand attention in various ways, and highlights the importance of having teachers with extensive knowledge in classrooms to attend to students with special learning needs. Teachers need to actively engage in teaching attention-seeking students alternative patterns of effective behaviour and social skills (Rogers & McPherson, 2009). Out-of-field teachers need targeted policies that will improve the classroom framework and structure so that both students and teachers feel secure in a healthy classroom climate. In Scotland, Spratt (2017) has highlighted that education policy “explicitly links well-being to learning” with the “health and well-being across learning” policy (p. 70). This framework highlights students’ well-being as being central to their lived experiences within the teaching and learning space. In demonstration of the interdependence of classroom elements, while out-offield teachers acknowledged that their restricted content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge create challenges for the integration of teaching practices and pedagogical reasoning in a manner that affects their accommodation of diversity, school leaders admitted students will often perceive an out-of-field teacher who lacks confidence as “a weak spot,” which they then try to manipulate to get what they want. Further, out-of-field teachers’ restricted skill set is also perceived as unpreparedness by students, which aggravates them and stimulates disrespect. In this environment of powershift, already troubled by their inadequacy and lack of confidence, outof-field teachers’ stress and uncertainty affect their perceptions and understanding of demonstrations of offensive, arrogant and troublesome behaviour by students (Rogers, 2011a), compounding the emotions and dispositions already present in these difficult situations. As noted, complex classroom situations that are not attended to in a timely manner through strong school improvement policies develop behavioural problems, school attendance issues and achievement complications (Korpershoek, Harms, De Boer, van Kuijk, & Doolaard, 2016). Leaders, administrators, teachers and specialist psychologists working with students acknowledge the needs of students who are at-risk of leaving the education system (Carroll et al., 1999). When teaching practices and pedagogical skills influence how teachers manage stressful behavioural situations (Rogers, 2011a) and a growing percentage of students in mainstream classrooms display additional and unique learning needs (Allison & Rehm, 2007), it is unsurprising that out-of-field teachers express concerns about the level of support they can access to improve teaching and learning environments.

6.5 Managing Challenging Learning Spaces

195

As noted, Powers and Swick (2014) have emphasised the need to engage staff in developmental work to sustain evidence-informed behavioural support interventions. They also underline that intervention programmes need to be well integrated with teaching and classroom realities in order to meet the needs of teachers and their students. Carroll et al. (2003) have observed that teachers reflect on their need to engage in quality curriculum or programme development either because of a deficiency in their ITE or owing to unsuitable utilisation of their teaching qualifications. Teachers’ self-confidence is undergirded by quality resource accessibility, which includes policies targeted at providing these resources. Policies for teacher development are therefore part of a carefully designed organisational framework and structure that assists teachers to construct safe teaching environments where they can explore their role as the knowledgeable other with teaching practices that are attentive to students’ needs and interventions that positively influence the behaviour and well-being of students in their classrooms. Targeted teacher development resources mean out-of-field teachers are well supported and better prepared to deliver quality education.

6.5.3 Teacher and Student Well-being at Risk: The Culture of Out-of-Field Teaching and Learning Spaces Keeping in mind that the behaviour and well-being of teachers’ and students’ are interconnected with the atmosphere or culture of the teaching and learning space, Rogers and McPherson (2009) have highlighted that schools are accountable for developing a culture that gives students and teachers opportunities to achieve the expected outcomes. Teachers have delegated authority as classroom leaders and managers; they construct learning opportunities and model healthy learning approaches for students from within the organisational structures that policies direct. When students who feel dissatisfied with the learning space find it difficult to fully engage in learning activities and display challenging behaviour to test a teacher’s skills, the teacher’s capacity in responding to and managing this behaviour can create the social and cultural benchmark for what is generally thought about that student. Teachers carry the authority of schools and as such a representational social authority. The dislodgement of content knowledge and applicable pedagogy in the out-of-field teacher’s classroom can thus create intersections between learning, behaviour and classroom culture, with the combined impact reaching towards students’ well-being, self-perception and social acceptance beyond the classroom. Students who feel dissatisfied with the learning space, including those who display challenging behaviour, can be left disillusioned by the culture and atmosphere in the classroom. Without strong micro-education policies or frameworks that show understanding of the complications of out-of-field teaching and use processes that acknowledge different causes for the dislodgement of the classroom climate and students’ behaviour, the teaching and learning space can become a stressful learning space for students, as a parent shared:

196

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

He cries before he goes to school. The [classroom] environment is not secure, he is slammed. It gets him down because he realises what needs to be done…Seeing a classroom do that—he feels isolated. The sub-side of this—the classroom bully, a few of the boys now look at him as a martyr—he got away with [it]—where will that end? (Field data: F5)

Out-of-field teachers admitted that they tend to focus on content and concepts which can be learned by heart and reproduced as learned to cover the curriculum expectations. I have noted elsewhere that out-of-field teachers’ surface knowledge of subject matter results in restricted scaffolding for new knowledge Du Plessis (2018a); moreover, often unaware of what students have already learned, the teacher cannot build on existing scaffolding. Restricted interconnections or piecemeal development of new knowledge stimulate frustration for students and teachers alike, as an out-of-field maths teacher shared, “I explain and explain and explain…but they just don’t get it” (Field data: B6). Out-of-field teachers admitted that they do not have the broad content knowledge they need to satisfy the enquiries of gifted or talented students and cannot enter into in-depth subject matter discussions or answer students’ questions. Students are aggravated and frustrated by these classroom experiences. The disruption to learning, classroom culture and teachers’ professional identity and well-being produced by this kind of constrained content knowledge can spread into the school system, as is highlighted by the comments of a specialist teacher at a senior school: They [out-of-field teachers] exhaust senior teachers—you have to take them step by step through preparation. I would be busy with my Year 12 class…and then she comes running in with questions… (Field data: B4)

This teacher struggled to hold their own in the learning space and had the additional contextual challenge of a large class size; such an example (of a “knowledgeable other” urgently seeking help and assistance in front of two classes) acutely describes the gravity of absent content knowledge in the ever-situated environment of a teaching and learning space. I emphasise again the pressing need for, and potential value of, context-conscious micro-education policies to effectively support all teachers and students whose classroom cultures and well-being are being impacted by challenging out-of-field teaching positions. Hattie (2009) has emphasised one of the roles of the culture of a teaching and learning environment is that participants know that teachers create a “bridge” between prior knowledge and new concepts to assist students to securely move to deep and “long-term” learning (p. 167). I stress, however, that this highlights a compound role that a positive learning culture plays in teacher and student well-being. Returning to the example from Sect. 5.6.4, the well-being of an at-risk boy deteriorated in an outof-field teacher’s classroom to a display of severe behavioural needs, gaining him a bad reputation among his peers and their parents (see Sect. 5.6.4). He was then bullied in the playground because of the reputation that was constructed inside the classroom, and was not included in after-school events because of the perception of him that had developed through the unhealthy student–teacher relationship, and which had formed the views of students and parents. The teacher is the classroom leader and is responsible to construct a culture of healthy learning and healthy relationships with all students; however, out-of-field teachers admit that student relationships are one

6.5 Managing Challenging Learning Spaces

197

of their most intense challenges. School cultures are developed through decisions made by school leaders and via the frameworks and structures they set; under their leadership, teachers develop the classroom cultures that provide the space for students to learn. Unsupported by either positive classroom or school cultures, this student’s well-being became a significant concern for his parents with the student displaying behavioural and developmental regression as well as uncontrolled aggressiveness at school and at home. Research has shown that out-of-field teachers find it challenging to create positive cultures in learning environments without supportive organisational structures which accommodate, acknowledge and respect the reality of their inexperience and restricted knowledge and how this affects their capacity to act in their classrooms on the multiple levels that teaching requires (Du Plessis, 2014). Targeted classroom and school improvement policies must support the multilayered role of a positive culture in the learning space. Darling-Hammond (2010) has emphasised that “…we’re letting the students down” (p. 87), with more inexperienced and unsuitably qualified teachers responsible for teaching at-risk students, particularly in lower socioeconomic environments. Dysfunctional classroom environments leave teachers and their students feeling disillusioned and dissatisfied with teaching and learning, and Rogers (2011a) has claimed that the frustration, anger and constant feelings of anxiety leave teachers feeling out of control of their teaching situations. Out-of-field teachers confirm feelings of anxiety and uncertainty that often develop into negative self-talk because of their feelings of situational powerlessness.

6.5.4 Student Respect and Out-of-Field Teachers’ Coping Mechanisms It is perhaps apparent that the interwoven nature of a complex teaching and learning environment with student learning and teacher and student being has multidirectional repercussions. I turn now to the respect students show to teachers and how this affects teachers’ well-being and confidence, but which also has implications for students’ own well-being. The respect students have and demonstrate for their teachers influences their behaviour towards them; once respect is lost and becomes absent from the learning space, it takes time and an extreme effort to restore healthy student–teacher trust relationships and to reconstruct a respectful learning environment (Sook-Jeong, 2007). Further, the negative emotions that are part of dispositions of disrespect have an effect on students’ perceptions of their identity as successful learners. As has been described, students in teaching and learning environments where uncertainty and insecurity are present often respond by turning the classroom into a disruptive space. Challenging behaviour can be the result of inappropriately targeted learning tasks, boredom, difficulty understanding content or ambiguity about what is expected of students (Rogers, 2011b), while other authors, for example, Carroll et al.

198

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

(1999), have noted that some high school students deliberately generate conflict incidents with teachers to underscore their non-conforming image. It is clear that individual teachers’ skills influence their approach and effectiveness in managing and confronting behaviour issues in the teaching and learning space (Blazar & Kraft, 2017), and teachers are aware of their skills and failings/challenges, a consciousness that runs to their confidence in future situations and can be deteriorative. An out-offield teacher in her second year of teaching in a remote high school shared real-life experiences of classroom dissatisfaction, noting that her “classes were horrible.” The teacher then burst into tears and offered an emotional explanation: “…the kids were just off the walls” (Field data: E5). Out-of-field teachers who face the challenges of their students’ disrespect admit that they develop coping mechanisms to project an image of control over the situation, the specific subject content and over the classroom context. Research shows that they employ various coping mechanisms to manage this aspect of their out-of-field experiences and are eager to show that they excel—in the process of which they can become content and self-focused, as well as overlook students’ needs or miss the cues that highlight needs and sensitive learning difficulties in their classrooms, behaviour that is noticed by students and ironically contributes to disrespect. Curtiss Williams (2009) has underlined that teachers’ image as caring, engaged and compassionate knowledgeable others in the classroom develops confidence and self-determination in their students. I assert that the unrealistic expectations put on out-of-field teachers exacerbate the harm the phenomenon causes to professional trust relationships. Student–teacher interaction and trust relationships need to be caring, consistent and honest (see Sect. 5.6.4), but without leadership acknowledgement of the phenomenon, an out-of-field teacher appears legitimately “unprepared” or “unskilled” to students. (I suggest that acknowledgment and collaboration are thus part of honesty.) Out-of-field teachers’ lack of noticing of their students’ needs and the effects of their constrained skill set on their students is a by-product of the pressure they are under to perform, and it can compound the lack of respect their students already offer them. Despite their anxiety to achieve, the issues that develop in out-of-field classrooms because of the influence on student–teacher trust relationships are frequently interconnected with out-of-field teachers’ lack of scope for situational awareness. Teaching and learning environments where policy frameworks encourage noticing students could structure regular, timely and informative discussions that assist the out-of-field teacher to confront this unconsciously developed unawareness of what is happening to their professional relationships would promote noticing of their students’ needs and proactively address the issues of respect that develop in their classrooms. A parent described that the “ripple effect” that dispositions and a classroom atmosphere of disrespect stimulate culminate in feelings of school avoidance and trust deterioration: She was teaching outside her field of expertise—she was just not up to standard for Year 2—and the impact of that was that she didn’t have the respect of the students—she didn’t have the niche to work with these kids. The children weren’t learning anything because she

6.5 Managing Challenging Learning Spaces

199

was spending her time putting out fires—I guess she didn’t have the expertise she needed to cope with the behaviour issues and the classroom management issues. (Field data: C3)

The challenge to command an unfamiliar subject and/or year level and effectively lead students’ academic and social learning without resources or support structures is considerable, and it is clear from evidence that classrooms subjected to these pressures can rapidly devolve into highly complex spaces. It understandably takes teachers time to adjust to an unsuitable assignment; however, during this time, if teachers are left to manage “on their own,” their focus on their own practice because of the in situ demands on their skills and knowledge can mean that students become vulnerable and their learning and development are affected. Complex classroom situations such as these require policies that are targeted to the circumstances and which establish a structure or framework inside which out-offield classroom management strategies can be practiced. School policies that allow students to struggle and challenge for the learning they deserve are the responsibility of school leaders. Without well-designed micro-education policies that encourage context-conscious exploration of these issues, uncertain out-of-field teachers will end up using short-term “hit-and-run” strategies to manage the teaching and learning space, with implications for respect, trust relationships and teacher and student wellbeing.

6.5.5 The Well-being of Students Beyond the Out-of-Field Classroom The ignorance of policy-makers about the complexities of out-of-field classroom environments and the compound effects these can have on students’ well-being is letting down these teachers and their students. It is a major concern that students with unique learning needs who are struggling to adjust to the out-of-field classroom space can be labelled, and their teachers criticised, because they are part of an environment where necessary policies are not in place to acknowledge their challenges and to support and protect them. As data from the field shows, the dispositions at work inside out-of-field classrooms can escalate to students being bullied in the playground (see Sect. 5.6.4). Students who experience the effects of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon as extremely challenging are vulnerable to becoming targets for teasing or bullying. There is an urgent need for school improvement policies that proactively manage these explosive situations, which clearly have a significant impact on students’ learning and development; further, it is apparent from results that students’ experiences in the classroom affect their behaviour at home. Frustration, anger and anxiety because of expectations that are not being fulfilled by the school have implications for parent–teacher relationships and the home–school partnership, as a parent shared,

200

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

He defied the teacher. It started spiraling, the teacher kept telling me he is tearing the classroom apart, he is full of anger, he says horrible things, he shouted at the other kids. I told the principal when he gets dressed in the mornings he is cooperative, he does his jobs and then we dropped him off…and literally by ten o’clock in the morning I would get a call saying he is out of control. (Field data: C5)

Carroll et al. (2006) have underlined that social factors add to difficult emotional and behavioural responses in classrooms. It is clear that out-of-field teachers who are experienced teachers have well-developed strategies and approaches to classroom management and are more effective at managing the complex teaching and learning environment that ensues from the out-of-field phenomenon, but as I have discussed, this still comes at a considerable cost (see Sect. 5.6.2). Teachers understand the importance of the interrelationships in the teaching and learning environment, but suitably qualified and experienced teachers are confident to do what is necessary to build sound relationships with their students as well as encourage them and accommodate their needs. On the other hand, disappointment, misunderstanding and disconnection between out-of-field teachers and their students can have far-reaching implications for school cultures. The quest for targeted policy development challenges stakeholders to break away from existing concepts about out-of-field teachers and teaching, and to move instead towards an approach of support that brings together the truths from various “horizons.” Such an in-depth exploration of the specific support teachers need for the challenges they face provides valuable information for future decision-making and policy transformation. In terms of the policy think tank space this book aims to provide, data from lived experience demonstrate that policy frameworks need to become structural resources to stabilise out-of-field classrooms in order to responsibly manage the complexities surrounding the out-of-field teaching phenomenon.

6.6 Summary Smith (2002) has highlighted that the impact of emotions on teachers’ effectiveness in their classrooms should not be ignored, because an understanding of emotion can clarify why teachers act in the way they do. Noticing the reality and truths within these environments prompts attention towards how the phenomenon transforms emotion, behaviour, situations and understanding within the classroom context (Joyce, Weil, & Calhoun, 2000). Awareness of the complex impact of the out-of-field phenomenon on classroom climates and culture stimulates reflection on how policy structures can address the specific challenges of the phenomenon that occur in the classroom space. A context-consciousness of out-of-field teaching opens a new lens through which the phenomenon’s impact on teachers’ and students’ well-being can be understood. In particular, educational systems need to ensure school policy structures have the power to respect and care for the needs of teachers and students, rather than leaving them vulnerable. I return to the need to acknowledge that classroom experiences are fundamental for teachers’ emotions of self-esteem and fulfillment (Nias, 1996);

6.6 Summary

201

this viewpoint underlines the importance of protecting the classroom context with targeted policies that support out-of-field teachers who find themselves in vulnerable situations of continuous self-critique. As well, policies must protect vulnerable students who are greatly affected by the different kinds of disruptive classroom contexts that result from the out-of-field phenomenon, and who require carefully developed empirically supported intervention frameworks. Out-of-field teachers responsible for highly diverse and challenging student cohorts need the support of frameworks, strategies and policies that are underpinned by established and timely implementation guidelines. Specific contexts and circumstances intensify the lived experiences of out-of-field teachers and their students beyond what is usual in classrooms. Carefully designed frameworks need to not only improve appreciation of the intertwined emotional and educational outcomes that occur inside their classrooms but also demonstrate a clear consideration of the image of the school as an environment that offers quality education, and of teaching as a profession. The details make up the whole. In addition, policies that focus on protecting the well-being of teachers and their students need to resource schools to enhance out-of-field teachers’ professional identity rather than leaving it to self-resolve in stress, burn-out, absenteeism or attrition. Policy-developers need to keep in mind that policies are needed to ensure that both at-risk teachers and at-risk students are retained within mainstream schooling and education. A mindfulness and understanding of how teacher and student well-being are intertwined with the multilayered complexities of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon will allow a new lens for the development of policy and its role in complex teaching situations. The potentially fragile well-being of the teachers and students who experience the out-of-field teaching phenomenon gives urgency to the argument that policy needs to reflect the needs of lived experiences.

References Ager, A., & Young, M. (1997). Final report on the advanced research training seminar (ARTS) on qualitative research methods: Application across cultures and ethnic groups at the University of Ottawa. International Journal of Psychology, 32(4), 273. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 002075997400791. Allison, B., & Rehm, M. (2007). Effective teaching strategies for middle school learners in multicultural, multilingual classrooms. Middle School Journal, 39(2), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00940771.2007.11461619. Armstrong, M. (2006). A handbook of human resource management practice. London, UK: Kogan Page Limited. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press. Barlow, D. (2002). Putting the right teachers in the right places. The Education Digest, 68(4), 64–67. Barnum, M. (2017, January 10). 3 big problems in how schools hire teachers—and what research says about how to solve them. The 74. Retrieved from https://www.the74million.org/article/3big-problems-in-how-districts-hire-teachers-and-ways-to-solve-them/. Blase, J., Blase, J., & Du, F. (2008). The mistreated teacher: A national study. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(3), 263–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810869257.

202

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

Blazar, D., & Kraft, M. (2017). Teacher and teaching effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors. Educational Evaluation Policy Analysis, 39(1), 146–170. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0162373716670260. Bourdieu, P. (2010). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (1999). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived selfefficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(2), 239–253. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carlyle, D., & Woods, P. (2002). Emotions of teacher stress. Staffordshire, UK: Trentham Books Limited. Carroll, A., Baglioni, A., Houghton, S., & Bramston, P. (1999). At-risk and not at-risk primary school children: An examination of goal orientations and social reputations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 377–392. Carroll, A., Forlin, C., & Jobling, A. (2003). The impact of teacher training in special education on the attitudes of Australian preservice general educators towards people with disabilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(3), 65–79. Carroll, A., Houghton, S., Taylor, M., West, J., & List-Kerz, M. (2006). Responses to interpersonal and physically provoking situations: The utility and application of an observation schedule for school-aged students with and without deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 26(4), 483–498. Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 113–143. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 003465430298563. Curtiss Williams, K. (2009). Elementary classroom management: A student-centered approach to leading and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Research and rhetoric on teacher certification: A response to teacher certification reconsidered. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(36). Retrieved from https:// epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/viewFile/315/441. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Dorman, M., & McDonald, J. (2005). Engagement by design: Marrying pedagogy and technology for better learning conversations via asynchronous electronic discussions. In J. Son & S. O’Neill (Eds.), Enhancing learning and teaching: Pedagogy, technology and language (pp. 119–131). Flaxton, Australia: Post Pressed. Du Plessis, A. (2005). The implications of the out-of-field phenomenon for school management (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of South Africa, Pretoria. Du Plessis, A. (2010). Continuing professional development and the out-of-field phenomenon: The implications for school management (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Africa, Pretoria. Du Plessis, A. (2014). Understanding the out-of-field teaching experience (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:330372. Du Plessis, A. (2017). Out-of-field teaching: What educational leaders need to know. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Du Plessis, A. (2018a). Barriers to effective management of diversity in classroom contexts: The out-of-field teaching phenomenon. International Journal of Educational Research. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.002. Du Plessis, A. (2018b). The lived experience of out-of-field STEM teachers: A quandary for strategising quality teaching in STEM? Research in Science Education, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11165-018-9740-9. Du Plessis, A. E., & McDonagh, K. (2020). Leadership for well-being: Managing the implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon. Manuscript in preparation. Du Plessis, A. E., Hoang, N., Wang, J., Schmidt, A., Mertens, L., & Cullinan, M., & Cameron, V. (2018). Invest in the future of education: Building a stable and quality beginning teacher

References

203

workforce. Critical factors for reform: Evidence from the field (Research report). Brisbane, QLD, Australia: Australian Catholic University. Eppley, K. (2009). Rural schools and the highly qualified teacher provision of No child left behind: A critical policy analysis. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(4), 1–11. Retrieved from http://jrre.vmhost.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/24-4.pdf. Espinoza, J. (2015, November 27). Teachers “offered days off to lure them into jobs.” The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/12019041/ Teachers-offered-days-off-to-lure-them-into-jobs.html. Fernet, C., Trépanier, S., Austin, S., & Levesque-Cote, J. (2016). Committed, inspiring, and healthy teachers: How do school environment and motivational factors facilitate optimal functioning at career start? Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016. 07.019. Gadamer, H. (1975). Truth and method (2nd ed.) J. C. B. Mohr, (Trans.). New York, NY: The Seabury Press. Gadamer, H. (1976/2008). Philosophical hermeneutics (D. Linge, Ed. & Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Goodnow, J. J. (2008). The benefits of cross-cultural collaboration. In National Research Council of the National Academes, International collaborations in behavioral and social sciences research: Report of a workshop (pp. 47–62). Washington, DC: Author. Gore, J., Holmes, K., Smith, M., & Fray, L. (2015). Investigating the factors that influence the choice of teaching as a first career (Report). Retrieved from http://qct.edu.au/pdf/research/ WhyPeopleChooseTeachingLiteratureReview.pdf. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Retrieved from ACEReSearch website https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context= research_conference_2003. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge. Hobbs, L. (2013). Teaching “out-of-field” as a boundary-crossing event: Factors shaping teacher identity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 271–297. Ingersoll, R. M. (2002). Out of field teaching, educational inequality, and the organisation of schools: An exploratory analysis. CPRE Research Reports. Retrieved from http://www.cpre.org/sites/ default/files/researchreport/796_outoffield-ri-01-2002.pdf. Ingersoll, R. (2003a). Is there a shortage among mathematics and science teachers? Science Educator, 12(1), 1–9. Ingersoll, R. (2003b). The teacher shortage: Myth or reality? Educational Horizons, 81, 146–152. Ingersoll, R. (2006). Is there really a shortage of mathematics and science teachers? Paper presented at the Math Science Partnership Conference, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://repository. upenn.edu/gse_pubs/132. Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2004). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter? NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 28–40. Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2003). Student motivation in co-operative groups: Social interdependence theory. In R. Gillies & A. Ashman (Eds.), Co-operative learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups (pp. 136–176). London, UK: Routledge Falmer. Joyce, B., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2000). Models of teaching (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Keavney, G., & Sinclair, K. (1978). Teacher concerns and teacher anxiety: A neglected topic of classroom research. Review of Educational Research, 48(2), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 00346543048002273. Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., De Boer, H., van Kuijk, M., & Doolaard, S. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students’

204

6 Teacher and Student Well-being: The Policy Link

academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 643–680. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626799. Levin, B. (2001). Reforming education: From origins to outcomes. New York, NY: Routledge. Ling, L. (2008, December 17). “Teach first,” learn later: A quick fix. ABC News. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-12-17/teach-first-learn-later-a-quick-fix/242826. Lingard, B. (2011). Policy as numbers: Ac/counting for educational research. Australian Educational Researcher, 38(4), 355–382. McConney, A., & Price, A. (2009a). An assessment of the phenomenon of “teaching-out-of-field” in WA schools: Final report. Perth, Australia: Western Australian College of Teaching. McConney, A., & Price, A. (2009b). Teaching out-of-field in Western Australia. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(6), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2009v34n6.6. Mulford, B. (2011). Closing the gap: Teacher and school leader quality and sustainability (Resource sheet no. 5). Closing the Gap Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://www.aboriginalstudies.com. au/content/uploads/2012/07/2011-Mulford-CTGC-Teacher-and-Leader-Quality-Impact.pdf. Nias, J. (1996). Thinking about feeling: The emotions in teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764960260301. Nielsen, S. (2007). The professional situation and training of vocational teachers in Denmark. In P. Grollman, & F. Rauner (Eds.), International perspectives on teachers and lectures in technical and vocational education (pp. 77–96). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5704-5. Obidah, J., & Howard, T. (2005). Preparing teachers for “Monday morning” in the urban school classroom: Reflecting on our pedagogies and practices as effective teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105275920. Parker, C. (2018, January 23). New Zealand will have a new “well-being budget,” says Jacinda Ardern [Online article from the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting]. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/new-zealand-s-new-well-beingbudget-will-fix-broken-politics-says-jacinda-ardern/. Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Powers, J., & Swick, D. (2014). Empirically supported mental health interventions with groups: Using research to support vulnerable students in schools. Clinical Social Work Journal, 42(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-013-0464-z. Redmond, M. (2010). Safe space oddity: Revisiting critical pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 30(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841230903249729. Roffey, S. (2004). The new teacher’s survival guide to behaviour. London, UK: Paul Chapman Publishing. Rogers, B. (2003). Behaviour recovery: Practical programs for challenging behaviour (2nd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press. Rogers, B. (2011a). Classroom behaviour: A practical guide to effective teaching, behaviour management and colleague support. London, UK: Sage Publications. Rogers, B. (2011b). You know the fair rule: Strategies for positive and effective behaviour management and discipline in schools (3rd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press. Rogers, B., & McPherson, E. (2009). Critical first steps: Behaviour management in the early years. Melbourne, Australia: Curriculum Corporation. Rutter, M., & Maughan, B. (2002). School effectiveness findings 1979–2002. Journal of School Psychology, 40(6), 451–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(02)00124-3. Sato, M. (2006). Introduction: Mentoring practitioners toward standards of excellence. In J. Shulman & M. Sato (Eds.), Mentoring teachers toward excellence: Supporting and developing highly qualified teachers (pp. 1–14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Schumacher, G., Grigsby, B., & Vesey, W. (2015). Determining effective teaching behaviours through the hiring process. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(1), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0071. Seidman, A. (2005). The learning killer: Disruptive student behavior in the classroom. Reading Improvement, 42(1), 40–46.

References

205

Shulman, L. (2006). Mission impossible: The exasperating mentee. In J. Shulman & M. Sato (Eds.), Mentoring teachers toward excellence: Supporting and developing highly qualified teachers (pp. 177–196). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Smith, B. (2002). Keeping emotions in mind. In P. Goldie (Ed.), Understanding emotions: Mind and morals (pp. 111–121). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Sook-Jeong, L. (2007). The relations between the student–teacher trust relationship and school success in the case of Korean middle schools. Educational Studies, 33(2), 209–216. https://doi. org/10.1080/03055690601068477. Sosu, E., & Gray, D. (2012). Investigating change in epistemic beliefs: An evaluation of the impact of student teachers’ beliefs on instructional preference and teaching competence. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.02.002. Spratt, J. (2017). Wellbeing, equity and education: A critical analysis of policy discourses of wellbeing in schools. Gewerbestrasse, Switzerland: Springer. Steyn, G., & Du Plessis, E. (2007). The implications of the out-of-field phenomenon for effective teaching, quality education and school management. Africa Education Review, 4(2), 144–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146620701652754. Tauber, R. (2007). Classroom management: Sound theory and effective practice. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing. Tayeb, M. (2001). Conducting research across cultures: Overcoming drawbacks and obstacles. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(1), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 147059580111009. van Manen, M. (2016). The tone of teaching: The language of pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. van Niekerk, E. (2003). Whole-school self-evaluation as a means to school improvement. Educare, 32(1–2), 160–184. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wirt, J., Choy, S., Rooney, P., Provasnik, S., Sen, A., & Tobin, R. (2004). The condition of education 2004 (NCES 2007–077). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Zepeda, S. (2006). High stakes supervision: We must do more. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120500448154.

Chapter 7

Policies to Build a Strong, Quality and Stable Teaching Workforce: In Spite of…

Teacher retention is of the utmost importance to the building of a stable, strong, quality teaching workforce. Research (Du Plessis, 2014, 2017, 2019) shows that with support, engaged leadership, and professional trust interrelationships, teachers in challenging positions such as out-of-field teaching perceive their teaching situation as manageable and tend to remain in the teaching profession, often staying at the school where they have been supported. Outof-field teachers shared that it takes them from three to five years to develop expertise in a specific subject area or field, information that is of considerable value when school leaders make decisions about micro-education policies to improve their students’ achievements. Decisions to assign teachers to different out-of-field subjects on a continual basis have a crushing impact on the development of teachers’ expertise. Out-of-field teachers need time to adjust to an unfamiliar subject and/or year level to develop sound content and pedagogical content knowledge, and to “settle down” in an out-of-field subject area, field or year level.

7.1 Introduction A school leader’s statement that unhappy out-of-field teachers “don’t stay” demonstrates the challenges of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on the teaching workforce. Spratt (2017) has acknowledged the interrelatedness of personal well-being with other purposes of schooling, an interaction that the out-of-field phenomenon perhaps makes apparent with its foundations in workforce management and teacher placement (economic objectives) rather than in quality learning and teaching objectives. It is clear from the preceding discussion that the well-being of teachers cannot be separated from students’ well-being and their learning achievements, and I argue that assigning teachers to out-of-field teaching positions has interconnected implications for the overall well-being of the teaching workforce. Evidence-based research demonstrates the role educational and school leadership decisions play in teaching

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. E. Du Plessis, Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1948-2_7

207

208

7 Policies to Build a Strong, Quality …

workforce stability and effective implementation of strategic workforce plans and improvement strategies (Du Plessis et al., 2018). The placement or assignment of teachers in positions outside their field of qualifications or expertise is a school-level practice certain to push back into strategic workforce planning unless it is addressed by targeted policy development. This chapter offers a critical reflection on the gaps that currently exist in policy for managing the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and the effects on the stability of the teaching workforce. The absence of micro-education policies to address and manage out-of-field implications is a symptom of school leaders’ lack of awareness of the realities in out-offield classrooms. School leaders do not mention the out-of-field phenomenon because they do not see the implications of the out-of-field phenomenon. Prevailing misconceptions about the results of the out-of-field phenomenon on school and classroom cultures result in educational and school leaders’ failure to make any noise about having to assign teachers to positions outside their field of qualifications or expertise. However, “not making noise” perpetuates the taken-for-granted approach of leadership that the complex challenges out-of-field teachers have to manage are their own, and leaders can demonstrate denial about both these issues and the “invisible” blowback effect of the phenomenon on the stability of the teaching workforce. Darling-Hammond (2010a, 2010b) has noted that teachers with restricted teaching experience are most likely to be assigned to more complex and challenging positions in hard-to-staff school contexts. Dimmock (1999) has observed that school leaders find it difficult to develop a sense of balance between expectations of quality and staff improvement, student achievement, school performance and their own administrative duties. While school leaders admit that they prefer to wait and observe if teachers have the capacity to manage classroom challenges on their own, the assigning of inexperienced teachers to challenging teaching positions demonstrates a disengagement and disconnectedness from the realities of the phenomenon’s implications, not only within the school but also for the greater teaching workforce. Perceptions that school leaders are disconnected from the challenges teachers experience in the classroom context leave out-of-field teachers feeling exposed and vulnerable. Further, and concerningly, often student cohorts who are most in need of suitably qualified and experienced teachers to guide their learning have to manage without this basic workforce expectation (Darling-Hammond, 2010a). Indeed, Sutcher, DarlingHammond and Carver-Tomas (2016) have shared that “half of all schools and 90% of high-poverty schools are struggling to find qualified special education teachers” (p. 1). Even so, the wider school community expect school leaders to demonstrate robust decision-making skills to maintain quality teaching in classrooms. It is further expected that the principles underlying their decisions and strategies are underpinned by strong personal and professional values (Bush, 2008). The wider school community voice an expectation that effective school leaders will employ appropriate strategies that enrich learning and teaching opportunities, while they also closely observe, reflect on and appraise teacher and student performance levels (Getkin, 2009). Yet,

7.1 Introduction

209

while educational quality assurance is often strategised through the formulated expectations and consistency of requirements (e.g., for graduate teachers) of teacher performance standards (Bahr & Mellor, 2016), whether or not these standards actually accommodate the complexities of the out-of-field phenomenon remains unaddressed. Dimmock and Walker (2005) have noted that interdependent relationships bind all stakeholders together in a distinctively connected school community culture. School leaders’ misunderstanding about the realities of out-of-field teaching practices for teachers bleed into workforce cultures, leaving these teachers feeling that the only option left for them is to either move to another school or to leave the teaching profession entirely. Instead, leaders’ decisions about the phenomenon need to reflect full awareness of the challenges underlying the use of an out-of-field teaching workforce while also engaging in active management of the impact this has on the school, and on the rest of their teaching workforce. Well-designed policy frameworks can have a significant impact on developing a strong, quality, stable teaching workforce by providing out-of-field teachers with the safety net of having leaders already equipped with strategies to manage the multifaceted implications of the phenomenon.

7.2 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Specific Contextual Factors Driving the Teaching Workforce Weldon (2015) has shared that the demand for teachers is steadily increasing and might remain high for at least the next 10 years, while an ageing teaching population and the decline of male teachers in certain subject areas remain workforce concerns. With the strong link that exists between workforce management, staff availability and the out-of-field phenomenon, DeFour and Marzano (2011) have noted the significant impact of timely leadership intervention in addressing stakeholders’ contextual needs and other contextual factors. In particular, understanding-enlivened, timely management of contextual challenges has the potential to manage the dispositions that develop because of out-of-field teaching experiences. School environments are packed with emotions (Carlyle & Woods, 2002) and as such are complex. The manner in which these emotions are directed and mobilised in situations where the phenomenon is at play can have a significant effect on the school environment; if handled productively, these emotions can benefit organisational effectiveness. Van Manen (1991) has underscored that continuous transformation of policies and curricula often leave teachers with emotions of frustration, an issue which also has implications for the image of stability in the teaching sphere, and the image of teaching/teachers generally. Constant changes leave teachers feeling that they have lost their influence as subject specialists. The out-of-field teaching phenomenon stimulates feelings of professional dissatisfaction as well as a restricted sense of confidence that students will receive quality education, and the teaching and the changed learning space create challenges for teachers, students and parents who all need to manage, but often without a fundamental understanding of what is really

210

7 Policies to Build a Strong, Quality …

going on in the classroom and why. Particularly in disruptive environments, out-offield teachers are perceived as under pressure to survive their teaching; these teachers are seen by colleagues and described by themselves as “imposters” or “chalk and talk” teachers. Carlyle and Woods (2002) have claimed that the negative feelings teachers experience develop because of unstructured crisis management, insufficient communication, autocratic decision-making and bullying management styles. Dispositions are determined by situations, contexts, times and understanding (Freeman, 2007a), and empirical evidence already presented has highlighted the intensity of emotions that can be produced owing to the specific environment and circumstances in which out-of-field teachers’ function. The manner in which these teachers are able to cope and maintain an image and presentation of effectiveness is also frequently directed by their existing level of experience. Beginning teachers, for example, struggle more to cope in out-of-field positions not just because of the untested nature of their pedagogical skills, but also because their limited organisational understandings affect how they reach out for assistance. Policy frameworks have the potential to offer structures that support school improvement strategies for the building of out-of-field teachers’ professional coping as well as their teaching capacity and image. I turn now to schools as microcosms of society that bring together complex and multilayered cultures and which mirror complicated societies and the ways in which complex challenges in these societies are acknowledged, respected and managed. I assert that school contexts that demonstrate workplace traditions of assigning inexperienced, unsuitably qualified teachers to teach large, challenging and/or undesirable student cohorts fail to recognise this essential management aspect of both schooling and staff utilisation. The school staff context forms part of the school culture and learning framework. Schools and classrooms reflect a learning space where time, traditions, history, citizenship and cultures intertwine and have significant influence on the effectiveness of policy implementation. These realities involve the lived experiences of staff with different levels of teaching experience and expertise who are drawn together to form an interconnected body that works towards creating an effective school environment (Latham, 2009). Schools are perceived as effective and comprehensive when all the stakeholders work in a healthy partnership to benefit students’ classroom learning (DeFour & Marzano, 2011; Epstein et al., 2018). Despite its organic nature, however, the intersection between the multilayered context of a school community and its organisational requirements (e.g., for quality education) requires that needs are noticed and accommodated in frameworks. Redding (1996) has defined these different layers of a school community as social capital, an entity which includes human relationships such as the parent–teacher relationship that informs the teacher and the school about the home curriculum that forms the background of student behaviour. Social capital, being comprised of this kind of knowledge, further offers information about a specific school community and enhances collaboration between people who share a specific goal. The structured development of a deeper understanding of a school’s social capital through deliberate sharing of perceptions and experiences can enhance the effectiveness of a school community (Shields, 2002).

7.2 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Specific Contextual Factors …

211

7.2.1 The Remote Context Darling-Hammond (2010a) has claimed that out-of-field teaching is widespread in hard-to-staff, small, rural schools. Policy-developers and decision-makers, and the school improvement policies they develop, need to demonstrate a contextconsciousness about out-of-field teaching practices and their particular impact on these school communities. The realities about recruitment and a school’s future in a remote school community environment are demonstrated in a parent’s concerns: “The problem is the school is not able to secure good teachers” (Field data: E6). Students in certain communities can develop perceptions that they “have been identified as not deserving a high-quality…education” (Darling-Hammond, 2010a, p. 65) simply because schools in lower socioeconomic and/or rural areas experience difficulties recruiting and retaining well-qualified teachers. In a rural school with a high number of unsuitably qualified teachers, a deputy principal elaborated on the school culture that had developed because of the challenging nature of the teaching and learning environment: “The school could be wonderful; it’s not wonderful at the moment, and staff are miserable” (Field data: E3).

7.3 Policies Impact the Image of the Teaching Workforce The image of the teaching workforce is widely discussed in international literature (Hill, 2007; Skilbeck & Connell, 2004), and is built around good teachers. Van Manen (2016) has claimed that a good teacher “does not just happen to teach” a specific subject but rather “a good teacher embodies” the subject: “Good teachers are what they teach” (p. 65). In this book, a good teacher is defined as one who fulfils expectations and achieves high-level outcomes, and an effective teacher is defined as a good teacher who has the capacity to adjust pedagogies and teaching practices through their context-conscious alignment with students’ needs. An effective teacher notices, respects and acknowledges the uniqueness of the context in which they teach and adapts their skills accordingly. Further, this book defines a quality teacher as a good and effective teacher who has the ability and sound knowledge to challenge, guide and support students’ deep learning while improving students’ achievements. Empirical evidence has demonstrated out-of-field teachers’ constant exposure to feelings of guilt about not being a good teacher, and the implications of this disposition for their professional identity, their projected image to the community and their feelings towards their teaching responsibilities (Du Plessis, 2019). Day, Kington, Stobart, and Sammons (2006), too, have claimed that teachers’ critical self-reflection of who they are as professionals has meaning for the development of their professional identity. Out-of-field teachers’ lived experiences affect their beliefs about their ability to be successful in their role, as well as their commitment both to this role and to their vocation.

212

7 Policies to Build a Strong, Quality …

Van Manen (1991) has described that skills and perceptions support the recognition of pedagogical moments in the teaching and learning environment and so capture the essence of learning. He further suggested that inadequately prepared teachers have difficulty during the processes of the presentation of knowledge and the guidance of learning that occur in classrooms, so that a skewed presentation of the image of education and what learning looks like may develop in theirs and others’ perceptions. Smith (2002) has explained that dispositions, such as dissatisfaction, enthusiasm, dislikes and likes, doubts and determination are closely connected to teachers’ beliefs; he further highlighted that this kind of “everyday psychologising” (p. 111) by teachers about their role and efficacy is often overlooked by their leaders. Out-of-field teachers describe truths regarding their out-of-field teaching situations, and acknowledge negative emotions towards themselves and their leaders. Van Manen (2016) has stated that “every classroom, every school contains a certain atmosphere” (p. 68). I argue that micro-education policies or practice policies in schools and classrooms build links between teachers’ teaching contexts, their teaching content, skills, performance and perceptions so that they are enabled to fulfil expectations. These policies are especially needed for less confident out-offield teachers; however, the atmosphere within schools depends on how effectively school leaders make influential decisions to closely connect context with policy as a resource through such mechanisms. Terminology used by out-of-field teachers such as destructive, inconsiderate, guilty, aggressive, mean and disloyal describes their intrinsic feelings about some of the challenges they face in their classrooms, and suggests that these impact the atmosphere in which they teach. Kristjánsson (2007) has noted that certain descriptions of emotions can demonstrate an inadequate understanding of the underlying issues in a specific situation; the expressions used by out-of-field teachers highlight underpinning negative dispositions that include difficulty with professional trust, respect, self-doubt and identity. The emotions described suggest out-of-field teachers feel vulnerable, exposed and left to defend their teaching decisions and practices, and suggest that they “no longer know why” they are doing what they are doing (van Manen, 2016, p. 84). Feelings of doubt and questioning can have an ultimate impact on the teaching workforce. Yet, out-of-field teachers’ concerns about leadership’s disengaged role (i.e., lack of support structures) in their situations highlight that the difficulties they are experiencing are part of processes that ultimately impact the image of the teaching workforce, and suggest that school leaders, too, need to be supported by policies that provide frameworks for exploring staff dispositions. As noted, the out-of-field teaching phenomenon is a global issue (Ingersoll, 2002) that impacts more than the quality of education. Specifically, the professional image of a teaching workforce to deliver quality education has major implications for the future of a nation. Bush (2008) has outlined the role of education in the national economy. The globalised interconnectedness of education and comparison of student achievement among countries provide an opportunity for discussions and think tanks in the international arena about the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and interrelated policies.

7.3 Policies Impact the Image of the Teaching Workforce

213

Further, the current tendency of new, less experienced school leaders is to focus on school image and school popularity while building survival alliances to cope with the pressure to provide students with high-quality education that supports the expected achievements and results. Getkin (2009) has suggested that the younger leadership generation tends to focus on managing processes rather than leading people. Under such a style of guidance, I caution that already challenging teaching and learning environments can become more complex. Hattie (2009) has emphasised that school leaders are liable for the improvement and construction of productive, competitive and effective school environments. In this book, effective leadership is defined as that provided by school leaders who notice needs and demonstrate a key focus on context-consciousness as the foundation for continuous quality improvement and education transformation in their schools. Finally, being part of the social capital of a particular society means an awareness among stakeholders of a sense of belonging, trust, safety and the sharing of common goals (Furman, 2002b). Sergiovanni (1992) has explained that societies or communities revolve around a centre of norms, values, sentiments, beliefs and structures. Similarly, a school’s culture, atmosphere and climate are constructed by these, and Rosenblatt and Peled (2002) have suggested that a school’s culture and norms direct the perceptions of parents about the part they play in this community and their confidence to get involved. While perceptions held by the wider school community of the image of the teaching workforce are often constructed through informal interactions, well-designed policies would give teacher and parent groups a framework in which to collaborate, so enhancing the efforts schools put in place to reach expected achievements for students and their teachers.

7.3.1 Rebuilding the Image of Quality Education Determinedly rebuilding the image of the teaching profession amid the doubt and decreased confidence brought about through increasingly frequent out-of-field teaching practices requires deliberate, strategic utilisation of out-of-field teachers. As noted, out-of-field teachers’ level of competence, consequent self-doubt and lack of confidence all deeply influence their dispositions as well as their professional identity. Out-of-field teachers are overly sensitive, less positive and display teaching behaviour that compromises the consistency and stability needed for effective learning environments (Smith, 2002); these emotions and dispositions are aspects of their being which flow on into other stakeholders’ perceptions of teachers’ professionalism. I emphasise that teachers’ confidence and passion are building blocks of successful education environments, and that the diminishing of these elements of teaching intersects negatively with the image of the school. Where teachers are known to be missing teaching and learning opportunities, the image of a comprehensive school that keeps students engaged, interested and stimulated can start to deflate in the community perception. I have noted already and elsewhere (Du Plessis, 2019) that teachers in out-of-field situations are uncertain and

214

7 Policies to Build a Strong, Quality …

anxious that they do not have the skills and knowledge needed to capitalise on the incidental learning opportunities that capture the essence of learning (van Manen, 1991). Self-critical, out-of-field teachers often feel embarrassed by their lack of content and pedagogical knowledge, and struggle to develop an image of “being hands on.” They revealed that constantly functioning in the shadow of “not having specialist knowledge” stimulates feelings of not being “good enough,” and they admit they do not “put their hand up” or share experiences in collaborations or meetings with colleagues because their experiences leave them believing that their views are not worthwhile, or are irrelevant or even embarrassing (Du Plessis & McDonagh, 2020). Out-of-field teachers are perceived by themselves and other stakeholders as not being able to appropriately challenge students, and empirical evidence shows that they omit sections of the curriculum or aim their teaching to the “middle” group of students in their class, leaving aside the challenges at the higher or lower ends of the group. When out-of-field teachers are perceived as ineffective, the image of the subject they teach changes, and students “migrate” from these subjects, or even from schools. Where teacher uncertainty dislodges the balance of the classroom, stakeholders exposed to ongoing challenging behaviour and intense emotional experiences in the teaching and learning environment start to question the teacher’s ability because of continuous feelings of disappointment and recurring stress over quality expectations left unmet. Confusion develops about out-of-field teachers’ ability and capacity to fulfil the expectation of being the knowledgeable other in the classroom. Drawing on Vygotsky’s philosophy of biosocial positioning, Daniels (2008) has suggested that emotional experiences are a combination of the cognitive and passionate elements that underpin emotions. Out-of-field teachers’ lived experiences demonstrate the cognitive load they have to cope with and the emotional tension they experience as a result while they are assigned to out-of-field teaching positions. As I have already discussed, the emotions and dispositions present in a teaching and learning environment influence the culture and atmosphere of the context, and how successful efforts will be to improve or rebuild the image of teachers and schools as quality education providers. I assert that rebuilding the image of teachers is an intrinsic part of addressing the out-of-field phenomenon. School leaders’ pedagogical accountability is perceived by the wider school community as influential in the quality of education schools offer. However, the perception among school leaders that “good teachers can teach anything” creates tension between expectations for high-quality education and the reality in classrooms because it suggests that teachers in out-of-field positions should be able to maintain the same quality as teachers who are specialists in a field with expert knowledge—if they are good teachers. Assertions of this kind are, I argue, a form of denial school leaders are pressed into because of their need to allocate staff under resource pressure, and because of their misunderstanding of what is happening in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms and of what is happening to the image of the school as a result. Moreover, school leaders’ disconnectedness and disengagement about the out-offield experience influence these teachers’ views of their own professional identity and their decisions to stay or leave. Disturbingly, out-of-field teachers exposed to

7.3 Policies Impact the Image of the Teaching Workforce

215

unrealistic expectations and under pressure to achieve the same achievements as infield teachers without support shared self-perceptions of incompetence and anxiety. These teachers admitted that their situations had left them with feelings that they were not good teachers and that they should compensate for their “incompetence”; they further described experiencing a continuous reconsideration of their career choice via the recurrent subconscious thought, “should I stay or should I leave?” Freeman (2007b) has explained that the dispositions stimulated by teachers’ teaching situations are grounded in what they recognise as being significant to developing students’ competence, at a specific time, in a specific educational setting, and are linked to beliefs about what they as teachers “have to offer” to these specific contexts. Gore, Holmes, Smith, and Fray (2015), too, have noted that teachers’ intrinsic motivation (inner passion) plays a major role in how they experience their teaching. Teachers want to succeed for their students. The effects that practical policy frameworks will have on accommodating the emotional experiences and dispositions of the out-offield teaching phenomenon will depend on how much targeted support they offer to these teachers. The image out-of-field teachers project is rooted in them feeling outof-comfort; left unaddressed, their uncertainty can lead to stakeholders questioning both them and the school, a cycle of emotion and disposition that circles towards attrition.

7.4 Policies Impact Workforce Stability In Australia, the QAO (2013) has noted that information on teacher competence and capability is inconsistent and fragmented and is not integrated with contextual factors, creating implications for teacher placements and the stability of the teaching workforce. This report emphasised that “the lack of reliable data on the teaching workforce reduces the department’s ability to maximise student learning outcomes through an efficient placement of qualified and capable teachers” (p. 17). The additional reality at school level is that school timetables and budgets, rather than pedagogical goals, influence both policy frameworks and leaders’ decisions about teacher utilisation and assignment. The dislocated nature of power and issue in this area needs addressing by policy-makers. As has been noted, leadership misconceptions about the emotions and dispositions of out-of-field teachers’ lived experiences and what these mean for school and classroom contexts frequently result in an absence of deliberate management of the phenomenon in schools. Leaders’ perceptions, beliefs and understanding about teaching experiences inform and direct their focus when school improvement policies are developed. In terms of the out-of-field experience, the issue of power and control needs to intersect with the classroom. Out-of-field teachers left without support and already uncertain about the subject matter, year level and related pedagogies admit that they often feel like “a hamster in a wheel” (Field data: D6) and need the support of colleagues and the resources of structures and strategies to maintain a level of

216

7 Policies to Build a Strong, Quality …

effectiveness in their classrooms. A clearer understanding of the meaning of the outof-field teaching phenomenon for both quality education and workforce management has the potential to connect school leaders to the necessity of developing frameworks that strategise out-of-field teaching in their schools. Tailored micro-education policies have the potential to guide, support and direct vulnerable teachers and uphold their intrinsic professional motivation and career decisions, and thus workforce stability. The influence of school leaders’ effective management of their workforce on the stability within their school context closely links to the quality of education schools provide and, I argue, the stability of the teaching workforce in general. Out-of-field teachers’ reports of gaining professional growth and development as a benefit of being assigned to and supported in an out-of-field subject and/or year level are encouraging for micro-education policy development; however, of the seven schools surveyed by the transnational investigation, only two had structures in place to achieve these results (Du Plessis, 2014). Significantly, in schools where out-of-field teachers perceived the complex challenges of out-of-field teaching as manageable, school leaders had developed clear guidelines that had been developed via school leaders’ close engagement with out-of-field teachers. The school leaders felt accountable and perceived it as their duty of care to support these teachers until they were confident enough to take ownership of their teaching context and work more independently. Out-of-field teachers in these schools experienced their outof-field positions as an opportunity to grow and develop as teachers, with positive consequences for local workforce stability and teachers’ loyalty to their school. I assert that retaining teachers who find themselves assigned to challenging teaching positions is a strategy that has the potential to stabilise the teaching workforce as well as develop its capacity and the quality of teaching it offers. Acknowledgement of the interconnectedness of school leaders’ ultimate education goals to deliver quality education and out-of-field teachers’ motivations in trying to deliver quality teaching in spite of their out-of-field positions underline the need for school leaders to act for policies to recognise this truth. Tailored policies to stabilise the teaching workforce are those that address the need for teachers’ continuing professional learning and support to improve their content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Micro-education policies of this kind prioritise the roots of quality learning and are resources that support teachers in their endeavours to improve student achievement, and as such their strengths in building professional interrelationships with the wider school community. Parents have an influence on the teaching and learning environment and culture in schools. Rosenblatt and Peled (2002) have noted that parents’ active involvement in the school’s objectives has an influence on the dispositions of teachers, especially those in challenging positions. Positive involvement from parents encourages teachers because their efforts are recognised and appreciated through parents’ positive engagement and feedback; conversely, continuous harmful criticism from parents causes teachers to put their “guards up” and stimulates a disconnectedness between teachers and parents. Specifically, parents in lower socioeconomic communities perceive teachers as experts and look on them as leaders (Marks & Printy, 2003); however, when teachers do not live up to these expectations, parents become disappointed

7.4 Policies Impact Workforce Stability

217

and disconnect from the school. They may lack the confidence to reengage with teachers because of such prior negative experiences with these relationships (Berthelsen & Walker, 2008), disengaging the positive potential of professional interrelationships. Further, as previously noted, unsuitably qualified teachers’ real-life experiences can easily be misunderstood by the wider school community. Policy and leadership disconnection from the phenomenon means that when out-of-field teachers struggle to live up to expectations, parents can become confused and disenchanted with the teacher and the school, which can spread to how the wider school community perceives and respects the situation, the teacher and the school. Parents admitted that they would openly discuss concerns about a struggling teacher with other parents and that they perceived these conversations as a form of active involvement in their children’s schooling. Teachers, on the other hand, perceive this kind of talk as harmful and disrespectful and as having a negative effect on professional trust relationships and communication between parents and the school. Parents and out-of-field teachers’ colleagues who share similar concerns about the implications of an unsuitably qualified teacher for the learning culture in a school have a tendency to form sub-communities within the larger school community (Du Plessis, 2014). These informal “subcommittees” influence the culture and climate of the school, and, depending on school leadership, can be harmful if not carefully managed. The shared concerns of teachers and parents and the subsequent communication and distress that can result have decisive consequences for the efficient performance of school communities. Darling-Hammond (2010a) has discussed the significant role of “communal” (p. 65) approaches for coherence between the school, students, teachers and parents. Teachers in out-of-field positions admit that they find it difficult if not impossible to focus on building this coherence and feel “forgotten” by school leaders. School leaders need to address the realities of social interdependencies in the school improvement policies they develop. Leadership awareness of the value of these social interrelationships, as fundamental for a school’s social capital, should inform their strategies and the policy frameworks they develop to protect these relationships. Berthelsen and Walker’s (2008) notion about the involvement of parents in their children’s education accentuates the impact of leadership encouragement and active engagement in a school community. These authors also pragmatically underline that there may be different views in how parents and teachers understand and view active involvement, and it becomes school leaders’ further responsibility to offer clear guidelines. Such guidelines are especially important for teachers in out-of-field teaching positions, who can significantly benefit from active support from parents but who still need to maintain their role as leader of the classroom (Berthelsen & Walker, 2008). As already emphasised, a context-consciousness of the specific needs of differently situated schools (e.g., suburban, remote, metropolitan, multicultural, public and independent secondary and primary schools) is fundamental to the development of policies, since different school environments have different needs. Any national policies developed for the management of the out-of-field phenomenon should leave room for bottom-up leadership tailoring of policy to the uniqueness of specific school

218

7 Policies to Build a Strong, Quality …

environments so that changes implemented at school level can demonstrate a relevance to context. For example, teachers placed into challenging out-of-field positions may also have restricted knowledge about the culture of the school community; struggling concurrently to “catch up” with subject/year level content and pedagogies, such teachers may be perceived as disengaged and uninterested in the beliefs and traditions of the school community, creating social interdependence implications for what happens inside and outside the classroom (Berthelsen & Walker, 2008). The social interface forms the basis of students’ learning and development via teacher–parent, teacher–student and teacher–colleague relationships. Vygotsky (1978) has emphasised that social interdependence supports the progress of new ideas and feelings of trust, respect and appreciation. Trust relationships, respect and open communication underpin a healthy school community, and their importance for its functioning should not be underestimated. The school community’s understanding and perception of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon depend on the way in which school leaders both inform parents and enable their contributions, and how all the stakeholders involved in the phenomenon get support. Frameworks that encourage in-depth discussions about the realities of out-of-field teaching practices will inform parents and respect these teachers’ challenging situations, as well as proactively corral the effects of the major barrier that unsatisfying communication and discussions can become in a learning environment (Hattie, 2009). Empirical evidence shows that parents respect that teaching is a highly demanding profession, and that the school community perceives and respects the role and work ethic of teachers in challenging out-of-field positions if they can see that the teacher and the school are engaged in effective strategies to manage the complexities of the teaching situation (Du Plessis, 2014). Managing the phenomenon entails decision-making and policy development that represent the common goals and vision all stakeholders have for the school. Further, an in-depth understanding of the various challenges the out-of-field teaching experience poses for school communities from the different angles of key stakeholders can energise targeted policy and strategy development.

7.4.1 Healthy Workforce Partnerships: Challenges, Community Culture, Time and School Funding Well-designed school improvement micro-education policies will be able to recognise that challenges arising from the out-of-field phenomenon are intertwined with community culture. All schools have a culture, tradition or ways of “doing education,” and these are foundationally connected with issues of respect, trust and partnerships, both within the school community and in how the school is perceived as partnering with the community to uphold its values and culture/s. School leaders are expected to demonstrate awareness of the challenges that might influence the development of healthy school–community partnerships, and micro-education policies can assist

7.4 Policies Impact Workforce Stability

219

leaders to appropriately address challenges affecting the school community, such as the use of out-of-field teachers for reasons of resource limitations. In accommodating the needs of students, leaders need to recruit teachers who are comfortable with the community and school culture, and keep the community aware of the events, situations and processes that are in place to continue to uphold school culture as teachers develop into their new roles. Research data shows that school leaders have a need for closer partnerships with systemic leadership to support their complex challenges. Discussions about financial constraints, teacher assignments, recruitment challenges and what these situations can mean for the more effective management of the out-of-field phenomenon have the potential to inform decisions at systemic level. Multilevel admission of how the phenomenon is currently being managed within school contexts and education systems will clarify the intensity of the need to address the issues that arise. It is worth noting that school leaders can themselves be out of field or may simply be inexperienced; in either case, professional development for school leaders would support them developing frameworks for effectively leading workforce partnerships that will both benefit school improvement and build an integrated school–community culture that supports quality learning. A compounding factor for healthy leadership–teacher partnerships and teacher development is time; both the immediacy of the education environment and the urgency of quality improvement goals put pressure on teachers when this element is underestimated. For example, as noted, teacher expertise develops in specific subjects and/or year levels over time, and teachers who are not qualified to teach specific areas find it hard to rapidly adjust their beliefs, pedagogical reasoning and interest in specific subject areas. As has also been described, leadership misconceptions about the developing nature of teachers’ expertise—as well as the value of this kind of knowledge in the classroom—influence their decisions about teacher placements and their perceptions of teachers’ support needs. For example, school leaders’ decisions for staff mobility and assignment can be based on perceptions that temporary outof-field placements are a necessary and acceptable common practice. In research evidence, a teacher described being assigned to an out-of-field placement this way: They ask[ed] me to relief [replacement] in the pre-primary classroom—one day turned into two days and two days turned into a week and after the end of the week…they asked “Can you stay?”—It was just a little bit chaotic… (Field data: D7)

Despite the difficulties with workforce management that this example describes, and however common or acceptable it is to assign teachers out-of-field as a stop gap solution, this strategy sets aside the inevitable challenges that develop in these teaching and learning contexts and that these, too, have implications for time management and school funding. Furthermore, perceptions of parents and the wider school community about chaotic classrooms inevitably ensue, and these impact healthy community partnerships. This is the cascade I have already noted: less confident, often harassed and defensive out-of-field teachers struggling with new content and pedagogies cannot fulfil their role as expert teachers or knowledgeable others in the same way as

220

7 Policies to Build a Strong, Quality …

expert teachers. The results are best described in the words of a principal from another school where the same problems were occurring: …One of the issues that I deal with as a principal is the type of interaction these teachers have with parents—[their] interaction with parents was causing parents to feel uncomfortable. It was causing them to not trust the school…[and] question why their child was in that classroom. (Field data: G2)

Questioning decisions made by teachers and school leaders is usually the first indication that the partnerships in a school community are under strain. Schools need to recognise the need for teachers to be sensitively supported with time and school community awareness of their adjusting roles. Well-designed practice-policy frameworks can get ahead of these situations and prevent out-of-field placements from causing partnership disconnection. For staff, too, chaotic and pressurised timetabling and staff assignments intersect with issues of trust and leadership partnering. Research data from another school confirms that timetable planning and its effective implementation was given priority over teacher ability, content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in allocating staff assignments. A specialist teacher explained that poor leadership communication about such assignments had caused negative dispositions to arise in staff: In this school, somebody gets their timetable with things on there that they have not been consulted about, that’s a huge problem in terms of people management. I don’t think that’s a nice way to manage anybody… (Field data: E2)

As well as time to develop in their roles, teachers also need time to prepare themselves to function effectively in an out-of-field position, which includes adjustment of their cognitive, emotional selves and their professional identity. At the same school, remarks by a school leader responsible for the school’s teaching workforce, staff matters and the implementation of the school’s code of conduct confirm leadership misunderstanding of the real-life experiences of teacher placement decisions, and show that taken-for-granted attitudes about teachers’ skills were directing the strategies leaders were following to manage situations of challenging workforce availability. The school leader shared: The start of the year I had probably four or five teachers in the first couple of weeks— complain about their timetables. I couldn’t do anything about that—you obviously can’t change timetables at the start of the year. I said to them, “You’ve got to make the best of it; that’s your timetable—it is what it is,” and to be fair most of it was just people teaching PE or health, and PE and health is not that difficult…I basically in a nice way said, “You’ve got to deal with it.” I mean, it’s really not that hard…you’re only teaching a couple of PE lessons a week, so I wasn’t overly empathetic, I guess. I mean, I listened to them and told them—“You have to deal with it.” (Field data: E3)

I move now to healthy partnerships for accommodating vulnerable students who are more at-risk in challenging teaching and learning contexts such as out-of-field classrooms. Schools that show attention to their duty of care for all students gain parents’ trust, and this attention can be deliberately scaffolded by policies. As previously described (see Sect. 5.4.4 and 8.3.3), research that involved extended classroom

7.4 Policies Impact Workforce Stability

221

observations showed that teachers without the requisite subject or year level knowledge found classroom and behaviour management more challenging (Du Plessis, 2014). School leaders can perceive out-of-field teachers’ dysfunctional classroom environments are a result of “their careless dispositions,” while these teachers are actually in great need of supportive structures and frameworks, as an in-depth description of the real-life experiences of a vulnerable or at-risk student in an out-of-field teachers’ classrooms shows. A parent described lived experiences in an out-offield teaching and learning environment where an absence of leadership awareness about the teacher’s specific difficulties shaping classroom climate and coping with behaviour management had caused extraordinary challenges for their child with ADHD: There is something wrong with her [the teacher’s] group dynamic. The emphasis seems to be all on Gareth [pseudonym for her son]. It was Gareth’s issues and [behaviour] problem. A lot of emphasis just on him being truanted and his behaviour…Every time that we had a meeting I would say, “He is not like this. Why is he behaving like this?” I don’t want to send him to school. I was anxious—he is going to hurt somebody or he is going to do it to himself or something…Especially the deputy principal was very much focused on Gareth… (Field data: C5)

School leaders at the school overlooked the possibility that the challenging out-offield classroom context had become unbearable for the already vulnerable student and had intensified his personal, social and learning needs. The parent further stated that the teaching and learning space had negatively impacted her son’s development and learning. Significantly, the parent’s confidence in the home–school partnership had disintegrated. School leaders admit that their staffing decisions are most of the time directed by school budgets, and Bush (2008) has noted that they find it difficult to balance financial and human resource priorities. It is clear from research data that when timetabling teaching assignments, pedagogical reasoning and accountability are not always foremost in leaders’ minds. Moreover, financial limitations restrict their ability to provide professional support for newly assigned teachers, as does the duration of the teaching assignments or contracts; the support available for teachers in temporary assignments is limited, but continual temporary placements influence schools’ ability to develop a culture of stability and trust. A statement by a deputy principal was revealing: We wouldn’t tend to send them on PDs [professional development courses], so we’d invest all this money in them and then they might just leave or staffing would change anyway, or their timetable would change…with science teachers, probably three science teachers are quite heavily out of their area this year…if we had invested money on them this year…it wouldn’t have been worthwhile… (Field data: E2)

As well, negative feelings can arise because of leadership decisions about challenging teaching contexts, unfair placements and/or unequal workloads, as a dean of staff shared: We’ve got one learning area: the English department has imploded this year, in-fighting, it’s just been terrible and that has really impacted on staff. There’s been a lot of hostility and a lot of anger.

222

7 Policies to Build a Strong, Quality …

He went on to explain: This department has always been difficult to staff; the burden falls on one or two. (Field data: E3)

School leaders admit that they struggle to differentiate between fulfilling their responsibilities as the school’s business manager and their identity as a professional pedagogue leading fellow pedagogues. School leaders spend a large percentage of their time in the office, which separates them from pedagogical engagement in what happens inside classrooms. An out-of-field teacher observed this loss of leadership connection: Schools are becoming too much like businesses—teachers and kids don’t really matter…It’s the results, the numbers—And people who are working in areas outside their field of expertise…they are another number and unless you are really struggling…it would not come to their [school leaders’] attention at all. (Field data: C7)

Another out-of-field teacher explained that their school principal was very keen to assign a beginning teacher to an out-of-field role because a first-year teacher is “cheap,” and it would help to “balance the budget” (Field data: C1). However, leadership had overlooked the additional support that was needed to ensure the beginning out-of-field teacher could achieve the expected teaching quality, creating a situation that challenged the trust, respect and shared values needed for collaboration and partnerships. Teachers in out-of-field positions can feel disillusioned and disempowered by the structures and policies that describe and create the workplace of the teaching profession. I assert that short-term financial decisions can have adverse long-term results: It may take a lot more financial commitment to replace teachers leaving the profession.

7.4.2 The Out-of-Field Teaching Workforce and Partnerships The shared values and aims of education stakeholders form a foundation for collaborative partnership frameworks that have the ultimate aim of supporting teachers’ focus on student-centred teaching and learning. Micro-education policies can encourage partnership engagement, and stakeholders’ appreciation of the real-life experiences inside classrooms can bring practicality and reality back into policy decisions. Owen (2016) has noted that teachers are empowered by leaders’ understanding of their experiences, the support they offer and their focus on schools taking communal responsibility for teachers’ professional learning and development. Stakeholders’ partnering efforts to make all possible resources available to support unsuitably assigned teachers have the potential to demonstrate to these teachers that teachers matter and that schools are not going to just leave them to “sink or swim.” Professional interrelationships are a valuable resource for all teachers; however, out-of-field teachers acknowledged that out-of-field teaching positions add tension to these relationships. Although out-of-field teachers often try to project an image that

7.4 Policies Impact Workforce Stability

223

they are coping, they admitted that they are aware of the perceptions and critiques of other stakeholders about their competence and classroom challenges, and that these perceptions caused them to feel distressed. Feelings of vulnerability and dependence are by-products of out-of-field teachers’ professional lifeworlds, and, as noted, the dispositions such emotions create further challenge the ability of these teachers to adjust and to explore pedagogies and curriculums that fit the needs and culture/s of the school community. The school’s teaching workforce is at the core of the school community, an entity that finds success in the quality and success of its relationships (Furman, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c). Shields (2002) has highlighted that communities who respect and explore their differences develop a better understanding of one another. The level of consistent support and resources out-of-field teachers receive from their leadership not only influence their teaching practices, but it also uphold their dispositions; when teacher confidence is fostered, this in turn improves staff interrelationships and allows better collaboration between home and school. The significant effect out-of-field teaching has on the dispositions and expectations of the whole school community and on partnerships between teachers and parents makes the development of frameworks to protect and foster community relationships essential. Mazyck (2009) has noted that a school and classroom climate not only influence student learning but also intersect with a school’s teaching workforce welfare via three influential components that connect the classroom to the social climate within schools: (a) a sense of community, (b) an encouraging atmosphere and (c) a common vision. Belonging to a successful teaching environment enhances teachers’ confidence. Hattie (2009), further, has emphasised that the quality of relationships between a school’s teaching workforce and the home influences students’ learning. Parents’ social commitment to a school and their perception of the school as an effective community are intrinsically connected to their various yearly teacher–parent relationships. In turn, the effectiveness of these relationships provides feedback for teachers about how successful they are at ensuring quality teaching in their classrooms. Redding (1996) has defined this relationship of commitment and expectation as “an interdependency in pursuit of the common purpose” of supporting students’ achievement and development within a progressive learning milieu (p. 133). Managing the challenges of out-of-field teachers’ experience in a timely manner ensures that these teachers are supported and community confidence in their performance and in the teaching and learning framework of the school is sustained. Rosenblatt and Peled (2002) have underlined that schools are ethical environments that need to encourage parental involvement and focus on sustaining professional relationships, structures and caring values. A school leader emphasised the indispensability of respect and trust for this interdependency of home and school, especially when the teaching and learning environment is challenging: “…you can have your smoke and mirrors but parents aren’t silly. They very quickly work out if that’s a lie or not.” However, as I have noted elsewhere (Du Plessis, 2014), parents are not, most of the time, fully informed about the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and its occurrence in the school context. Highlighting the importance of the school transparently sharing the values and vision of student-centred outcomes with the community, a parent described that stakeholders find it hard to comprehend how

224

7 Policies to Build a Strong, Quality …

school policies can allow teachers to be employed and assigned to out-of-field positions at all: I just can’t come to the terms with management letting it happen in the first place. I don’t understand why management would choose to employ somebody…I don’t know how management can choose to…they can’t change it overnight so they’re going to have to work with it and they’re going to really support that teacher, more so than they would with a qualified teacher teaching in their field. (Field data: D3)

Darling-Hammond (2010a, 2010b) has noted that students in lower socioeconomic school environments particularly need a stable and healthy partnership between parents and the school. Such demographic environments often have higher numbers of student dropouts, absenteeism and complex learning needs, and these realities do not need to be compounded by the assignment of inexperienced or unsuitably qualified teachers whose dispositions may describe them negatively to the community. In these complex learning spaces, targeted, context-conscious policy frameworks and school improvement strategies become even more important to ensure consistent management and support for the interdependent relationships that help to maintain the value of education. Moreover, schools depend on parents to encourage and provide students with supportive home learning environments (Sheldon & van Voorhis, 2004) in order to make the most of students’ teaching and learning opportunities. When students, parents and teachers feel insecure and uncertain about the teaching and learning space, dispositions of negativity can infect partnerships with mistrust. Unsupported out-of-field teachers are on the “defensive the whole time,” feel that they need to perform and admit that they often feel “out-of-depth” and “out-of-place” which undermines their personal desire to succeed—some out-of-field teachers even described themselves as “imposters.” These anxious dispositions about their performance and the teaching and learning space (see Sect. 6.4.4) then flow on into defensiveness in their teacher– parent partnerships and affect how open and honest communication with parents can be. I emphasise that the impact of the out-of-field teacher workforce segment on collegial and parental partnerships needs to be carefully guided by policy and monitored by leadership. While Preston (2011) has noted that schools tend to avoid close conversations with parents that might expose their shortcomings and problem areas, ongoing challenges that are left unattended have implications for necessary trust partnerships. I argue that leaders have a responsibility to develop a school culture of collaboration and collegial support, care and empathy. School leaders who successfully manage healthy school communities are actively engaged in their school community and notice its needs and concerns. When school leaders are aware of the dispositions of teachers in out-of-field situations, they are more successful in developing, adjusting and transforming school improvement approaches and strategies for those situations (DeFour & Marzano, 2011). Collaboration among stakeholders can be encouraged around shared values and vision for quality education outcomes. Valuable school partnerships involve students, parents, teachers, school leaders at different management levels, and educational leaders

7.4 Policies Impact Workforce Stability

225

within the wider education community. School improvement policies that successfully nurture healthy partnerships and accommodate the needs of students and their teachers improve schools’ effectiveness.

7.4.3 School Leaders, Workforce Stability and Out-of-Field Teaching Practices Policy acknowledgment of the interrelationship between educational leaders’ decisions, workforce stability and the realities of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon can play a vital role in securing a more positive outcome for out-of-field teachers and their classrooms, and ultimately for stakeholders’ expectations of quality education. Without policy attention, however, the outcomes of these interrelationships fall on out-of-field teachers and on their career decisions, particularly in the case of beginning teachers (Du Plessis et al., 2018). Hattie (2009) has offered meta-analyses that accentuate how various leadership styles and skills at work in a school environment impact the whole school’s effectiveness; school leaders shape goals, motivations and actions, and initiate change to reach existing and new goals (Dimmock, 1999). Furthermore, Getkin (2009) has claimed that effective leaders enthusiastically engage with and commit to allocating goal-achievable resources. School leaders, therefore, who take an approach to decision-making that encompasses intellectual, social and financial capital in order to bring about effective transformation (Caldwell, 2009) not only influence the culture of the school for students and parents, but also greatly influence teachers in their specific roles (Hattie, 2009). I turn focus now to leadership strategies and styles and what these mean for out-of-field teachers and the students in their classrooms. Empirical information offered in this chapter about school leaders’ current understanding of staff assignment policies demonstrates the effect leaders have on out-of-field teaching experiences, and suggests leaders’ power for situational improvement.

7.4.3.1

Contextual Expectations and Needs

Getkin (2009) and Latham (2009) have both noted that school communities expect school leaders to fulfil the role as front leader and to have a distributive style to skillfully facilitate staff members’ expertise and capacity building to benefit the school. As observed above, however, research about leaders’ understanding of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon (Du Plessis, 2017) offers insights that leadership decisions about staffing are directed by either budgetary and financial considerations or timetabling, and that pedagogical reasoning is sidelined. The assignment of teachers to positions outside their field of qualifications or expertise is effectively an acceptable and chronic form of crisis management or a snapshot (in-the-moment decision) strategy implemented by school leaders to solve staffing problems (Du

226

7 Policies to Build a Strong, Quality …

Plessis, 2014). In addition, the approach of school principals to adapt their role to that of a financial manager (or as CEO of the school) overlooks the function of leaders and the distinctive purpose of schools as teaching and learning contexts (Bush, 2008). In fact, Getkin (2009) has claimed that school leadership is perceived by stakeholders as the most distinct element in determining the success of a school and its effectiveness to guide students’ learning and achievements. School leaders follow closely behind teachers as having the second major influence on individual student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2010a), and their overall strategies, approaches and decisions are seen to influence the success of students’ learning (Hattie, 2009). Field research indicates that parents have an expectation for school leaders to have a clear understanding of teachers’ basic professional needs. Fully engaged school leaders notice experiences in classrooms and engage in behaviour and strategies that foster positive teacher attitudes, empower students and stimulate a positive and healthy learning culture (Bush, Glover, & Harris, 2008). Parents perceive an effective school environment has “a strong person-focused headmaster who makes an effort to get to know all the parents” (Field data: F2) and who employs strategies to support consistency in building person-focused professional interrelationships. School leaders’ connectedness and level of engagement in the totality of schooling influence decisions beyond the school leaders’ office (Davies & Davies, 2009) through the frameworks and policies they develop. Leaders who spend a majority percentage of their time in their offices can become disengaged and uninformed about the truths inside classrooms (DeFour & Marzano, 2011) and miss valuable empirical evidence that can inform targeted decision-making. The National Teaching Workforce Dataset Working Group (2014) suggested that empirical data “supports greater transparency and accountability for decision making” (p. 28), allows a better understanding of the teaching workforce and identifies national priorities for producing the expected education results. I argue that the actionability of these factors rests with school leaders who are accountable for the development of policies that counteract the impact of the out-of-field phenomenon and ensure quality implementation and execution of curricula. This truth of education at school level is captured through an education director’s shared experiences: The accountable person in a school is the principal and naturally their first priority is to ensure that the curriculum is managed and delivered in his [sic] school because that’s what we sell, so to speak. Unfortunately, many principals get sidetracked and start seeing themselves as abdicated from the classroom now and that’s where they make the mistake. (Field data: Director 2)

This disconnectedness from real-life school experiences, particularly those within out-of-field classrooms, reinforces leaders’ misperceptions about the need for specific policy frameworks and policy decisions about the phenomenon. Carlyle and Woods (2002) have noted that teachers who often find themselves in challenging and complex situations with limited resources perceive the decisions and management styles of leadership as maladministration. As I have noted elsewhere (Du Plessis, 2014; Du Plessis et al., 2018), school leaders’ success in dealing with out-of-field situations in their schools was determined by their awareness and understanding of the meaning of the phenomenon for teachers and the classroom climate. Leaders can be perceived by

7.4 Policies Impact Workforce Stability

227

staff as focusing to achieve conformity rather than supporting individual professional identity development, which stimulates feelings of fear, mistrust, blame, disrespect and chronic anxiety. These dispositions not only impact the classroom climate and the school culture but can stimulate teachers reconsidering teaching as a suitable career option. Research indicates that some school leaders do notice that the lack of suitable approaches, structures and management strategies for complex teaching situations such as the out-of-field phenomenon have an influence on the turnover and attrition decisions of teachers (Du Plessis, 2014). One school leader noted that certain leadership styles can be corrosive when teachers are already struggling in their positions: …teachers who are not coping and who have an autocratic leadership structure—not coping [emphasised] is even worse because now they just know they have to perform and they know they can’t perform. They’re not coping, traditional principal will come in and want you to “Please explain.” A relational leadership structure says, “How can I help you?” (Field data: D4)

Spillane, Camburn, and Stitziel Pareja (2009) have underlined that leaders’ approaches determine the amount of time they spend on in-depth and critical reflection of their workforce and the opportunities they pursue to have incidental interaction with staff members. I assert that leadership skill development is essential so that leaders are able to release the potential social capital of staff and further enhance the interpersonal connections and collaborations that have already naturally or spontaneously begun (Davies & Davies, 2009), particularly as a nurturing teaching environment can have a positive effect on teachers’ future goals. Effective leaders create and focus on a school future shaped by shared goals and instigate well-designed frameworks to support these collaborative targets (DeFour & Marzano, 2011). A supportive, nurturing and caring teaching environment can have a positive impact on struggling and/or challenged out-of-field teachers’ decisions to stay or leave the teaching profession. In this sense, the skills leaders adopt and the context-consciousness they show can have significant implications for the confidence and security of the teaching workforce in their schools. Anderson, Moore, and Sun (2009) have claimed that the wider educational community expects school leaders to develop suitable school improvement policy frameworks that uphold and encourage staff development. These authors have also highlighted that expectations for such frameworks are that they will uphold and ensure effective workplaces where successful teaching pedagogies are followed. However, as already noted, the attrition rates linked to short-term contracts with out-of-field teachers make principals reluctant to allocate money and time for professional learning and development of out-of-field teachers (Du Plessis, 2019), creating a “catch-22” for these out-of-field teachers and their students. An educational director acknowledged that some schools are successful in accommodating the needs of out-of-field teachers; these schools commit to preparing teachers for workplace expectations and a future in the profession. The acknowledgement that “they’ve got to learn on the job” seemed to form the framework for this strategy, and the director further stated that some schools have structures in place that “nurture” out-of-field teachers by ensuring

228

7 Policies to Build a Strong, Quality …

that frameworks are in place to give out-of-field teachers access to colleagues with expertise (Field data: Director 1). School leadership teams can demonstrate an all-encompassing vision and commitment to supporting and developing teachers, especially those in complex and challenging teaching positions. Frameworks that value interrelationships and employ approaches to improve teachers’ feelings of “at homeness” and “belongingness” in their teaching positions construct a secure teaching and learning environment. Implementing effective frameworks to provide the whole school community with a stable environment further encourages out-of-field teachers’ openness about the difficulties and issues they experience, potentially supporting them through the challenges that could otherwise tip them towards the professional doubts that conclude in implications for school workforce stability. Caring and nurturing leadership styles influence out-of-field teachers’ outlook on their future in the teaching profession. Protective frameworks benefit both the school environment and workforce stability because of the security and support they create and can even stimulate out-of-field teachers’ enthusiasm for their out-of-field subject area. In empirical research, out-of-field teachers functioning within school environments where policy frameworks supported the development of a positive environment described lived experiences of trust and confidence that they would be able to succeed. One out-of-field teacher stated that the support they received had stimulated feelings of belongingness in spite of being assigned to teach an out-of-field subject, and added, “I’d definitely want to teach it next year” (Field data: G5). Leadership relationship building is therefore a key to staffing in schools and to developing a strong, quality and stable teaching workforce (Du Plessis et al., 2018): As one school leader put it, “the biggest issue for me as a principal is relationships.” Effective collaboration between colleagues is based in healthy and respectful trust relationships and shared beliefs and values, and leadership approaches and strategies affect the ways in which collaboration is perceived, used and managed. Out-of-field teachers admit that they feel exposed by their challenges and struggle to cope with their teaching responsibilities; as I have already discussed, they tend to depend heavily on colleagues for assistance and specialist guidance (see Sect. 6.5.3). These dispositions have an impact on staff teamwork because other staff can perceive out-of-field teachers as “high maintenance” colleagues. Specialist teachers shared the burden they carry to make sure that teachers assigned to out-of-field positions are informed about the curriculum and assessment requirements and necessary pedagogical content knowledge. A carefully developed framework of expectations for professional relationships is necessary to deliberately place value on respect, understanding and acceptance of the needs of each individual. Policy frameworks that encourage collaboration—for example, team teaching, team planning and team assessment practices—for teachers in out-of-field positions do have the potential to decrease workloads and increase the relevant integration of their expertise. However, a specialist teacher discussed how the approaches and strategies leaders adopt can create inequalities in teamwork, stating that leaders can assume specialist teachers will fix out-of-field teachers’ restricted knowledge, or that “meetings” will provide solutions to the issues out-of-field teachers experience in their classrooms. When

7.4 Policies Impact Workforce Stability

229

these meetings do not materialise into consistent support actions or school policy frameworks, however, a discourse of “nothing is done about it” (Field data: F1) can develop, causing frustration and stress for staff, as a specialist teacher shared, as a teacher teaching alongside somebody who wasn’t skilled, it put extra pressure onto me…I don’t think management realises how much you need to work to form a team if you’re working together, and a lot of your training needs to go towards the teacher and not towards your children. (Field data: D3)

In such situations, vulnerable out-of-field teachers are left anxious and alienated from the collegial support they need. I argue that the out-of-field utilisation of teachers requires a fundamental shift in schools’ organisational structures and that this depends on school leaders’ ability to create a supportive, nurturing culture where staff are practically and sensitively interconnected and are enabled in their development by the context-consciousness leaders show.

7.4.3.2

Leadership Needs

Understanding the needs of teachers assigned to out-of-field positions while focusing on the development of their skills and strengths as well as whole-school interrelationship strategies involves exceptional leadership and targeted school improvement policy decisions. The empirical data offered in this chapter describe out-of-field teachers’ dependency on school leaders’ decisions while acting in these roles, and show how far reaching these decisions can be for teachers’ future career decisions, for workforce stability and for their students’ learning (Du Plessis et al., 2018). School leaders need to recognise that their decisions about teacher utilisation—particularly school year-commencement assignation—are loaded with expectations for teacher performance and for student achievement: As Hattie (2009) has observed, “the greatest change that most students experience is [in] the level of competence of the[ir] teacher” (p. 1). Value-positioning teachers as schools’ most influential resources require school leaders to take account of what is at play when these “resources” function outside their field of qualification or expertise, and therefore to paying detailed attention to developing policy frameworks that ensure they have an established, reliable and consistent approach to managing the phenomenon in the classrooms of their schools. As noted, such an ongoing task requires leaders’ continuous critical reflection on their school improvement policy decisions, reflection that I argue is best informed by a closer engagement with out-of-field teachers. The reality in the field is that the increased occurrence of out-of-field teaching practices means that school leaders’ responsibilities to and for the phenomenon have also increased. A school leader who placed a high value on school principals’ duty of care explained this role: From a day-to-day perspective, the principal is the most potentially potent position in the whole system. But they’re the loneliest, they’re the least supported, they’re the most accountable. If you look at the level of accountability we have compared with the level of support, there’s no induction for principals in our system. It’s appalling. (Field data: G2)

230

7 Policies to Build a Strong, Quality …

A study completed in Queensland, Australia found that 33% of the school leaders who participated in the study did not feel prepared for their role and stated that although they had access to support, it was not enough for them to fully address their needs for guidance in how to manage teachers (and especially beginning teachers) in challenging teaching positions in their schools (Du Plessis et al., 2018). They particularly highlighted a disconnection between systemic institutions and the reality of the school context, stating that their capacity to change certain policies, traditions and culture was restricted by the systemic gaps that currently exist in both support and understanding in relation to the out-of-field teaching phenomenon. DarlingHammond (2010a) has claimed that educational leaders play the major “inside-out” (p. 322) role in quality school improvement, underlining the ripple effect of leaders’ decisions on the whole school context, something of which leaders are aware. As a school principal described, being a school leader is “the loneliest job in education” because it is seen as the most influential and powerful position (Field data: G2). However, research evidence showed that school principals do not always collaborate with other school leaders in order to stay closely connected to what happens inside classrooms (Du Plessis, 2014). A deputy principal explained the results of disconnected leadership on school workforce and cultures, saying, …a considerable groundswell of negativity, and even in the language use. It was us [teachers] and them, “them” being leadership. There’s a real division. My role was to help out a little bit because I’m in the middle, I guess…but I’m in the leadership team, but I’m trying to change that… (Field data: E3)

This school leader explained that they had experienced a constant need and expectation “to help out” with classroom management issues that had developed because of out-of-field teachers’ restricted pedagogical content knowledge. Leaders admitted that the time consumed by incidental issues that develop in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms underlines a need for well-designed strategies, approaches and policy frameworks for managing the implications of the phenomenon, but that leaders generally feel time-poor. The same deputy principal highlighted the risks principals face: at times you can get stuck in your office, unable to leave—that’s really important that you become hands-on and get out in the yard a little bit. (Field data: E3)

Another school leader explained that it is often parents who make school leaders aware of the problems in classrooms. School leaders who are disengaged from classrooms by work or leadership style may only realise the extent of the concerns in out-of-field classrooms when harm is done to the learning culture and climate. When Hattie (2009) has noted that school leaders construct the school environment that supports students’ development and progress, I assert that the absence of strategies and frameworks to confront possible issues means leadership attention to critical situations takes too long and that the result is the development of even more complicated classroom contexts, which are then more difficult for out-of-field teachers to manage and which then have further implications for the performances of these teachers and their students.

7.4 Policies Impact Workforce Stability

231

Teachers perceive school principals as the decision-makers about their teaching placements and assignments and can feel disempowered by difficult communication issues. The general perception among teachers is that once teachers have been put into out-of-field positions, school leaders “forget them” and overlook the multilayered challenges these positions create. As noted, this can be exacerbated for out-of-field teachers because of the restricted openness of these teachers about the challenges they experience in these classrooms. Leaders can be perceived as disengaged and inaccessible, though, which does not help, as a deputy principal shared, There are concerns at the lack of communication from the leadership—a lot of it comes from staff members…because [of the perception that] people in leadership don’t teach as much, they don’t do any “work.” There’s a very much, very much the perception of the ivory tower syndrome. (Field data: E3)

While teachers in out-of-field positions admit that they continuously have to make peace with being appraised as if they are suitably qualified for the position as well as manage their own feelings of in/competence and the misconceptions of their school leaders, they still do need to seek advice and support. But leaders get caught up in their own leadership concerns and misunderstand how significant the impact of out-of-field teaching practices is for their schools. Underlining concerns about school leaders’ understanding of the phenomenon, an out-of-field teacher shared that confirmation of her new teaching responsibilities, which included three out-of-field subject areas for the following term, was placed in her staff pigeonhole on the last day of term. These kinds of snapshot teacher placement decisions without negotiation develop perceptions among teachers that these assignments are short-term school staffing solutions that they have to “survive,” while the reality within school contexts demonstrates that the duration of these assignments can often be longer than is first anticipated. The leadership culture in this particular school was challenging for teachers; leaders there acknowledged that they “[hadn’t] got time to support teachers in out-of-field positions as they wish[ed] to because they [were] too busy, [and] time constraints [did] not allow them to spend time with these teachers.” The deputy principal (Field Data: E3) explained that teacher placement challenges were having an impact on their teaching workforce stability, with attrition and turnover rates at the school being extraordinarily high, and the effects of teaching and learning instability were being felt in classrooms. Time-poor school leaders appeared to only step in after problems had already escalated and “it was too late” (Field Data: C4). Tailored policy frameworks are urgently needed to support both out-of-field teachers and school leaders to manage the phenomenon in a structured manner, with proactive support and guidelines that can contain the challenges and potential risks it has on the effectiveness of classrooms. School leaders need to be able to spend the time it takes to deal with staff concerns; however, openness and availability are part of a culture of connection and awareness that school leaders need to establish so that concerns can be noticed quickly and attended to in a timely manner (DiPaola, 2003; Hattie, 2009). Openness about the frequent occurrence of the out-of-field teaching

232

7 Policies to Build a Strong, Quality …

phenomenon in schools needs to be systemically encouraged, as does the deliberate exposure of those misunderstandings about lived experiences that hamper its effective management, so that they can be addressed.

7.4.4 Beginning Teacher Workforce and Out-of-Field Teaching Practices Awareness of the various meanings of the out-of-field experience for everyday practice and workforce management turns focus to what it means for beginning teachers entering the teaching workforce with an out-of-field position as their first assignment. Lave and Wenger (1991) have claimed that “conditions that place newcomers in deeply adversarial relations with masters, bosses, or managers; in exhausting over involvement in work; or in involuntary servitude rather than participation distort, partially or completely, the prospects for learning in practice” (p. 64). Educational leaders committed to the stability of the teaching workforce need to pay particular attention to what out-of-field teaching means for beginning teachers’ attrition, retention and turnover rates. Weldon (2016) has asserted that there is a culture of assigning beginning teachers to positions for which they do not have suitable qualifications or expertise (see Fig. 7.1). Beyond school leaders’ timetabling allocations and budgeting implications, research shows that beginning teachers often find themselves placed in out-of-field positions because of the unwillingness of senior staff to move into “uncomfortable” teaching positions or their reluctance to leave their “feathered nests.” I have noted already (see Sect. 5.6.2) that more experienced teachers cope better in out-of-field teaching positions, yet the complex forces at play in schools mean beginning teachers can often be assigned to the most challenging positions in the school. School leaders need to be closely connected to the beginning teachers they personally assign to out-of-field positions and to notice their truths in the classroom so that they can make decisions that will specifically support these staff members. As noted, teachers assigned to out-of-field teaching roles often feel neglected by the school leaders who placed them in these complex positions, and beginning teachers in particular tend to be uncertain about how to approach leaders and colleagues, which, in combination with a desire to project an image of control, inhibits communication. School leaders need to attend to the well-being of their out-of-field beginning teachers and ensure that they add a “follow through” strategy to their leadership action through frameworks of continuous support from various sources, particularly colleagues, as beginning out-of-field teachers need to rely on professional interrelationships for assistance. School leaders who are connected and engaged can enter into discussions about beginning teachers’ needs with empathy, openness and honest commitment to negotiation. Emphasis on effective teaching and a stable academic climate in schools means leaders developing comprehensive policies that support the

7.4 Policies Impact Workforce Stability

233

Fig. 7.1 An Australian case of out-of-field teaching: A focus on beginning teachers, contextconsciousness and micro-education policies to evidence the need for effective management of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon. From “Out-of-field teaching in Australian secondary schools,” by P. Weldon, 2016, Policy Insights, 6, p. 14 Copyright 2016 by the Australian Council for Educational Research. Reproduced with permission

234

7 Policies to Build a Strong, Quality …

development of beginning teachers’ successful pedagogical strategies and professional identities; such an approach can have a positive impact on their early teaching experiences (Barlow, 2002). A supportive, nurturing and caring teaching environment can have a positive impact on beginning teachers’ decisions to stay or leave the teaching profession.

7.5 Summary Sutcher et al. (2016) have underlined that strategies to hire teachers as short-term substitutes to cope with increased class sizes, or for situations that require teacher supervision owing to unexpected attrition and turnover, or the assignment of teachers from other fields to fill vacancies are “stopgap solutions [that] undermine the quality of education” (p. 2). Understanding the impact of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on teaching workforce quality and stability stimulates a focus on education partnerships, school improvement policies, leadership decisions and styles, school transformation and objectives, and the value of human capital. Strategising and building a strong, quality and stable teaching workforce is deeply embedded in well-researched, well-designed targeted policy frameworks (see Fig. 1.1). School leaders’ decisions about micro-education policies are influenced by their role as financial manager with goals to make the school budget work, which are often in contrast with their role as a pedagogically accountable authority who has quality teaching, quality teachers and student achievement as their highest priority. An imbalanced focus on their financial responsibilities develops tension with perceptions of what a school leader should be (Bush, 2003; Latham, 2009). Leaders’ placement decisions can leave unsupported out-of-field teachers with the view that the only options they have left are to either move to another school or to leave the teaching profession. Yet, targeted policy frameworks for the out-of-field phenomenon can ensure that school leaders’ placement decisions do not harm the careers of vulnerable teachers. School leaders who prioritise staff support and interrelationships, student achievements and community participation/culture as being indispensable markers of quality education draw school communities together around the common values that undergird beliefs and culture. Policy-makers need to reflect on what is expected from school leaders managing the challenges of the current century and stimulate the development of micro-education policies that enable leaders to maintain a balance in how they lead and manage their schools’ human capital. Micro-education policies can have a significant impact on building a strong, quality and stable teaching workforce in spite of out-of-field teaching practices; however, I argue that certain structures within the process of education delivery need to be strengthened from “the ground up” and throughout, rather than attended to piecemeal. The use of out-of-field teaching is endemic to education because of the interlocking nature of education systems; awareness of the tension between the potential of practice policies and the often long leap to the reality of effective implementation draws attention to policy-makers’ and education system leaders’ responsibility to

7.5 Summary

235

uphold school leaders’ accountability for vulnerable teachers at the crux of the system with systemically supported, carefully prepared micro-education policy frameworks. The significant connections between the issues experienced by school leaders, their leadership skills and styles and how these influence the attrition or retention of outof-field teachers have implications for schools’ workforce stability. Bush (2008) has noted that a focus by education decision-makers on characteristics of leadership such as authority, values and vision will scaffold a more complex and developed understanding of a school’s workforce and community. The development of policy frameworks, policies and strategies is underpinned by such characteristics, which also become reflected in the culture of schools. School leaders’ context-conscious skill in introducing new policies, frameworks and strategies will impact how teachers make meaning of these frameworks and relate them to their particular out-of-field positions.

References Anderson, S., Moore, S., & Sun, J. (2009). Positioning the principals in patterns of school leadership distribution. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, & T. Strauss (Eds.), Distributed leadership according to the evidence (pp. 111–136). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Bahr, N., & Mellor, S. (2016). Building quality in teaching and teacher education. In S. Mellor (Series Ed.), Australian Education Review. Retrieved from ACEReSearch website https://research.acer. edu.au/aer/15/. Barlow, D. (2002). Putting the right teachers in the right places. The Education Digest, 68(4), 64–67. Berthelsen, D., & Walker, S. (2008). Parents’ involvement in their children’s education. Family Matters, 79, 34–41. Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational leadership and management (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications. Bush, T. (2008). From management to leadership: Semantic or meaningful change? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(2), 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1741143207087777. Bush, T., Glover, D., & Harris, A. (2008). Review of school leadership. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 32(3), 243–244. Caldwell, B. (2009). Leadership that transforms schools. Teacher: The National Education Magazine, 6, 10. Carlyle, D., & Woods, P. (2002). Emotions of teacher stress. Staffordshire, UK: Trentham Books Limited. Daniels, H. (2008). Vygotsky and research. London, UK: Routledge. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010a). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010b). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 35–47. Davies, B., & Davies, B. (2009). Strategic leadership. In B. Davies (Ed.), The essentials of school leadership (2nd ed., pp. 13–36). London, UK: SAGE. Day, C., Kington, A., Stobart, G., & Sammons, P. (2006). The personal and professional selves of teachers: Stable and unstable identities. British Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 601–616. DeFour, R., & Marzano, R. (2011). Leaders and learning: How district, school and classroom leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

236

7 Policies to Build a Strong, Quality …

Dimmock, C. (1999). Principals and school restructuring: Conceptualising challenges as dilemmas. Journal of Educational Administration, 37(5), 19–20. Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2005). Educational leadership: Culture and diversity. London, UK: SAGE. DiPaola, M. (2003). Conflict and change: Daily challenges for school leaders. In N. Bennett, M. Crawford, & M. Cartwright (Eds.), Effective educational leadership (pp. 143–158). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Du Plessis, A. (2014). Understanding the out-of-field teaching experience (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:330372. Du Plessis, A. (2017). Out-of-field teaching: What educational leaders need to know. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Du Plessis, A. (2019). Professional support beyond initial teacher education: Pedagogical discernment and the influence of out-of-field teaching practices. Singapore: Springer. Du Plessis, A. E., & McDonagh, K. (2020). Leadership for well-being: Managing the implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon. Manuscript in preparation. Du Plessis, A. E., Hoang, N., Wang, J., Schmidt, A., Mertens, L., & Cullinan, M., & Cameron, V. (2018). Invest in the future of education: Building a stable and quality beginning teacher workforce. Critical factors for reform: Evidence from the field (Research report). Brisbane, QLD, Australia: Australian Catholic University. Epstein, J., Sanders, M., Sheldon, S., Simon, B., Salinas, K., Jansorn, N. R., … Williams, K. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Publishers. Freeman, L. (2007a). An overview of dispositions in teacher education. In M. Diez & J. Raths (Eds.), Dispositions in teacher education (pp. 3–33). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc. Freeman, L. (2007b). Teacher dispositions in context. In M. Diez & J. Raths (Eds.), Dispositions in teacher education (pp. 117–138). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc. Furman, G. (2002a). Introduction. In G. Furman (Ed.), School as community: From promise to practice (pp. 1–19). Albany, NY: State of New York Press. Furman, G. (2002b). Postmodernism and community in schools: Unraveling the paradox. In G. Furman (Ed.), School as community: From promise to practice (pp. 51–75). Albany, NY: State of New York Press. Furman, G. (2002c). Toward a practice of school community. In G. Furman (Ed.), School as community: From promise to practice (pp. 277–294). Albany, NY: State of New York Press. Getkin, K. (2009). Reforming or changing educational leadership. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 32(2), 15–19. Gore, J., Holmes, K., Smith, M., & Fray, L. (2015). Investigating the factors that influence the choice of teaching as a first career (Report). Retrieved from http://qct.edu.au/pdf/research/ WhyPeopleChooseTeachingLiteratureReview.pdf. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge. Hill, H. (2007). Learning in the teaching workforce. The Future of Children, 17(1), 111–127. Ingersoll, R. (2002). Out-of-field-teaching, educational inequality, and the organization of schools: An exploratory analysis. CPRE Research Reports, 22. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn. edu/cpre_researchreports/22/. Kristjánsson, K. (2007). Aristotle, emotions, and education. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate. Latham, D. (2009). Perceptions of school leadership. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 24(1), 21–25. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Education Quarterly Review. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0013161X03253412.

References

237

Mazyck, D. (2009). Healthy school communities. NASN School Nurse, 24(2), 51. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1942602x08330744. National Teaching Workforce Dataset Working Group. (2014). National teaching workforce data set (Project report). Retrieved from Australian Government Department of Education & Training website: https://docs.education.gov.au/node/36285. Owen, S. (2016). Professional learning communities: Building skills, reinvigorating the passion, and nurturing teacher wellbeing and “flourishing” within significantly innovative schooling contexts. Educational Review, 68(4), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2015.1119101. Preston, J. (2011). Influencing community involvement in school: A school community council. McGill Journal of Education, 46(2), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.7202/1006435ar. Queensland Audit Office. (2013). Supply of specialist subject teachers in secondary schools. Report to Parliament 2: 2013–14. Retrieved from https://www.qao.qld.gov.au/sites/qao/files/reports/rtp_ supply_of_specialist_subject_teachers_in_secondary_schools.pdf. Redding, S. (1996). Quantifying the components of school community. The School Community Journal, 6(2), 131–147. Rosenblatt, Z., & Peled, D. (2002). School ethical climate and parental involvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(4), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210433427. Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sheldon, S. B., & van Voorhis, F. L. (2004). Partnership programs in U.S. schools: Their development and relationship to family involvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 15(2), 125–148. Shields, C. (2002). Learning from educators: Insights into building communities of difference. In G. Furman (Ed.), School as community: From promise to practice (pp. 143–162). Albany, NY: State of New York Press. Skilbeck, M., & Connell, H. (2004). Teachers for the future: The changing nature of society and related issues for the teaching workforce. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_ business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=evt/teachereduc/subs/sub059. pdf. Smith, B. (2002). Keeping emotions in mind. In P. Goldie (Ed.), Understanding emotions: Mind and morals (pp. 111–121). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Spillane, J., Camburn, E., & Stitziel Pareja, A. (2009). School principals at work: A distributed perspective. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, & T. Strauss (Eds.), Distributed leadership according to the evidence (pp. 87–110). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Spratt, J. (2017). Wellbeing, equity and education: A critical analysis of policy discourses of wellbeing in schools. Gewerbestrasse, Switzerland: Springer. Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. (Learning Policy Institute Research Brief). Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. Ontario, Canada: The Althouse Press. van Manen, M. (2016). The tone of teaching: The language of pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weldon, P. (2015). The teacher workforce in Australia: Supply, demand and data issues. Policy Insights, 2. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001& context=policyinsights. Weldon, P. (2016). Out-of-field teaching in Australian secondary schools. Policy Insights, 6. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context= policyinsights.

Chapter 8

Being in the Out-of-Field Context: How It Influences the Validation of Policies

Policies become valid support resources when the potential of policy to improve quality education in spite of significant challenges is brought to the fore; policy can move beyond a taken-for-granted attitude to the impact of the out-of-field phenomenon and reflect knowledge and understanding of both teachers and the teaching and learning context. Leo (2015) asks, how can schools be developed to bring about change that will enhance student achievement, social development and an improved level of engagement? I answer that schools develop and improve through targeted micro-education policies that reflect fit-for-purpose characteristics and target key issues in a holistic manner. The validation of policies is embedded in how they address the needs of the whole school community, including, for example, teachers’ needs and expectations; classroom complexities; learning diversity and behaviour management; leadership styles and needs; and school culture. Valid policies can become essential support resources to improve the quality of education.

8.1 Introduction Validating micro-education policies requires not only an in-depth understanding of the multilayered challenges and needs within a specific context but also involves noticing and knowing who will implement these policies and how they will be implemented. The way in which policies are interpreted and implemented can be different from the initial objectives of policy-makers, something that Bernstein (2000) has identified as the “discursive gap.” I argue that the validation of micro-education policies for the out-of-field teaching phenomenon has similarly significant implications for quality education policy implementation and its goals, and vice versa. Existing policy often does not acknowledge the phenomenon; to step beyond this position and create and implement policies that can be seen as valid resources means recognising (for example) what has been long assumed and what this has expected of teachers, students and systemic quality education goals. In short, the discursive gap needs to be explored, challenged and bridged. The purpose of this chapter is to offer a closer look at micro-education policies and how these can address the issues that develop © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. E. Du Plessis, Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1948-2_8

239

240

8 Being in the Out-of-Field Context …

because of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon with a focus on their potential social implications for education environments. Well-designed and well-thought through policies can create a healthy professional milieu and provide out-of-field teachers with a secure context from which to seek help in their efforts to sustain their effectiveness. In such a professional social context, these teachers will be able to combat their confidence dilemmas and foster normalised feelings of achievement and “doing well,” which in turn will positively influence their dispositions and self-esteem. This chapter emphasises the vitally important implications of carefully validating policies and how fundamental ongoing policy validation processes are for the establishment of policies as tools to safeguard the learning environment and support the art of teaching. This focus underlines the importance of getting policies right; education policies are important strategies for quality teaching and learning, and their role is to ensure that students “gain the knowledge, values and skills they will need throughout life” (Hunt, 2015, p. 379). Such commodities underpin the social capital development process, therefore, and educational policies must be resources that offer consistent direction for achieving this goal and for building a healthy school environment. Validating micro-education policies as tools requires that they are viewed not as stagnant, one-off decisions, but as a fluid, ongoing process of implementation and validation that is dynamic, recursive and multidirectional, and that keeps in mind that the realities of schooling are for the cognitive and social development of students. As I have noted in earlier chapters, policies of all kinds influence school culture and the dispositions of those working within a school context. Since policies affect the social capital within teaching and learning environments, I argue that micro-education policies for valid change must be scaffolded by quality attention to relationships, both formal and informal, as part of a strategic initiative to foster environments of interaction that will add value to being in those contexts (Caldwell, 2009) , as well as improve their overall effectiveness. Social capital in schools is built on collaboration that supports and progresses effective teaching habits (Anderson, Moore, & Sun, 2009) because quality education does not happen in isolation but in a community space that demonstrates how stakeholders collaboratively value education. The effectiveness of schools as teaching and learning environments depends on their successful creation of a linkage of partnerships that encourage knowledge and resource sharing and the in-depth discussion of teaching and learning challenges (Caldwell, 2009). Interconnections between individuals to enhance guidance and management of the teaching and learning space give teachers an opportunity to offer knowledge and expertise to one another (Woods, Bennett, Harvey, & Wise, 2004). The process of staying connected with classroom practices, colleagues’ experiences and the wider educational community supports the building of personal and professional connections that will themselves support the development of new perspectives within the educational environment (Davies & Davies, 2009). The implementation and validation process of micro-education policies at work in schools is in itself a process of building a culture of solid relationships and openness to the reflexivity of

8.1 Introduction

241

professional practice. Such a process requires confident and engaged school leaders who fully appreciate the role of micro-education policies to • provide a secure context for out-of-field teachers to develop; • improve social capital, because social capital dispositions become the space in which all teachers take pedagogical accountability for their students’ development; • enhance interconnections between stakeholders, and improve their teaching and learning experiences and • develop and stimulate engaged school leadership behaviour. School leaders with clear plans about the direction school improvements can take are comfortable with making adjustments to decisions and practices, and therefore encourage openness (Latham, 2009). Both Getkin (2009) and Dimmock and Walker (2005) have importantly underlined the value of social interactions for educational leadership, too; participation by leaders in social interactions within the teaching and learning environment allows leaders to share contextual understanding with their teaching colleagues about being in that context. Leaders who demonstrate empathy, reliability and attentiveness towards teachers’ and students’ dispositions and emotions are perceived as effective (Latham, 2009). Latham (2009) has also noted that school leaders in effective teaching and learning environments not only focus on student learning and achievement but also engage with parents to influence the learning and teaching process. The value of fit-for-purpose micro-education policies is deeply embedded in a context-conscious philosophy of growing teachers’ capacity (within a specific context), a process that is closely connected to leaders’ sensitivity to noticing. Growing teachers is not a spur of the moment act; growing is a process that happens over time within a set of caring structures. The habitus of an effective teaching and learning context needs to offer teachers a space where being is respected and accommodated. To achieve these things, however, schools require clear structures, frameworks and strategies, and school leaders who display skills and insight in using these to support the progress of new capabilities and considerations (Davies & Davies, 2009). Misconceptions about what it means for teachers to be out-of-field currently influence educational leaders’ level of attention to the phenomenon, as is demonstrated in leadership decisions about staff assignments, their behaviour and views regarding these teachers’ difficulties, and their lack of collaboration to mitigate teachers’ reallife experiences. Their level of influence, however, means school leaders are well placed to notice areas in which teachers can develop, making their engagement in the classroom environment vital for gaining a context-conscious awareness of how to align micro-education policies to this effect with the needs of teachers in these teaching and learning environments. I argue the realistic development of policies that offer guidelines for managing out-of-field teaching challenges is possible on a context-conscious foundation. The significant challenge for school leaders to ensure valid micro-education policies is explained by Gadamer (1975, 1976/2008), who has noted that a disconnection between what is said, what is heard and what is experienced influences the creation

242

8 Being in the Out-of-Field Context …

of a deeper understanding of lived experiences and therefore of being. The subjective complexity of this reflexive and holistic knowledge-assembling process is well within reach of policy objectives. For example, when Rogers (2011a) has observed that, on average, 10–15% of students in one class will display attention-distracting behaviours, it is concerning that teachers experience school policies as unsupportive in managing challenging students. Policy needs to connect to its object and its objectives through in-built reflective strategising of the policy process. For strategies to create a safe environment for students and teachers to optimise their potential, they need to proactively guide being part of classroom actions and pedagogies by noticing teachers’ and students’ specific needs for support and creating frames in which these needs can be met. I argue that the process of tailoring micro-education policy is a framework that can reach the core of being, and that well-designed policies can provide a structure for interrelationships and social capital that nurture and sustain a healthy school context. Valid micro-education policies accommodate the fact that teachers experience a breadth of feelings of being unprepared for specific contexts and have different experiences of their out-of-field assignments; these experiences vary from having severe difficulties to effortful coping, while a few teachers claim that teaching subjects and/or year levels outside their qualifications is a form of professional development and stimulates their interest in new subject areas (Du Plessis, 2019). The issue is that different experiences require different leadership actions: an out-of-field teacher teaching a large, challenging and diverse student cohort in an important developmental year level (e.g., Year 6 or 11 or 12) will require different collegial support, professional development opportunities and behavioural management guidelines than a teacher teaching out-of-field in a less expectatively challenging context. In the same vein, research shows that out-of-field teacher stress and pedagogical requirement both increase with the pressure of higher year levels, as noted by an educational director, “Anxiety goes up when they move up the years. If you put me in charge of Year 11s, I’d be absolutely hopeless” (Field data: Director 1). While I tend toward the view that all subjects/year levels fulfil equally important developmental roles for students and all out-of-field teachers experience anxiety, leadership investigation of the relational learning climate of the out-of-field learning space needs to focus on the specific challenges that are part of each context and develop strategies of support for prioritising a healthy interrelational atmosphere for learning. Within this intention, factors such as teaching pedagogies, teacher approaches, trust relationships and the willingness of teachers and students to explore new learning approaches can be noticed and addressed. As I have discussed, a context-conscious awareness and exploration of the differences between specialist teachers’ and out-of-field teachers’ classrooms can highlight factors that make it possible for teachers to fulfil expectations and construct a close to ideal classroom (see Sects. 1.2.1, 1.6 and 5.2). In fact, school leaders’ pedagogical accountability draws them to the centre of the efforts to validate the micro-education policies that are developed to develop and build classroom contexts where trust relationships are a priority. Leaders’ understanding of the lived meaning of specific out-of-field teaching situations will allow a deeper realisation of the role frameworks, approaches, strategies and policies can then play in these

8.1 Introduction

243

learning environments. Through deeper understanding, effective, evidence-informed policies can be created that ensure leadership decisions are a process of validation and reflection. Well-designed policies therefore uphold the fundamental objective of creating the learning environment that stakeholders expect and attend to three vital focus points in addressing the out-of-field challenge: (a) expectations for a healthy school context, (b) management of lived experiences in classrooms and (c) noticing specific out-offield teaching situations and their impact on the effectiveness and quality of teachers and teaching.

8.2 The School Context It will be clear from the discussion in preceding chapters that validating microeducation policies is context-focused. Specific policies are needed to address the challenges in specific school environments. Critically, the image of the school context is built on stakeholders’ perceptions of the ideal classroom where quality teaching and learning take place, and is undergirded by ideology (Amrein-Beardsley, 2007). The school context in totality is seen as a learning space that is managed in a manner that optimises opportunities for students’ academic growth and challenges them to reach and improve their personal goals; in terms of community expectation, schools have a responsibility to provide “good teaching” and support “powerful learning” (Darling-Hammond, 2010a, p. 324). As I have described, the teaching and learning beliefs present within a school context are functionally defined by school leaders’ leadership styles, skills and strategies (Hallinger & Heck, 2010), and school leaders in successful schools are intensely aware of the role all stakeholders have in the achievements and outcomes of students’ learning, and in supporting students to reach their full potential in a school environment (Caldwell, 2009; Latham, 2009). This makes the school context a complex entity—one that boils down to the events in the classroom. Validating micro-education policies, therefore, requires contextconsciousness to connect with the everydayness of classrooms as they are functionally upheld by the everydayness of the school context. Leaders and the decisions they make affect the contextual everydayness of schooling, including the management of dysfunctional learning environments and the stressors there that cause anxiety (Huberty, 2013). Without this integrated view, leaders cannot validate policy for change. As I have described, school leaders’ connectedness to their schools’ teaching workforce supports their level of understanding of teachers’ challenges. Their approach to staff has the potential to encourage or restrict teachers’ contributions and engagement in the process of decision-making, including how teachers accept the requirements of transformation and adaptation that are part of a school context, particularly where an out-of-field teaching strategy is being utilised (Latham, 2009). Recognition of the need to professionally transform, understanding what transformation means, connecting staff through collegiality, using creativity to develop strategies and frameworks, respecting individual development, engaging trust in the

244

8 Being in the Out-of-Field Context …

exploration of options and maintaining reinforcement are all necessary aspects of the transformation and restructuring discourse in education (Berkhout, 2007). I assert that effective school contexts embrace the positive dispositions of respect and support that enable teachers to confidently participate in influential decision-making (Latham, 2009), and encourage them to engage in collaboratively strategising the future directions of their professional identities and the school (Davies & Davies, 2009). Policies that stimulate and ensure the creation of a supportive school context mean strategies to encourage out-of-field teachers to redevelop their existing skills and reach new potential. Yet, school principals admit that they experience feelings of isolation; research shows they perceive gaps in communication between themselves as school leaders and education departments, and between themselves and teachers, especially those in challenging positions such as out-of-field teaching. As noted in the previous chapter, in school environments where school leaders get bogged down in their offices and are not engaged or visible to colleagues, an “ivory tower syndrome” perception of leadership can develop. Darling-Hammond (2010a) has claimed that there is a culture in education of “teaching behind closed doors” where the collaboration of sharing teaching challenges, difficulties or successes is restricted. Vulnerable teachers who function in out-of-field positions freely admit that they lack the necessary support to help them cope with their constant exposure to unfamiliar incidences. Data have confirmed that school cultures which reflect restricted collaboration and communication between colleagues, teachers and leaders, and teachers and students can result in major misconceptions and leave out-of-field teachers feeling isolated and anxious; the first step to shifting these intertwined understandings is noticing them. As already discussed, dispositions of anxiety do not stop with anxious teachers, but influence classroom and school contexts, and this influence expands with the increasing numbers of out-of-field teachers in schools. Classroom contexts where out-of-field teachers employ classroom management strategies and frameworks that constrain trust relationships leave their students feeling anxious and/or disrespected, and create challenges for collaboration among teachers, leaders and parents within a school community. The individuals in these stakeholder groups are acutely aware of how the process of education interacts with its goals. A parent of a primary school student shared: My daughter is anxious; she tends to be fairly quiet. Her Year 2 was unfortunately quite distracting and it upset her because she just desperately wanted to learn and get on with the activities and the fun side of learning—it was starting to bother her. (Field data: C3)

Van Manen (2016b) has shared that a lot that takes place “between teachers and students transpires through gestures, the face and eyes. A powerful teacher…has a powerful presence” (p. 57). Teachers who are “present to students as persons” (p. 64) influence the culture of the school context. Teachers’ being and skills in the classroom can be upheld by leaders’ recognition of the power they have in the eyes of the community. Schaps (2009) has noted that when teachers and school leaders experience difficulties in nurturing and educating students they are perceived as unmotivated and incompetent by the wider school community.

8.2 The School Context

245

When policy discourse closely follows the elements of education, policies move into a “cycle” of verification and validity that upholds the goal of education through the teacher. Where leaders show attentiveness to staff needs, it is evident from research that a healthy support network can form around out-of-field teachers, as a principal at a remote Australian independent primary school discussed. A microeducation policy framework that school leaders there had developed required deputy principals to develop closer engagement with out-of-field teachers, because, “It shows the teachers that at least the school is caring about what they’re doing in their classrooms” (Field data: F3). A deputy principal at another school shared views that school leaders were accountable to develop strategies: “I think we’ve got a responsibility to retain staff…there is a high drop-out rate, so we’ve got to try and keep these people in a job, and to protect them” (Field data: E3). Further, policy strategies that encourage and support specialist teachers to assist out-of-field teachers with their classroom challenges greatly improve and stabilise professional interrelationships, professional development and student achievement. Policies such as this create “feedback” into school culture and so ongoing scaffolding for positive school environments and healthy learning contexts. In this sense, building a healthy school culture depends on leadership enabling teachers, and Early and Jones (2009) have highlighted the value of both support and the availability of resources for leaders in the task of effectively managing schools. Well-designed policies need to be resources to uphold these aspects of schools’ operational structures, and so the everydayness of schooling.

8.3 The Out-of-Field Classroom Context Nias (1996) has emphasised that what happens in the classroom forms the core underpinning of teachers’ self-esteem and feelings of accomplishment, and I have discussed this in Sects. 5.5 and 6.2.1. What happens to teachers’ confidence in outof-field classrooms not only affects the success of improvement strategies and frameworks set by school leaders, it also greatly influences the stability and climate of the teaching and learning environment. Validating the current out-of-field situation as the cause of unhealthy learning contexts is a step towards challenging the discursive gap between out-of-field classrooms and stakeholders’ value on education. Out-offield teachers’ lived experiences and their concurrent sensation of accountability to construct a healthy learning space can leave them feeling helpless and vulnerable. Inside this struggle to create and perform in the classroom, out-of-field teachers’ uncertainty and continuous critical self-reflection on their abilities affect their teaching style and quality, and they see this. As noted, an all-encompassing focus on resolving this dilemma by getting control over the content/pedagogical content of an unfamiliar subject and/or year level can further curtail their teaching approach. A parent noted that time management is one of the areas affected, as students “who really want to learn need to spend more time after school on homework because of

246

8 Being in the Out-of-Field Context …

disruptions and classroom management challenges [that happen because of] out-offield teach[ing] experiences” (Field data: B2). As discussed, control of the classroom climate and atmosphere and the responsibility of behavioural management (both of which demands increase with needing to manage situations of powershift, for example, that stimulate anxiety and affect students’ learning and achievement) become difficult for out-of-field teachers, consuming time for learning. Students admit that they do not feel valued in dysfunctional teaching and learning environments, and student anxiety can become evident in displays of behaviour (Neer, 1990; Rogers, 2011b). When aggravated students decide to challenge teachers, classroom management issues and behavioural escalation complications are the result. The subsequent dispositions teachers express in such classroom contexts, too, reflexively influence students’ emotions and attitudes there. All this has been described elsewhere in detail; here, I look at it in the light of Kelchtermans’ (2009) observation that “teachers’ positive self-esteem is to a large extent dependent on the social recognition [of] others” (p. 40), and thus is intrinsically connected to the sense of vulnerability that comes with the fluctuating opinions of scrutiny and comment. Kelchtermans has also noted that there is a dual nature to teachers’ self-esteem or self-understanding, where the normative component (“What is the task? What is a proper teacher?”) is intertwined with the evaluative component (“Am I a proper teacher?”), drawing attention to the intersection between external remarks/criticism and out-of-field teachers’ internal critical self-analysis. Carefully developed micro-education policy frameworks are validated when they safeguard the learning environment (and change unhealthy out-of-field classroom contexts) by recognising that the needs there (e.g., teacher confidence and positive self-reflection) are integrated and interdependent with those of the whole. Teachers’ ability to construct a caring and supportive classroom climate is evident in whether it offers students a space in which deep learning, academic commitment and healthy social development can take place (Jones & Jones, 2007). Classrooms that are carefully structured support students to reach their potential via a feeling of belongingness, so that learning takes place in a culture where they feel comfortable to take risks (Lyons, Ford, & Arthur-Kelly, 2011). It is expected that classroom contexts will embrace a variety of approaches in which individuals are treated and managed demonstrate attitudes and practices that embrace the value of individualism and diversity by upholding a breadth of thought. Students who experience the safety of learning environments that are supported by well-designed policy frameworks can focus on knowledge construction with autonomy and independence; in a healthy teaching and learning environment, students can feel in control of their own learning journey, making them both more willing to explore learning and to comply with frameworks because they feel at home within their classroom contexts. Outlining out-of-field teachers’ struggles with self-esteem, classroom efficacy and student learning draws attention to defining an ideal classroom context with an ideal teacher, and I have done this elsewhere to demonstrate the lack of alignment between the unsupported use of the phenomenon and education objectives in general. Defining the ideal that micro-education policies can reflexively uphold is greatly embedded in a context-conscious noticing and acknowledging of the context and its “components”

8.3 The Out-of-Field Classroom Context

247

and requirements. Primarily, it includes noticing the contextual elements in an out-offield teachers’ classroom, with the intention of maximising their effectiveness under the given conditions. There is no way visible to make the phenomenon “go away,” but when principals “make the mistake” of “abdicating from the classroom,” and the first indication of distress in an out-of-field teacher’s classroom is their difficulty with classroom management strategies, policy, too, has abdicated the classroom. But it need not: systemically, an ideal teacher is defined by the professional standards set for teachers that embrace the need for them to demonstrate sound content or subject knowledge and skills to appropriately organise and apply this subject matter knowledge (Hattie, 2003). Globally, teachers are expected to know what they are doing as per the professional standards of different countries (e.g., Australia— Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2011; Call, 2018; South Africa—Centre for Development and Enterprise, 2017; the U.K.—Department for Education, 2011; the U.S.—National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 2001 and Norway—OECD, 2013). Professional standards are intended to be a policy response to “enhancing the quality of teaching and the status of the teaching profession” (Mayer, Mitchell, Macdonald, & Bell, 2005, p. 160). Policy needs to be validated by connecting to its purpose, and I argue that micro-education policies can contextually prioritise out-of-field teachers’ teaching competency by providing relational environments that actively steer and support them towards “pedagogical tactfulness and…sensitivity” (van Manen, 2016b, p. 64) for students’ best interests. Quality teaching is entrenched in intrinsic motivation, passion, feelings and a desire to make a difference (Gore, Holmes, Smith, & Fray, 2015), and I argue that out-offield teacher’s emotion, being and behaviour stem, also, from these desires, which drive them to act for their goals and their students. Without support, however, this process of aligning their teaching with their “deeply held beliefs” and “moral duties” (Kelchtermans, 2009, p. 40) is exhausting and corrosive. This is where I propose that micro-education policy frameworks can shift policy from exacting, detached requirement to involved resource for effective classroom management: The real purpose of professional standards for teachers is as policy resources to successfully reinforce teachers’ pedagogical accountability, uphold their objectives to improve their teaching practices and support the quality of their emotion and behaviour—including those teachers in challenging teaching positions. The basic requirements of an effective classroom (and, I clarify, what stakeholders see as the “ideal” classroom) entail comprehensive classroom management strategies and continuous adjustment to appropriate pedagogies according to students’ learning needs and in response to their academic desires (Jones & Jones, 2007). Full understanding of the implications of out-of-field teaching for the construction of such effective classrooms has been presented (see Sect. 1.2), but all stakeholders (out-of-field teachers, specialist teachers, leaders and parents) notice how unsuitably qualified teachers struggle to stay in control of their classes. Out-of-field teachers admit that the dysfunctions in their classroom environments often pose challenges for their neighbouring colleagues, who have to step into help them manage disruptive behaviour. I assert that this reaching out is merely a part of out-of-field teachers bridging the discursive gap that currently exists in the unacknowledged policy discourse

248

8 Being in the Out-of-Field Context …

to use the phenomenon without recognition that quality teaching environments are relationally secured. These teachers’ vulnerabilities only increase if school policies do not acknowledge their need for collegial support and scaffold it with resources; leadership expectations that do not show awareness of the realities out-of-field teachers and their students deal with only further intensify the pressure that is experienced in these classrooms by denying the social context of education. Policy can foster a context-consciousness among decision-makers. The process of discovering an in-depth understanding of these classroom contexts will allow leaders to develop a closeness to the lifeworlds of out-of-field teachers and the specific challenges they face in their goal to develop into the (contextually) ideal teacher. Only then can targeted strategies and school policies be developed as resources to improve a teaching and learning environment. Specific classrooms can be reviewed as informative case studies to adjust and transform leaders’ decision-making by critical reflection on what is observed and by analysing challenges and possible solutions. Smith, Flowers, and Larkin (2010) have noted that a bold phenomenological approach (an intense focus on the thing that is happening) “generates rich and particular accounts” (p. 52) of lived experiences within the classroom context. The accounts supplied here as evidence are an inadequate basis for specific contextual policy development. Only a hermeneutic closeness to the classroom context can help leaders develop an appreciation for problematic experiences; the benefit is that decisionmakers can then move to the ontological layer of teacher and student being (Huberty, 2013) in their consideration of policies to manage influential contextual factors and stimulate healthy learning environments. School leaders need to focus on the assistance and resources they provide to teachers to improve the productive pedagogies standards intend to uphold (Lingard, Hayes, Mills, & Christie, 2003), support that is even more significant when teachers get assigned to out-of-field positions. Policy approaches that include structured collaboration with expert colleagues have the potential to offer out-of-field teachers the support and framework of a relational safety net, inside which they can set boundaries, support consistencies and cultivate routines that can become habitual.

8.3.1 Policy and Diverse, Inclusive Classrooms The urgency of valid micro-education policies becomes especially clear in challenging teaching and learning environments. The multilayered needs within diverse classrooms and community expectations that teachers will be able to develop inclusive teaching and learning environments magnify the need for targeted micro-education policies that reach the core of being. As I have discussed, Hattie (2009) has underlined that teachers are the common denominator between sound subject matter knowledge, relationships in the classroom and quality teaching outcomes and performance. Teacher preparedness research has observed the current education priority for teachers to be suitably qualified to deliver the pedagogies required for diverse learners

8.3 The Out-of-Field Classroom Context

249

(Rowan, Kline, & Mayer, 2017). Parents acknowledge the importance of the pedagogical approaches teachers employ to cater for individual students’ needs, and notice that the changes in student achievements and outcomes are aligned with changes that take place within teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and teaching practices (Carroll, Baglioni, Houghton, & Bramston, 1999; Du Plessis, 2018). Indeed, perceptions about preparedness for and engagement with the effective management of diversity and the provision of inclusive classrooms are part of the image of a school as a quality education provider. A teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and their stimulation of all students to construct and internalise new knowledge while offering them challenges and encouragement are part of the everydayness of teaching. But while confident teachers use strategies to capture students’ imaginations and engage them in learning activities, as I have described, teachers’ pedagogical reasoning and respect for the uniqueness of individual students need to be first situated on their own subject/year level knowledge before it can effectively guide how they engage with and pay attention to their students’ specific needs (Carroll, Forlin, & Jobling, 2003). The issue for policy is that it is teachers who form a “connection” with students that demonstrate an inclusive approach to learning (Corbett & Norwich, 1999, p. 133). Struggling to memorise material the night before is one angle on out-of-field teachers’ lifeworlds; another is that they do not know what they do not know—but the critical issue for micropolicies is that their lack of knowing is the foundational interrupt for their social and relational behaviour in the classroom. Policy will not be valid for teaching and learning environments unless it prioritises the protection, maintenance and energising of healthy teaching and learning relationships. I argue that out-of-field teachers realise that their classrooms are a microcosm of the wider sociocultural community and that the interactions they have there influence the classroom culture, its atmosphere and students’ social learning. The cascade for the compromise of this teacher–student interrelationship is a corresponding compromise to students’ being (behaviour), and the further challenges this poses for the teaching and learning context then impact the quality of students’ education (Huberty, 2013; Rogers, 2011a). Micro-education policies that acknowledge the relational challenges of out-offield teaching practices on effectively managing diversity and inclusive learning environments can greatly affect teachers’ capacity to manage these contexts by getting to the heart of the problem. I assert that the idea of the “everydayness” of teaching places implicit responsibility on teachers’ skills, but this is responsibility that policy jointly holds—both to create the environment stakeholders need and expect and to notice when it has diverged from the contextual ideal. The process of validating microeducation policies for teachers experiencing the intense pressure of accommodating and managing a whole student cohort and diverse instruction requirements cannot be a detached “patching” by policy, but must connect to the needs of the context. Out-of-field teachers’ “everydayness” is the fight to construct a balanced approach to relationships at the same time as managing unfamiliar content knowledge and the concurrent adjustment of their teaching strategies. Yet, students with specific learning needs depend heavily on the teacher’s knowledge and skills to guide them through their learning experience, notice their learning needs and carefully address

250

8 Being in the Out-of-Field Context …

them. As Rowan et al. (2017) have noted, “teachers’ knowledge of, and confidence, regarding diversity and diverse learners can have a direct impact upon the experiences and outcomes of their students” (p. 83). All students, especially those students with specific learning needs, prosper in teaching and learning environments where consistency in the learning and teaching space offers them security and stability, as a parent of a student with a mood disorder shared: “definite rules and routine improve management of these [anxiety] needs. Students with diverse learning needs excel in comfortable environments that support their learning” (Field data: C3). Vulnerable students develop trust relationships and a willingness to engage in the classroom and subject content discussions once they feel comfortable. Further, both Hattie (2009) and Preble and Taylor (2008) have noted that students assess what their teachers expect of them against the level of their teachers’ effectiveness and connectedness, and I emphasise that connection is a key motivator for students’ engagement with their own achievement. This tension of teaching-as-relationship can be validated in policy attention to the social implications of out-of-field teaching practices. One out-of-field teacher, who after 5 years in an out-of-field position, defined himself as a specialist teacher in his subject area, suggested that out-of-field teachers don’t have the capacity “to pick up on the at-risk [students]” who can “just slip through” (Field data: D1). As previously described, research has shown that the learning and development of at-risk students demonstrate regression rather than progression in unsuitably qualified teachers’ classrooms (Du Plessis, 2014) where teachers can tend to transform into “chalk-and-talk” teachers, as a principal explained, “There’s a barrier, the chalk-and-talk teachers don’t know the children in their class—they wouldn’t have a relationship with them” (Field data: F3). These teachers also have less attention for proactive interventions and strategies to limit incidences that might trigger behavioural issues, as they struggle to manage their other challenges. They rely on textbook teaching because of their uncertainty, and hand-in-hand with classroom strategies that are either “…too strict and formal or too lax,” as the same school principal (F3) shared, “fall back” on a style of teaching that restricts discussion and/or opportunities to ask questions about new subject matter or concepts. In short, the relational environment of the classroom is constrained by teachers’ self-management of issues that could be more effectively handled by dedicated and responsive policy initiatives. I believe the remark of an out-of-field teacher that it can be “really tricky” to know how to support out-of-field teachers is a reflection of how much the social context that teachers create for learning environments is currently taken for granted in the use of the phenomenon. I return to the issue of support for out-of-field teaching as evidence. A novice out-of-field teacher explained that developing the skills to survive their out-of-field classroom and (several) out-of-field subjects was seen as being their own responsibility: They acknowledge the out-of-field thing when they first put them in that field…after that you get forgotten about—they forget you are doing something that is not your usual job. That is really hard because then you feel you have to go to them and say…Hello! I need some help or I need some time—you have to ask for support. I would say that they just don’t understand really at all what it is like to be in that classroom…to be doing that job. (Field data: C7)

8.3 The Out-of-Field Classroom Context

251

At another school, a beginning out-of-field teacher related: The Deputy said, “Oh sorry, I am really busy”…I emailed him a couple of times and I had no reply…and I tried to see him before the kids came in at the start of the year and he was busy…he didn’t have time for me… (Field data: E5)

It is concerning that school leaders who are accountable for providing a quality education environment staffed with suitably qualified teachers often misunderstand the social and relational implications of out-of-field teaching on students’ achievements. It is clear that classrooms can quickly develop into chaotic teaching and learning spaces when teachers, in addition to not knowing their subject well, are unsupported in their efforts to teach effectively. Uncertainty about subject area and/or year level becomes the all-encompassing and overwhelming reality of their everyday out-offield teaching issues; their intense experiences include responsibilities to develop curriculum plans, lesson plans and unit plans in their unfamiliar subject—little wonder they reach out to colleagues and school leaders for help. I assert again that outof-field teachers’ “dependence” on colleagues and leaders to support them through the process of adjusting to unfamiliar subject areas or year levels and the floundering they feel when they cannot get help turns attention to the genuine relational needs teachers have and the discursive gap that micro-education policies need to fill with responsive strategy and allocated resources. Questions arise about why policy frameworks to protect and support out-of-field teaching and learning contexts and the people who are exposed to them are absent. Research is clear that disruptive teaching and learning environments and inexperienced teachers negatively impact students’ progress (Darling-Hammond, 2010a, 2010b; Du Plessis, 2018). Micro-education policies can notice when students at-risk of regression with their learning and development find themselves in challenging learning environments as a result of the out-of-field phenomenon, and I refer here not just to individual cases in schools or classrooms but to whole school contexts that are exposed to the challenges of the out-of-field phenomenon, a discussion which must turn focus to how the accommodation of diversity in classrooms relates to equality and social justice, issues which in turn have a major impact on policy frameworks. Rowan, Kline, and Mayer (2017), for example, have claimed that the national standards have “attained enormous significance” (p. 72) as the reference point for teacher education and point to concerns about teachers’ preparedness for diverse student cohorts and what this means for policy and practice. Darling-Hammond (2010a) has stated that schools in low socioeconomic environments often have to assign less experienced teachers to positions owing to the difficulty of recruiting experienced staff to challenging social environments. Globalisation and the internationalisation of populations generate a propensity for highly diverse student cohorts, particularly in schools of certain demographics, and highly diverse student cohorts can represent diverse learning and developmental needs (Thomas & Kearney, 2008). Data from schools with these demographics and staff profile reinforce this situation, and the combination creates further challenges for student achievement when high turnover rates among unsuitably qualified teachers are not uncommon, and there is constant replacement of teachers in these hard-to-staff schools (Darling-Hammond, 2010a; Ingersoll, 2001).

252

8 Being in the Out-of-Field Context …

In this frame, it is worth adding the reality that this kind of instability in schools deeply affects the comprehensive construction of the school context as a relationally safe and connected space, and particularly the development of students with specific learning needs who receive specialist support from expert teachers or therapists. The considerable cost and effort of speech and occupational therapist support personnel for students with specific learning needs does not need to come undone because out-of-field teachers are overwhelmed and are not given the resources to stop and focus on their students or spend the necessary time to connect. These are issues that can and need to be confronted by well-designed policy frameworks. I balance this by reiterating that micro-education policies should not be seen as a “magic wand” of “quick-fix” solutions: The validation of the support discourse of these policies is deeply embedded in both the foundation of their development and how they are implemented. The usefulness of micro-education policies is vested in the context-conscious alignment they show to the realities in classrooms.

8.3.2 Policy and Pedagogical Thoughtfulness in the Classroom A teacher who is comfortable and confident about the depth of their content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge is able to make knowledge transmission interesting and ensure that all the students are engaged in learning. While it is clear that teachers’ confidence, sound knowledge, beliefs, values and dispositions influence their teaching characteristics and ultimately their teaching quality, the flow-on effects to the equality of classroom learning need to be addressed by targeted policies which demonstrate awareness that out-of-field teachers’ classroom environments are fundamentally different. Certainly, out-of-field teachers experience challenges to manage specific student behaviour, and well-designed, contextually-relevant microeducation policies for behaviour management will offer these teachers a framework in which they can confidently manage such challenges (Du Plessis, 2014). However, as I have discussed, it is evident from observations of out-of-field teachers’ and specialist teachers’ classrooms that out-of-field teachers display difficulties noticing the detail of students’ learning experiences, needs and pedagogical preferences. When certain students in these classrooms were not being challenged to engage in lesson discussions, the teachers’ disconnectedness resulted in students “muck[ing] up,” or urging for attention via negative attention-seeking behaviour—which ultimately culminated in lost learning opportunities. In terms of fairness, however, research also showed that out-of-field teachers seemed more comfortable engaging with wellbehaved students and tended to ignore or stay away from students who displayed challenging behaviour (Du Plessis, 2014). In spite of being assigned to out-of-field positions, these teachers are still answerable for the success of all the students in their classroom, a goal which, as has been described, can be “overwhelming for a teacher” without a fit-for-purpose policy framework (Field data: F2). Clearly, the

8.3 The Out-of-Field Classroom Context

253

classroom culture needs to make it possible for all students to become the best they can be, not such that it stimulates disengaged or distressed students into difficult behaviour that disrupts the learning environment. Specific frameworks and strategies can help ensure that all students receive equal learning opportunities. Verified from different angles (Smith et al., 2010), such evidence offers clarified perspectives and perceptions that are useful for the development of such tailored strategies and policies. As discussed, constructing effective and accommodating classroom environments requires awareness and attention to various aspects of the teaching and learning space, and the classroom teacher achieves this through their skill in adapting appropriate practices and interventions (Lyons et al., 2011), as a parent noted: “The physical environment and teaching environment are all factors—the teacher and how they go about it, the environment as they set it up” (Field data: C3). Another parent described the environment of a classroom as being a fair teaching and learning environment when the teacher has “control without screaming,” and where “the teacher really listens and hears what the students are saying and…really notice[s]” their students’ learning needs (Field data: F2). The expectation is that classrooms will be well-organised and accommodating, and that the teacher will be capable of developing sustainable learning approaches that support students in reaching their goals. Van Manen (2016a) has underlined that pedagogical thoughtfulness is the ability or capacity to “distinguish between what is good and what is not good for children” (p. 10). Observing the comparison between an out-of-field teacher’s classroom and specialist teachers’ classrooms, a parent described an “obvious big difference,” clarifying that this was “in regards to the structure in the classrooms and the teacher’s way with the students” (Field data: C5). I have discussed this before, but careful approach to the case-study evidence has the capacity to draw attention to the subtle intersections of the academic and social planes, or what Darling-Hammond (2010a) has observed about unsuitably qualified teachers creating classroom “inequalities” (p. 328). It is the responsibility of school policies and leadership to ensure that teachers are knowledgeable in specific subject content and have the pedagogical capacity to make new concepts and knowledge accessible to students. In this sense, equality in the classroom can be seen as resting on the scaffolding of school policy to notice, respond and uphold teachers’ skill to provide equal opportunities for all students in the learning space. In another example, a parent’s observation sheds light on the compounding effects of overloading the learning environment, saying that out-of-field teachers “don’t teach or explain the work thoroughly—[A]lthough their subject folders, files and administration are perfect they are not competent, they struggle to cover the work in the time available” (Field data: A5). Parents noted that they had to get additional tutoring for their children in order to overcome the gaps that developed in their learning because of concepts that did not “get tied down” by the frantic out-of-field teacher. Specialist teachers “receive the most respect because of their subject knowledge, even from the challenging students” (Field data: C5). Respect underpins effective learning environments, since classroom contexts represent microcosms of the wider

254

8 Being in the Out-of-Field Context …

community and are observed and judged through the lens of community norms and experiences. Hattie (2009), further, has underlined that in teaching and learning environments where there is more respect for others and the self, students demonstrate higher achievement outcomes. A specialist teacher explained that respect plays a major role in the learning environment, noting that teachers “command respect by being respectful and the way they conduct themselves in their classrooms” (Field data: E2). I assert that while this respect enables the expected outcomes, the lack of it in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms does not just undermine them, the teacher, and the image of the school, it also creates a learning environment that breaches community expectations for the relational foundations of teaching and learning. A specific contextual relational ontology emerges in out-of-field classrooms: The constrained relational aspects of the learning space as handled by a teacher struggling for confidence and control produce an environment of survival. As described in Sect. 6.4.4, a parent explained a heartbreaking incident of a student who was not allowed to go on a school excursion (was effectively unfairly punished) because of a learning condition: “[T]he students were due to go on a school visit and the teacher said she wouldn’t take him because she said she couldn’t control him.” The parent further explained that this student was often “sent out and that he spent a lot of time outside the principal’s office,” where learning opportunities were lost (Field data: C5). Acknowledgement of the out-of-field context by leadership and by policy would put this into perspective as discrimination of the student that could be traced back to school leaders’ decision-making. Darling-Hammond (2010a) has stated that students “have little to connect to” (p. 63) in a dysfunctional classroom. The challenge to resolve multifaceted distractions, compete for equal attention and attempt to resolve content issues all add pressure to students’ learning experiences (and vulnerable students can miss out altogether). Without strategies and policies in place to support out-of-field teachers, students’ attitudes “do boil over,” especially if they are not comfortable with the classroom culture and context. An out-of-field teacher explained that students will “sort-of like gang up” (Field data: G5) against teachers if they perceive the classroom environment as being unfair. A parent further explained how teachers’ lack of knowledge and confidence affect all students in these classrooms: “[a] lack of ability impacts negatively on students; they wanted to learn but the classroom climate didn’t allow them, [resulting in] academic achievement problems,” which the parent attributed to the teacher’s “classroom management” issues (Field data: G1). Policy attention for pedagogical thoughtfulness needs to embrace a reflexive interaction with the way in which the learning environment upholds stakeholders’ expectations for safe learning spaces that prioritise students’ being.

8.3 The Out-of-Field Classroom Context

255

8.3.3 Micro-Education Policies Validate the Reality in Classrooms Targeted micro-education policies can validate the realities in classrooms with the development of frameworks that address the challenges the out-of-field phenomenon creates in classrooms for teacher quality and teaching quality so that issues are managed to benefit student achievement. Lingard et al. (2003) have noted that teachers’ roles and practices are developed to reach the goals of effective schooling and students’ learning fulfilment. These authors also underscore that a sense of effectiveness is established when teachers construct a classroom context where students want to be. As noted, certain roles and practices of teaching need to present for these goals to be realised, and when teachers are assigned to out-of-field teaching positions, the complications of their teaching role mean that challenges develop which can oppose them carefully guiding students through their learning experiences to achieve their full potential. The issue of effective guidance returns focus to the idea of the ideal teacher and its role in the ideology of policy and decision-making for the goals of learning environments. A principal clarified their own perception of effective guidance, remarking on the teaching style of a specialist science teacher: She has that lovely [emphasised] connection with the students and she won’t let them go, she won’t let them wiggle out of their commitment. She got them all on the bus [emphasised], travelling along. There is nobody still sitting at the shelter; everybody is part of the class. The respect for each other…it is just a lovely room to walk into any day. (Field data: C6)

By contrast, out-of-field teachers find it difficult to “capture” students, who can be “aggravated” by their uncertainties and inconsistencies regarding the subject, the curriculum expectations and the classroom processes, and it is this skew in the necessary relational dynamics of out-of-field teachers’ classrooms that policy must address. A principal shared that problems develop in classrooms because of the “lack of confidence” and “lack of engagement” students experience owing to restricted guidance during out-of-field teachers’ lessons (Field data: C6). Teachers fulfil a leadership role in their classrooms that is often not fully recognised for the impact it has on the structures that underpin quality education (Lingard et al., 2003). In field research, an out-of-field teacher shared that restricted subject knowledge had caused them to allow their students to decide the best management of the out-of-field subject (physical education) since the students evidently knew the rules of the activity better than they did. In this sense, being out-of-field transformed the teacher, an expected knowledgeable other, into an unsure follower. Restricted guidance such as this disrupts both learning contexts and learning opportunities. When the classroom leader no longer functions to effectively guide students, teacher–student relationships change, as does how students accept the instruction these teachers offer. Moreover, the reframing of the relationship creates a disconnection between the guidance that is offered and the guidance that is needed by the students, whose achievements, performance and assessment remain within the judgement and responsibility of the teacher. Out-of-field teachers’ lack of

256

8 Being in the Out-of-Field Context …

connectedness to the context, students’ prior knowledge, the relevant content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge, and understanding of the flow/sequence of the curriculum compromise their ability to lead and guide students via productive teaching strategies (Lingard et al., 2003). Policy must be able to recognise and mitigate interruptions to the relational connection between quality instruction and student achievements. Out-of-field teachers’ feelings of being “out-of-place” and “out-ofdepth” disrupt their confident guidance of classroom management. Their restricted “knowing” of the most appropriate guidance and how it needs to be introduced is the pivotal challenge for out-of-field teachers, demonstrating the immediacy and depth of the phenomenon’s impact on productive pedagogies. Classroom climates are constructed by teachers noticing and satisfying students’ needs (Lyons et al., 2011), and teachers are responsible for constructively upholding valuable communications and discussion during learning activities (Gillies & Boyle, 2005) so that students are challenged to move outside their comfort zone and explore new learning strategies. Yet, out-of-field teachers admit that they shy away from in-depth discussions with their students about subject content because of uncertainty about their ability to answer content questions. As noted, classroom observations revealed that ineffective guidance of students and unclarified instructions can create disengaged students who tend to challenge out-of-field teachers’ classroom management with taxing and demanding behaviour, demonstrate disregard and a lack of respect for their teacher, and disrupt the classroom. Teachers who are part of these teaching and learning environments find it difficult to maintain order, effectively complete the planned lessons and support students’ learning, situations which pose additional contextual complications for at-risk students. Effective teaching cracks along the line of teachers’ knowledge and subsequent relational hold on the social context of the classroom. An inexperienced out-of-field teacher admitted that their first year in an out-of-field position was disastrous, but expressed hope that their next year would be “better, more comfortable” (Field data: A7), and another out-of-field teacher similarly described, “next year things will be done very differently, it is a struggle to keep up, and things don’t get done” (Field data: C1). Policy needs to be validated by its attention to upholding teachers in their personal ideological goals to deliver the anticipated product. The growing need for well-qualified teachers who project the self-assured disposition that underpins guidance underlines the high demands that are part of the teaching and learning environment (Obidah & Howard, 2005). Research shows a difference between how experienced and inexperienced teachers assigned to out-offield teaching positions manage and guide students despite complexities that develop because of the out-of-field phenomenon (Du Plessis, 2014). Critically, out-of-field teachers require up to 5 years in an out-of-field position before they feel that their level of content and pedagogical content knowledge allow them to confidently take ownership of the out-of-field subject area or year level. This is a considerable period of time in the cycle of a schooling system purporting to provide a quality education product, especially considering school leaders’ acknowledgement that teachers’

8.3 The Out-of-Field Classroom Context

257

practices are the most significant variable in both students’ outcomes and the development of quality education in comprehensive and effective schools (Lingard et al., 2003). Awareness of the tension and stress that develop inside out-of-field classrooms because of misguidance (through restricted knowledge frameworks) and dysfunctional teaching and learning environments energises the need for the implementation of well-designed policy frameworks. As a parent observed, when students spend around “six hours at school…if most of classroom time is spent on negative instructions and behaviour management, not a lot is left for positive use of instruction time” (Field data: C4). Focus turns to teachers as accountable sources who are responsible for guiding, stimulating and engaging students in and through their learning activities, and to an acknowledgment that this proves to be a difficult task for teachers in out-of-field positions. Recognising the essential nature of having effective teachers for quality learning environments needs to underpin leaders’ responsibility to develop strategies, frameworks and policies that will support out-of-field teachers and align with the needs the phenomenon creates. Micro-education policies provide a means for policy to have a respectful and accountable relationship with teachers and their effective guidance of the classroom.

8.4 The Curriculum and Micro-Education Policies: Made to Fit School and Classroom Contexts Micro-education policies need to motivate teachers in challenging teaching positions to take ownership of curriculum, while also guiding its implementation. The curriculum (as a policy document) and related micro-education policies that guide its use need to reflect the needs of schools and their specific contextual factors. Van Manen (2016a) prompted an awareness of the space that belongs to “curriculum and instruction”: The use of instruction suggests a desire to stick to the more systematic, classifiable, and measurable interactions and interventions that educators use to implement the curriculum. “Curriculum and instruction” often imply a view of educating children that is a “producing” of planned teaching/learning outcomes and other educational objectives. (p. 29)

The notion of pedagogy, however, goes deeper. Van Manen (2016a) goes on to assert that “through the notion of pedagogy we should try to further our understanding of what is essential to the excellence of our educational lives with children” (p. 30). This value-linked position implies growing the curriculum in an experience of personal discovery of concepts and knowledge that adds meaning and value to the individual’s understanding of the world (context) in which they exist. Out-of-field teachers’ difficulties projecting a presence in subjects outside their qualifications and expertise explain how they become curriculum followers in order to tick the boxes (address requirements). The reality in the out-of-field classroom is the tension that develops

258

8 Being in the Out-of-Field Context …

between curricula requirements, instruction, teaching and quality pedagogy. Out-offield teachers admit that they will shy away from curriculum topics which they find “just too hard” (Field data: E4) and concede that they will tend to omit difficult sections of unfamiliar subjects, rely on “textbook teaching” (Field data: Director 2) or require their students to do “self-study.” At one school, a parent of a Year 12 student described that an out-of-field teacher had left out a whole chapter of the curriculum because “it was just too difficult” (Field data: B2), a truth that fortunately emerged during the pre-final (mock) exams. Teachers’ restricted content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge can have dire consequences. It is clear that out-of-field teachers’ commitment to their positions means that their workload increases because of the effort they make to maintain some level of effectiveness in their teaching assignments. These teachers try to prepare better, plan more thoroughly and work harder in order to feel confident in delivering the subject knowledge, but the use of these strategies over a long period of time can and does have repercussions in teacher burn-out and staff retention and attrition. Research showed that out-of-field teachers, especially inexperienced out-of-field teachers, work extralong hours, doing twice as much and up to five times more preparation than specialist teachers. Data suggest that sometimes whole weekends are spent in the effort to get control over the subject, curriculum and resources (Du Plessis, 2017; Du Plessis et al., 2018). Beyond familiarising themselves with curriculum expectations, outof-field teachers’ workloads increase with their efforts to align curriculum with the assessment of concepts, the scaffolding of learning and the useful progression of student work. However, the reality of unrealistic workloads for some out-of-field teachers can also mean that they can do “only what [is] expected because of the various different fields they [also] have to teach” (Field data: A2). When teachers have other subject loads, they cannot dedicate the time to resolving their content knowledge difficulties, creating a situation that greatly affects the learning space when the dispositions of both teachers and students about the subject and one another deteriorate (see Sects. 8.1 and 8.5). Of note, the gap in leadership understanding about the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and an absence of suitable policy frameworks can develop into situations where out-of-field teachers, and particularly inexperienced out-of-field teachers, get assigned to develop curriculum and/or make adjustments in unfamiliar subjects without having a sound content or pedagogical content knowledge. To an observer uninitiated by anything other than their ideological expectations of teachers and teaching quality and learning contexts, this is difficult to believe, both for student outcomes and for teacher stress (see Ministers for the Department of Education and Training Media Centre, 2018). This is why I emphasise the value of responsive policy frameworks: Research suggests that careful planning by leadership in creating well-designed frameworks for subject responsibilities and support with unfamiliar curricula does have a significant impact on out-of-field teachers’ workloads (Du Plessis et al., 2018).

8.5 Policy and Ownership of the Teaching and Learning Space

259

8.5 Policy and Ownership of the Teaching and Learning Space Validating policies as resources to build confident teachers that have ownership and control of the teaching and learning space will enhance healthy teaching and learning environments. Developing the teaching and learning environment as a desirable, want-to-be-part-of space with an atmosphere that embraces all students’ learning needs requires teachers who demonstrate ownership of teaching and a capacity to adjust teaching practices according to their students’ needs. The multifaceted lived experiences of out-of-field teaching practices that cause teachers to question their professional identity and capacity to make a difference in their students’ lives requires a practice–policy relationship that upholds their personal and professional need for ownership of the teaching and learning space. In describing their period of adjustment, an out-of-field teacher stated that the classroom was “disorganised…I was like a headless chicken—scratching around all the time” (Field data: A2). Under such conditions, it is not difficult to see how taking ownership of the teaching and learning space becomes a challenge. Stakeholders’ perceptions of classrooms give considerable insight into what ownership does to the relational and social aspects of the classroom, highlighting areas for policy attention. An indication that teachers are losing ownership of the teaching and learning space, according to parents and school leaders, is the “classroom screaming.” A parent described a complex teaching and learning environment where the teacher was not in control: “[The teacher was] screaming at the kids, it breaks my heart for the teacher, it’s just so sad. They’ve [students] got a de-incentive to do any more work, it is just too hard” (Field data: E4). Once students become disconnected from their teacher it can become difficult to reengage them in learning and capture their attention again. Out-of-field teachers who do not have the capacity to manage their teaching and learning environment soon have to face the “other dynamics involved in this: disrespect” (Field data: C5; see Sects. 5.5 and 6.5) and failure to provide quality learning. Another parent shared her distress: “My fear—came true, my child had a huge gap in his learning. They were not engaged with and they were neglected as such and he never improved at all. He never grew academically…” (Field data: D5). The linguistic elements of these field quotes sharply outline that difficult experiences, misconceptions and misunderstood dispositions can stimulate the development of negative feelings towards learning and the school. A principal admitted that the complex classroom situations of out-of-field teachers who are not in control or equipped to handle specific challenging situations can influence students’ outlook about schools and schooling. Hattie (2009) has noted the important contribution teacher openness and fostering of effort have on student learning, and students are responsive to teachers who focus on positive encouragement and careful guidance during the learning process. Teachers are expected to understand and empower students; a parent shared, “I like a positive person to influence my children. Senior school is different, you get them

260

8 Being in the Out-of-Field Context …

for an hour or so—I want you to be able to impart good morals, respect, and reinforce what I’m trying to teach them at home” (Field data: F2). Healthy classroom climates are closely associated with the quality of teacher–student and student–peer relationships (Jones & Jones, 2007), and engaged teachers know students’ personal interests and journeys, which enhances classroom interpersonal relationships and teachers’ rapport with students. This kind of space allows out-of-field teachers “to get to know their students well” (Field data: G4). I suggest that teachers’ ownership of the classroom needs policy attention because it stabilises the social context for students’ relationships to the classroom and to learning. Teaching and learning environments where there is an imbalance of ownership influence teachers’ and students’ self-esteem and confidence, and give rise to statements of withdrawal from both teachers—“I don’t want to be there” (Field data: E5)—and students/parents: “He doesn’t want to go to school” (Field data: F5). A principal described learning experiences that were especially disturbing and concerning, a parent explained that a particular student “spent a lot of time outside the principal’s office” (Field data: C5). Another principal at a primary school highlighted the same dilemma and recalled his interaction with the student, who struggled to take ownership of his own behaviour in the out-of-field teacher’s classroom. The principal explained that the student could not adjust to the dysfunctional teaching and learning space and became disrespectful, so that, We decided that the best way to handle him would for him to come in the office here and sit down with me. That created something positive in the classroom. (Field data: F3)

I have already argued that school leaders who take this quick-fix approach to behaviour management and remove challenging students from the classroom question the belonging of both teacher and student to that context, firstly by projecting a message that the teacher is not able to manage the situation, and secondly by suggesting that a suitable remedy is for the student to lose instruction time. It is complex and challenging to effectively manage the learning needs of all the students in the classroom; however, school policies need to uphold the relationships that uphold learning. Observations of an out-of-field teacher in a class of 35 Year 10 students demonstrated that out-of-field teachers can overlook the value of their ownership of the teaching and learning space and of giving immediate attention and engagement to disengaged, challenging students because they are fixated on surviving the class and getting the content right. Placed against the background of this teacher’s restricted knowledge, it is not difficult to see that the additional factors of increased class size, significant behavioural challenges (aggravated by the out-of-field context) and the inexperience of this beginning teacher had pushed the teacher’s ownership of their classroom to the edge. Environments like this may seem to be extreme examples, but I emphasise that they are not uncommon (see Sects. 5.5, 6.5.2 and 6.5.4); critically, the disintegration of the social context is the death knell for teaching and learning. Observations of different student cohorts in the field showed that teachers in challenging teaching positions tend to pay “attention to students who are verbal and demanding” while the quiet students in the background “disappear from the

8.5 Policy and Ownership of the Teaching and Learning Space

261

teacher’s radar” (Field data: F5). Out-of-field teachers’ divided attention is quickly picked up on by students. The distracted disconnection of teachers and the resultant disengagement of their students together develop into classroom cultures that cannot support the expected learning outcomes. Micro-education policy frameworks that embrace the situatedness of teachers in such classrooms have significant potential to assist teachers’ ownership of the classroom and their performance and management there, as well as prioritise student achievement. Tailored policies can guide, direct and offer out-of-field teachers a safety net, inside which their situations are known, understood and supported by other stakeholders, allowing them to reach out and get the support they need to take ownership of unfamiliar subjects, year levels or teaching positions. An out-of-field teacher described the value of structure and frameworks for out-of-field teachers, saying, “When they see you work hard, you are in control and you do your thing with the subject…kids are aware, they realise that you are the one that helps them to successfully complete the year” (Field data: A4). It is clear that teaching out-of-field is not an easy task, and fit-for-purpose strategies, frameworks and policy decisions that acknowledge the additional hours outof-field teachers need to work to maintain quality teaching in their classrooms make a major difference to their working context, not least by upholding their dedication with systemic recognition. Teachers who struggle to cope in an out-of-field subject area or field unsupported by policy frameworks can start to demonstrate negative dispositions towards these subjects, their work and teaching generally. Out-of-field teachers may lose interest in their out-of-field subjects, or (alternatively) work so hard in those subjects that they neglect their specialist or in-field subjects in an effort to fulfil their own and others’ expectations. Teachers’ ownership of their position in the learning space can be seen as a continual function of their self-efficacy and intrinsic teaching passion. Hong (2012) has noted that teachers’ resilience is demonstrated in the way they maintain a strong belief in their self-efficacy while functioning in challenging positions; at the same time, their passion to own their teaching is embedded in their intrinsic motivation to add value to their students’ lifeworlds, and lends them the determination to persist. Owning the teaching and learning space is visible in their teaching characteristics, beliefs, positive positioning of practices and empathy for their students’ learning needs. Out-of-field teachers also shared that their resilience while teaching out-of-field subjects greatly impacts their success in maintaining a level of ownership and effectiveness in the classroom. A teacher who was assigned to an out-of-field position for more than 3 years shared that it was possible to cope with the demands of an out-of-field teaching position by working hard to effectively prepare lessons, prioritising students’ needs, and by building respect and trust relationships with both students and parents, while demonstrating sensitivity and attentiveness to the information parents shared. Another out-of-field teacher noted that when the school community perceives teachers are in control of their subject, they are confident that these teachers can positively influence student achievements. I have mentioned that out-of-field teachers observe it was easier to maintain passion in their out-of-field positions if they already had an interest in the subject content and/or year level that they were assigned to (see Sects. 1.2.1, 9.1 and 11.3). Their

262

8 Being in the Out-of-Field Context …

specific interest or passion for a subject and/or year level motivated their exploration of different pedagogies to stimulate students’ interest and engagement in the subject content. Such strategies have implications not only for student learning, achievement and outcomes in classrooms, but also for school improvement policies and decisionmaking for teacher utilisation in general. Effective leadership decisions for teacher placements can be usefully influenced by leaders knowing teachers’ interests in other subject areas, bringing focus back to leaders’ creation of schools as secure relational contexts. Out-of-field teachers’ interest and passion for a subject area, field and/or year level can also influence their openness to engage in professional learning and development opportunities in order to develop into a subject and/or year level expert in their out-of-field area, giving vitality to frameworks for growing teachers in a school community.

8.6 Summary Micro-education policies acknowledge the uniqueness of specific contexts, cultures, needs and challenges. However, these policies will become just “demands” on paper if they are not continuously validated against the ever-changing needs of students, teachers, society and the future workforce where students will fulfil their expected careers. Valid micro-education policies provide teachers with a “safety net” and support an environment where students can feel safe as they explore social interaction, active learning engagement and questioning of concepts. Students explore new knowledge and move to deeper learning when they are stimulated by relationships of trust and collaboration (Gillies & Boyle, 2006, 2008). Out-of-field teachers’ challenges to build trust relationships in the contexts where they practice need direct policy engagement. Validating micro-education policies should be a significant focus of school leaders determined to create lived experiences underpinned by healthy interrelational strategies and a culture of collaboration. Further, Weldon (2016) has suggested that exploration of the impact specialist (in-field) teachers can have on outof-field teachers for timely or immediate professional support and access to internal high-quality professional learning. Darling-Hammond (2010a) has claimed that it is not only students’ progress that is impacted by unsuitably qualified teachers, but that these teachers also often experience that their professional development and identity do not develop at the same rate as teachers assigned to their specialist/expert field or subject area. Decisions about focusing policy to such matters and the need to link policy development and frameworks to specific contexts will impact education beyond the classroom. Targeted policies can influence the professional identity of education’s human capital, and have long-term implications for efforts to develop a strong, stable and quality teaching workforce.

References

263

References Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2007). Recruiting expert teachers into hard-to-staff schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(1), 64–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170708900111. Anderson, S., Moore, S., & Sun, J. (2009). Positioning the principals in patterns of school leadership distribution. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, & T. Strauss (Eds.), Distributed leadership according to the evidence (pp. 111–136). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). The Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-forteachers. Berkhout, S. (2007). Leadership in education transformation as reshaping the organisational discourse. South African Journal of Education, 27(3), 407–419. Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Caldwell, B. (2009). Leadership that transforms schools. Teacher: The National Education Magazine, 6, 10. Call, K. (2018). Professional teaching standards: A comparative analysis of their history, implementation and efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3). https://doi.org/10.14221/ ajte.2018v43n3.6. Carroll, A., Baglioni, A., Houghton, S., & Bramston, P. (1999). At-risk and not at-risk primary school children: An examination of goal orientations and social reputations. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 377–392. Carroll, A., Forlin, C., & Jobling, A. (2003). The impact of teacher training in special education on the attitudes of Australian preservice general educators towards people with disabilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(3), 65–79. Centre for Development and Enterprise. (2017). Teacher professional standards for South Africa: The road to better performance, development and accountability? Retrieved from http://www. cde.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CDE-Insight-Professional-Standards.pdf. Corbett, J., & Norwich, B. (1999). Learners with special educational needs. In P. Mortimore (Ed.), Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning (pp. 115–136). London, UK: Paul Chapman Publishing. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010a). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010b). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 35–47. Davies, B., & Davies, B. (2009). Strategic leadership. In B. Davies (Ed.), The essentials of school leadership (2nd ed., pp. 13–36). London, UK: SAGE. Department for Education. (2011). Teachers’ standards guidance for school leaders, school staff and governing bodies. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/665520/Teachers__Standards.pdf. Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2005). Educational leadership: Culture and diversity. London, UK: SAGE. Du Plessis, A. (2014). Understanding the out-of-field teaching experience (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:330372. Du Plessis, A. (2017). Out-of-field teaching: What educational leaders need to know. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Du Plessis, A. (2018). Barriers to effective management of diversity in classroom contexts: The out-of-field teaching phenomenon. International Journal of Educational Research. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.002. Du Plessis, A. (2019). Professional support beyond initial teacher education: Pedagogical discernment and the influence of out-of-field teaching practices. Singapore: Springer. Du Plessis, A. E., Hoang, N., Wang, J., Schmidt, A., Mertens, L., & Cullinan, M. (2018). Invest in the future of education: Building a stable and quality beginning teacher workforce. Critical factors

264

8 Being in the Out-of-Field Context …

for reform: Evidence from the field (Research Report). Brisbane, QLD, Australia: Australian Catholic University. Early, P., & Jones, J. (2009). Leadership development in schools. In B. Davies (Ed.), The essentials of school leadership (2nd ed., pp. 166–182). London: SAGE. Gadamer, H. (1975). Truth and method (2nd ed., J. C. B. Mohr, Trans.). New York, NY: The Seabury Press. Gadamer, H. (1976/2008). Philosophical hermeneutics (D. Linge, Ed. & Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Getkin, K. (2009). Reforming or changing educational leadership. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 32(2), 15–19. Gillies, R., & Boyle, M. (2005). Teachers’ scaffolding behaviours during cooperative learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 243–259. Gillies, R., & Boyle, M. (2006). Ten Australian elementary teachers’ discourse and reported pedagogical practices during cooperative learning. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 429–451. Gillies, R., & Boyle, M. (2008). Teachers’ discourse during cooperative learning and their perceptions of this pedagogical practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1333–1348. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.10.003. Gore, J., Holmes, K., Smith, M., & Fray, L. (2015). Investigating the factors that influence the choice of teaching as a first career (Report). Retrieved from http://qct.edu.au/pdf/research/ WhyPeopleChooseTeachingLiteratureReview.pdf. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and students learning. School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632431003663214. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Retrieved from ACEReSearch website: https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context= research_conference_2003. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge. Hong, J. (2012). Why do some beginning teachers leave the school, and others stay? Understanding teacher resilience through psychological lenses. Teachers and Teaching, 18(4), 417–440. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.696044. Huberty, T. (2013). Anxiety and anxiety disorders in children. National Association of School Psychologists, Communiqué, 41(8), 20–21. Hunt, F. (2015). Review of national education policies: Teacher quality and learning outcomes. Prospects, 45(3), 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-015-9356-z. Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organisational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534. Jones, V., & Jones, L. (2007). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating communities of support and solving problems (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc. Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Career stories as gateway to understanding teacher development. In M. Bayer, U. Brinkkjær, H. Plauborg, & S. Rolls (Eds.), Teachers’ career trajectories and work lives, professional learning and development in schools and higher education (pp. 29–47). New York, NY: Springer. Latham, D. (2009). Perceptions of school leadership. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 24(1), 21–25. Leo, U. (2015). Professional norms guiding school principals’ pedagogical leadership. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(4), 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-20140121. Lingard, B., Hayes, D., Mills, M., & Christie, P. (2003). Leading learning: Making hope practical in schools. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Lyons, G., Ford, M., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2011). Classroom management: Creating positive learning environments (3rd ed.). Victoria, Australia: Cengage Learning Australia.

References

265

Mayer, D., Mitchell, J., Macdonald, D., & Bell, R. (2005). Professional standards for teachers: A case study of professional learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 159–179. Ministers for the Department of Education and Training Media Centre. (2018, July 9). Interview on ABC Radio Sydney Focus with Cassie McCullagh and Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham: Specialised STEM teachers [E & EO transcript]. Retrieved from https://ministers.education.gov. au/birmingham/interview-abc-radio-sydney-focus-cassie-mccullagh. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2001). Early adolescence through young adulthood/Art standards: Second edition for teachers of students ages 11–18. Retrieved from http://www.nbpts.org/wp-content/uploads/EAYA-ART.pdf. Neer, M. (1990). Reducing situational anxiety and avoidance behaviour associated with classroom apprehension. Southern Communication Journal, 56(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10417949009372815. Nias, J. (1996). Thinking about feeling: The emotion in teaching. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 293–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764960260301. Obidah, J., & Howard, T. (2005). Preparing teachers for “Monday morning” in the urban school classroom: Reflecting on our pedagogies and practices as effective teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487105275920. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). Education policy outlook: Norway. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/norway/EDUCATION%20POLICY% 20OUTLOOK%20NORWAY_EN.pdf. Preble, B., & Taylor, L. (2008). School climate through students’ eyes. Educational Leadership, 66(4), 35–40. Rogers, B. (2011a). Classroom behaviour: A practical guide to effective teaching, behaviour management and colleague support. London, UK: Sage Publications. Rogers, B. (2011b). You know the fair rule: Strategies for positive and effective behaviour management and discipline in schools (3rd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press. Rowan, L., Kline, J., & Mayer, D. (2017). Early career teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness to teach “diverse learners”: Insights from an Australian research project. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(10), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v4n10.5. Schaps, E. (2009). Creating caring school communities. Leadership, 38, 8–11. Smith, J., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2010). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Thomas, S., & Kearney, J. (2008). Teachers working in culturally diverse classrooms: implications for the development of professional standards and for teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660801971625. van Manen, M. (2016a). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. New York, NY: Routledge. van Manen, M. (2016b). The tone of teaching: The language of pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Weldon, P. (2016). Out-of-field teaching in Australian secondary schools. Policy Insights, 6. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context= policyinsights Woods, P. A., Bennett, N., Harvey, J. A., & Wise, C. (2004). Variabilities and dualities in distributed leadership: Findings from a systematic literature review. Educational Management; Administration & Leadership, 32(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143204046497.

Chapter 9

The Wider School Community, the Out-of-Field Phenomenon and Education Improvement Policies

Moving teachers, especially novice teachers, continuously between subjects for which they are not suitably qualified influences the perceptions of the wider school community about schools’ effectiveness to provide quality teaching and learning (Du Plessis, Gillies, & Carroll, 2014; Du Plessis, Carroll, & Gillies, 2015; Du Plessis & Sunde, 2017). Careful consideration of this effect of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on the perception of education in the wider school community drives a need for targeted school-improvement policies to manage the consequences of the phenomenon.

9.1 Introduction Ball (2013) has identified the need to get parents “from all social backgrounds and circumstances” engaged in school-based activities and decision-making to develop “institutional forms of ‘democratic accountability’” (p. 201). Mayer (2005) has noted that the importance of quality teachers has been well communicated to society, underlining the general acknowledgement that teaching quality affects student achievement. The “policy bargain” between the teaching profession and society includes the promise of a self-regulated teaching workforce (Mayer, 2005, p. 179). Emphasis on quality ITE and other factors exposed to the public view overlooks issues that are party to the process of this policy bargain, such as teacher utilisation and placement, an issue which is significantly affected by the out-of-field phenomenon, and is challenging for schools to regulate without intervention from systemic education bodies. Misperceptions and misunderstandings of the implications of the out-of-field phenomenon for quality education if it is not managed effectively have an influence on the culture and atmosphere within the wider school community. The wider school community—which also includes school and systemic leaders—often does not fully understand the details or the depth of the impact of the out-of-field phenomenon on the teaching and learning context or how these implications affect improvement © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. E. Du Plessis, Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1948-2_9

267

268

9 The Wider School Community, the Out-of-Field Phenomenon …

strategies and policies. Moreover, these misunderstandings are responsible for governments overlooking the power of well-managed micro-education policies to restrict the negative impact of the phenomenon on quality education. The Teaching and Learning International Survey report (TALIS, 2014) unveiled that 36% of European Union teachers claim that they work in school contexts where there is a shortage of suitably qualified and “well-performing teachers” (p. 4). The same report stated that only 10% of teachers and 30% of school leaders perceived the teaching profession as a valued profession. The constant scrutiny and critical reflection on teachers’ performance and students’ results, outcomes and achievements not only leave teachers disillusioned with their teaching career but also leave them feeling vulnerable and that their efforts are overlooked. The current appetite for publicly available, large-scale data on student achievements by school, education system and teachers’ results turns the focus of this chapter to how the out-of-field teaching phenomenon influences the perception of the wider school community of schools as effective teaching and learning environments. Large-scale data and evidence direct education improvement policies; however, I have argued that the out-of-field teaching phenomenon poses hidden complications for this evidence. Results from such standardised assessment processes compare the achievements of classrooms, schools, wider communities and countries without acknowledging the impact of out-of-field teaching practices on these data and evidence. Reported outcomes do not recognise that students might have been taught by unsuitably qualified teachers. Students who receive schooling from a teacher assigned to an out-of-field subject area complete the same standardised assessment as students taught by specialist teachers. Nationally standardised assessment approaches therefore do not and are not able to take into account the impact of teachers in out-of-field classrooms, subjects and year levels, or their effects on these standardised test results, yet the influence and credibility of such tests stretch beyond the classroom and school environment to national and global perceptions. Even so, the effectiveness and commitment of governments and education systems to provide high-quality education that prepares the next generation for workforce needs and expectations are observed and measured through nationally standardised assessments. Caught up in this power of standardisation, graduating students’ acceptance into specific university courses depends on their academic achievements and results. Inside the multilayered implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and how it impacts student achievements, out-of-field teachers express fears that their effectiveness is being compared to their suitably qualified colleagues via publication of these standardised test results without taking their out-of-field situations into account in the public consciousness. In data gathered from empirical research, outof-field teachers further stressed that teacher ratings that stem from standardised tests can influence the decisions of school leaders about teachers’ future subject assignments, work contracts or performance-based job offers. In empirical evidence, an out-of-field teacher clarified that teachers who are “not comfortable” with their out-of-field subject are aware that parents analyse their teaching competence by their out-of-field subject performance, and that these perceptions

9.1 Introduction

269

about their competence also influence how their specialist knowledge in their in-field or specialist subjects are viewed: …you are not comfortable with your subject but maybe you have something else with which you are comfortable—parents start to critique even that, the parents, the school community can make it very difficult for you… (Field data: A7)

Within school communities, committed parents concerned about the total development of students do compare the quality of teaching and learning that take place in different teachers’ classrooms. Parents are aware when things do not add up between students’ outcomes, ultimate results and the feedback they receive from students about the teaching and learning they experience. Parents expect teachers and school leaders to support students to reach their highest potential. A parent’s remarks about her senior-level child described concerns with his out-of-field teacher that reached beyond the school context: He’s got to get the ATAR-marks to go to Uni and if the teachers can’t support him through that and he doesn’t get it—his whole future basically is in the hands of those teachers—my son is lucky in that I will be supportive, but what happens to the kids whose parents are totally disinterested? (Field data: G1)

The evidence demonstrates that student achievements and the lived experiences of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon impact families as well as these students’ decisions about future subject choices and study pathways. Engaged parents admit that they feel responsible to put strategies in place to compensate for out-of-field teachers’ restricted content and pedagogical content knowledge. A parent with a child in their third year at university explained how the student “still struggled” in an engineering course after having an out-of-field maths teacher during their senior high school years (Field data: A5). Another parent explained a specific situation where a “current language teacher was a qualified business accounting teacher, and when parents tried to discuss concerns, the teacher felt attacked” (Field data: A6). Such complex professional interrelationship challenges embedded in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms can make it necessary for parents to seek help outside the school context (Du Plessis, 2018b). Research has shown that out-of-field teachers’ willingness to explore teaching approaches is impacted by both fear of failure and the critiques of others that will expose their restricted content and pedagogical content knowledge. Lived experiences such as this can create stumbling blocks for out-of-field teachers’ vocational strengths and students’ learning, especially in school environments where stakeholders are not protected by well-designed and fit-for-purpose policy frameworks that acknowledge the phenomenon and attend to its contextual use (Du Plessis, 2014). As has been described, when teachers are reluctant to take risks with teaching and learning student achievement is constrained (Du Plessis, 2018b). Strategies and approaches described by parents to control negative effects on student achievement include supplementing students’ learning with additional specialised tutoring after school hours at their own cost (Du Plessis, 2018a). However, data described that such situations often also entail parent–student debriefing sessions because of the

270

9 The Wider School Community, the Out-of-Field Phenomenon …

disappointment students experience when unsatisfying learning environments leave them feeling upset and stressed. Sergiovanni (1998) has underlined that situations that take place inside classrooms or schools influence partnerships within the school community. Similarly, a school leader identified that the socially embedded nature of out-of-field teaching experiences have a negative impact on the school environment, noting that if students “are suffering in a class,” the quality of teaching and learning that are taking place there becomes a concern that affects the parent community and their subsequent commitment to the school (Field data: F3). Parents can become distressed when students do not reach their expected achievement levels, and negative dispositions can develop into continuous complaints that permeate the perceptions of other parents and influence the dispositions of students in those teachers’ classrooms. As school principal noted, “rumours start, with a focus on the negative things” (Field data: F3). This chapter unpacks the challenges and misperceptions that out-of-field teaching practices create, and how these influence the perception of schools as effective teaching and learning environments in the wider school community. It further explains the implications of these misunderstandings for subsequent policies that can improve quality education through the collaboration of education systems and schools. Contextual educational needs that arise within specific school communities because of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon further underline the value of careful reflection on and review of policies.

9.2 Partnerships, Policy Frameworks and Expected Achievements Out-of-field teachers are aware that parents and the wider school community can “make it very difficult for them,” and unsuitably qualified teachers admit that they feel exposed to the continuous scrutiny of the expectations and social perceptions of parents about what they do in the classroom. In schools without strategies and frameworks that encourage open, consistent and honest communication, parents concerned about students’ achievements and development seek additional communication channels, and tend to depend on conversations among “their sub-communities, which results in some teachers developing a specific reputation or image” (Field data: C3). Once a teacher has a reputation within the community, these “word-of-mouth” perceptions can stretch beyond the classroom, across year levels and even outside school contexts (Skallerud, 2011). Parents, for example, can begin to request that their children are not placed in a specific teacher’s classroom. Some school leaders develop policies to restrict these requests; however, this strategy does not resolve the perceptions about teachers and their expertise or specialist knowledge in a specific subject or year level, or the challenges that develop as a result them. The quality of teaching and learning environments is influenced by the partnership role parents take to support schools and teachers in building a school culture focused

9.2 Partnerships, Policy Frameworks and Expected Achievements

271

on student-centred learning (Johnson & Decrates, 2017). Student-centred learning and developing “education for whole persons” considers education to be comprised of social, emotional, ethical and academic influences (Noddings, 2006, p. 238), and is supported by shared home–school values. In school communities where school leaders are effective in managing the out-of-field phenomenon, timely collaboration and partnership through professional interrelationships and stakeholder commitment towards proactive strategies, frameworks and policy transformation work together to counteract the effects of the phenomenon on achievements and outcomes.

9.3 Teaching Approaches: Improvement Frameworks Research evidence from classroom observations in the field indicates that unsure out-of-field teachers keep a distance between themselves and their students. These teachers are not confident to move around or through the classroom and own or take control of the whole space (see also Sect. 8.5). Instead, they tend to stay at the front of the classroom, close to their notes, folders and planning documents. Further, particularly inexperienced out-of-field teachers do not know how to manage content questions for which they do not have the fundamental knowledge and concept understanding. Uncertain of content, out-of-field teachers rarely invite students to ask questions and often do not make eye contact when they answer students’ enquiries. It is upsetting even to witness how quickly a lesson can be transformed into chaos because of an out-of-field teachers’ restricted content knowledge and lack of confidence in a specific subject. Most often out-of-field teachers will be unable to restore the classroom to order or will experience difficulty doing so. These kinds of secondary complications continually take place in classroom contexts where outof-field teachers struggle to maintain their position as the knowledgeable other. As has been described, these teachers’ fundamentally restricted content knowledge also creates significant challenges for their pedagogical content knowledge, so that their ability to (a) develop and/or adjust the curriculum, (b) build well-structured resources that provide deep learning for students with diverse learning needs and (c) develop assessment activities that align with students’ specific learning needs and learning outcomes as expected by the curriculum are frequently compromised, plunging teachers and students into uncertainty. In particular, teaching pedagogies that encourage cooperative learning rely on teachers’ capacity to interactively challenge students’ reflection on new knowledge construction, reasoning and learning (Gillies & Boyle, 2005). Collaboration and cooperation in learning are underpinned by in-depth and open interaction, which outof-field teachers shy away from because their restricted knowledge will be exposed. Out-of-field teachers inherently feel that they do not belong to the subject matter or the context, and admit they find it challenging and even too difficult to simultaneously uphold their fundamental teaching requirements while encumbered by the confidence dilemmas that cut into their resilience and determination to succeed.

272

9 The Wider School Community, the Out-of-Field Phenomenon …

Without this confidence and/or access to well-designed policy frameworks and strategies to support them in their teaching, these teachers frankly state that “they don’t do it” (i.e., explore challenging and unfamiliar pedagogies) . Further highlighting the essential nature of belongingness to teaching, an out-of-field teacher admitted that experimentation with a variety of teaching approaches was something that they would reconsider when “I go back to my own field again, I would know exactly [what to do]” (Field data: A2). In a specific example of the difficulty of adjusting pedagogical practice under the conditions of restricted content knowledge, research data showed that out-offield teachers find the challenges they experience are intensified in the deep learning expectations that develop during small group teaching. Data showed that managing several small groups as a teaching approach in an out-of-field subject area or field was a major challenge for out-of-field teachers. These teachers admitted that they did not have the confidence to challenge students appropriately and to stimulate students’ full engagement in deep learning interactions within small group work. An out-of-field teacher clarified the uncertainty, discomfort and tension that can accompany small group teaching and learning differentiation, stating that “It feels as if everything is rumbling.” The teacher further stated that when their attention necessarily shifted between groups, “the rest of the groups get out of hand. I just couldn’t handle it. I just couldn’t, I still can’t do it!” (Field data: A2). And another out-of-field teacher shared, “I have tried but more than one day I felt that I could burst into tears, I didn’t know how to do groups” (Field data: A2). Out-of-field teachers shared that lessons where they try to appropriately differentiate for the learning needs of students within a specific subject or for a developmental group within a specific year level could turn into “a lot of chaos if a teacher doesn’t know what they are doing” (Field data: A7). The dynamics of classrooms mean that chaos becomes the next challenge for the struggling teacher to counteract (see Sect. 6.5), while simultaneously, the dysfunctional classroom environment causes valuable learning opportunities to be lost while the teacher’s focus and energy are directed at classroom management. Classrooms as chaotic teaching and learning situations make effective teaching and construction of new knowledge nearly impossible for teachers and students. Awareness of the challenges the out-of-field teaching phenomenon poses for productive pedagogies suggests opportunities for educational and school leaders to develop strategies and policy frameworks that specifically focus on supporting out-offield teachers’ skill development so that they can confidently manage diverse learning opportunities and avoid the development of dysfunctional and stressful classrooms. As is already clear, students with diverse learning needs pose the greatest challenges for out-of-field teachers; however, all students need the teaching skill and adaptive strength of competent teachers to support effective interventions for differentiated learning such as small group teaching. Carefully designed school policy frameworks can give structure to schools’ effectiveness to accommodate diversity by assessing and supporting teachers’ skill development in these areas.

9.3 Teaching Approaches: Improvement Frameworks

273

9.3.1 The “Messy” Policy Questions: Nowhere to Hide The out-of-field teaching phenomenon challenges teachers beyond what they feel prepared for. Out-of-field teachers’ lack of subject- and/or year level-specific skills mean that they “get upset,” according to a school leader; these dispositions are noticed by students, who can become “ruthless” and “feed off it” when teachers allow their “emotions to take over” (Field data: E3). Challenging and messy teaching and learning spaces have a negative effect on healthy professional interrelationships, with students losing respect for teachers and their efforts to be in control. Darling-Hammond (2010) has described these environments as classrooms where teachers and students find it hard to get to know each other. Yet, effective teacher– student relationships are interdependent with teaching and learning (see Chap. 8 and Sects. 4.4, 5.2 and 6.5). Schaps (2009) has described that teachers’ increasingly demanding roles mean that they have to nurture and educate the students in their care as well as play a supportive role in students’ personal decision-making. As noted, out-of-field teachers admit that they struggle to find an effective balance between the home curriculum (behaviour) and the school curriculum (academic development), a conflict which is embedded in their lack of confidence and knowledge to fully fulfil their role of in loco parentis. Van Manen (2016a) has stated that teachers’ in loco parentis status further makes them responsible to introduce students to the wider world, and Schutz (2006) has explained that teachers generally struggle to integrate effective teaching pedagogies into their classrooms without accurate images of students and their families. These complexities of skill, understanding and relationship are a continual challenge for out-of-field teachers already straining to meet their own and others’ expectations in their classrooms. School improvement policies are needed that support the development of a sensitive balance between teachers enacting the curriculum and connecting with students, as well as attending to students’ learning needs and learning progress. A framework of micro-education policies that demonstrates contextual awareness of out-of-field teachers’ difficulties needs to offer guidelines that support these teachers’ efforts to balance their intense focus on controlling unfamiliar content with the needs of the students in their classrooms. Schutz (2006) has claimed that teachers and education leaders continue to focus on what happens inside the school and often neglect to explore the opportunities and possibilities of support that are captured outside it, within school communities. These avenues of support and expertise can have significant implications for the effective management of the out-of-field phenomenon (see Sect. 2.4) if school leaders commit to developing policy frameworks within which these opportunities can be explored and implemented to benefit quality education.

274

9 The Wider School Community, the Out-of-Field Phenomenon …

9.3.2 STEM-Focused Improvement Strategies Students’ results and achievements published in Australia (i.e., the Grattan Institute’s reports and NAPLAN: National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy) report on widening gaps in students’ progress. Wienk (2016) has stated that a “deepening mathematics deficit,” which will increase with the “shortage of maths trained teachers in secondary classrooms, particularly across years 7–10,” needs to be considered “a call to action” (p. 3). When Wienk has also reported that students who “receive low numeracy achievement scores in year 3 never catch up with their peers [and fall] even further behind by year 9” (p. 4), I argue that primary school year levels also need attention if a sound foundation in STEM is the priority of policy-makers in this area. The OECD’s (2018) Programme for International Students Assessment stated that all citizens, not only scientists and engineers, have to “confront science-related dilemmas” (OECD, p. 6). This report acknowledged that it is a significant challenge to transform teachers’ approaches and teaching practices in STEM domains but underlined the role of school leaders and governments “to find ways to make teaching more effective” (OECD, p. 12). The extreme importance of quality STEM education and the appropriate policy frameworks needed to improve students’ interest (Nyman, 2017) and achievements in these subjects make sense, given global trends towards these domains. Yet, the STEM domain teaching challenge demonstrates that for education policies to address concerns and turn a worrying phenomenon around takes time and a consistent implementation of strategies and policy approaches. Concerns about quality teaching in STEM involve deeply rooted implications for teachers and students: achievement and performance doubts, increased vulnerability of at-risk students, strained relationships and fears for lost learning opportunities. These embedded components, interrelated with the improvement of quality STEM teaching, require time to turn around into positive dispositions. Continuous reassessment of the suitability of policy frameworks and their improvement will enhance STEM transformation (Cook, 2015). Concerns for STEM subject fields and the policies developed to address these issues in the field dovetail with the challenges the out-of-field phenomenon creates (Du Plessis, 2018b). Weldon (2016) has revealed that overall, 38% of mathematics teachers in the Australian context identify themselves as teaching out of field. Weldon (2015) has added that at higher year levels, as many as 20% of mathematics and physics teachers in Australia are teaching out of field. TALIS (2014) reported that one in four Belgian students are impacted by a shortage of mathematics teachers and one in five students in Sweden are impacted by a shortage of science teachers. I argue that noticing and understanding what out-of-field teachers’ real-life experiences mean for productive teaching pedagogies, effective learning and teacher approaches in STEM areas, however, logically turns focus to out-of-field concerns in subject areas beyond STEM areas. As a policy think tank, this book underlines that policy improvement plans to address quality education concerns need to acknowledge, but also move beyond, the STEM focus. Policy-developers and decision-makers need to take note

9.3 Teaching Approaches: Improvement Frameworks

275

of the STEM shortcomings and proactively address developing issues in other subjects. National policies underline that education must cater for all students, which means a focus on all subject fields and year levels. Essentially, therefore, an in-depth understanding of out-of-field teachers’ teaching practices, confidence and pedagogical decision-making and what these mean for these teachers’ professional interrelationships, classroom strategies and dispositions needs to underpin the reassessment of the support offered for the phenomenon through policy frameworks.

9.3.3 Beyond the Content Challenges As noted, students’ learning needs can get overlooked in an out-of-field classroom environment where teachers have to manage unfamiliar subject content, new terminology, curriculum requirements, unfamiliar assessment processes and criteria. In these teaching and learning spaces, teachers tend to pay more attention to pushing students to achieve the curriculum than to students’ overall learning experiences. These teachers often have students in their classes that do not excel because the substance of teaching as interaction is not engaged with. Beyond content, research underlines the significant role schools and teachers play in transforming the lives of students (Jones & Jones, 2007) and making them into lifelong learners (Cohen, 2006) , especially from the foundation level. This section discusses teachers’ ability to engage their students via relationships and attention. As research has demonstrated, underpinning aspects of effective learning environments, such as the targeted development of a healthy classroom atmosphere, remain a challenge for out-of-field teachers. Research data from classroom observations describe that teachers assigned to challenging out-of-field teaching positions lack assertiveness and confidence in their classroom approaches, and that these dispositions of doubt and uncertainty negatively affect their professional trust relationships with students. Cognitive performance and motivation to engage students are reciprocally embedded in these teacher–student relationships (Jones & Jones, 2007) and teachers’ metacognitive ability. Teachers’ metacognitive ability to, as van Manen (2016b) has suggested, notice and acknowledge the being of their students and to read and engage them in the interaction of constructing new knowledge, comprise a significant part of quality education. Beyond their ability to communicate content, therefore, out-of-field teachers’ distracted focus affects their students’ engagement in the learning environment. According to a parent, students who do not demand attention can get overlooked by out-of-field teachers and end up “flying under the radar” (Field data: F5) because they do not “distract other kids but they also do not fully engage in the learning environment and might just feel ignored by the teacher” (Field data: C3). Both quiet and conscientious students may fit into this category; further, average or aboveaverage performers may seem to cope but may just be “coasting along” losing learning opportunities, for example, to engage with learning and gain confidence to explore new concepts and question old concepts. Further, rather than being accommodated,

276

9 The Wider School Community, the Out-of-Field Phenomenon …

students who are gifted often do not get the extension they need; in some classes, these students are used to teach concepts to the rest of the class. In comparison with a specialist teacher, the professional identity of an out-of-field teacher is visible in how they attempt to engage in challenging students’ learning (Du Plessis, 2014). Out-of-field teachers who have some kind of passion or interest in the content of their unfamiliar assignment can survive better than those without it because they enjoy learning more about the subject. In this sense, the link between teachers’ passion and their content knowledge can be reconfirmed. It is worth repeating, however, that although some teachers excel in their out-of-field teaching positions, successful outcomes in these positions should not be taken for granted, but can be seen as a model for study; as I have described, extraordinary commitment to maintaining effective teaching and learning in unfamiliar subjects and year levels costs teachers significant time and effort. A clearer understanding of teachers’ lived experiences and the effects of their significant efforts to get beyond the content challenges needs to inform school improvement and workforce planning policies that intend to support them.

9.4 Leadership Decisions and the Community Courtney and Gunter (2015) have underlined that the “standards agenda dominates what is meant by a ‘good education’ with regard to work-ready skills and dispositions,” and that such “totalitarian tendencies” (p. 412) can direct leadership decisions, as well as how the community perceives teachers’ competence. Yet, the “standards agenda” does not currently acknowledge the impact of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon for teachers and students, and without leaders’ deliberate noticing of what students really “do” in the classroom context and how this “matters” (Hattie, 2009, p. 37), they cannot begin to acknowledge or address the complications of out-of-field teaching on these “standards.” As noted, transformational leadership styles (Hattie, 2009) promote openness, commitment and collaboration in school communities, and school leaders who demonstrate these styles display understanding, consciousness, empathy and thoughtfulness. Hattie (2009) has further noted that leaders who focus on education’s moral purpose (i.e., shared values) in conjunction with collaboration can create an environment of interaction that is geared to overcome challenges. He also underlined that school communities that are engaged “in helping parents to understand the language of schooling” (p. 33) demonstrate an attentiveness to the community’s needs, and that schools play a supportive role in encouraging parents to engage in their children’s learning. However, to effectively build such two-way trust relationships, openness and communication are needed; this participatory framework activates the social capital of the school community. Policy frameworks that encourage contact with parents and demonstrate attention to their feedback can provide structure for developing schools

9.4 Leadership Decisions and the Community

277

into engaged school communities. Well-designed, context-conscious policy structures can bring stability to challenging environments, support members, prioritise a safe and secure teaching and learning environment (Hallinger & Heck, 2010), and increase the strength and potential of the social capital. Prew (2009) has claimed that the active involvement of the school community in education adds value to student learning and community development and can have unforeseen positive effects for the wider community. School improvement policies that focus on the development of social capital can also have positive effects on teachers’ academic and career development (Preston, 2011). Research demonstrates that in school communities where consistent support and focused attention to teacher and student needs were considered priorities, out-offield teachers felt that they experienced their teaching assignments as an opportunity for career development and professional growth. The teachers in these school communities further claimed that they were willing to take risks with developing the out-of-field subject curriculum to improve their students’ learning opportunities. On the other hand, in school communities where school leaders demonstrated misconceptions about the impact of the out-of-field phenomenon on the quality of teaching and learning, a disconnection developed between members of the school community. This disconnection was demonstrated in a school culture of behaviour issues, dysfunctional classrooms and instability in the teacher workforce, which had high teacher attrition and turnover rates. I emphasise that it is not possible to develop social capital in a school community where there is a disconnection between the policies in place and the realities (which translate into needs) within that school community. School leaders’ understanding of the potential of the social capital within a school community to enhance not only learning effectiveness but also to provide a positive learning environment that benefits the well-being of all students in the school community (Preston, 2011) is the basis for targeted and cohesive school policy actions.

9.4.1 Protecting Communities: Notice the Need Meaningful, considerate and sincere communication among school community members builds trust relationships (Schutz, 2006) and opens doors to information sharing. It is a general expectation of teaching and learning environments that they will be built around friendly, caring and nurturing dispositions. Trust and openness within a school community enhance its responsiveness to the schools’ efforts to improve teachers’ competencies and students’ achievements (Sanders, 2003) by providing a scaffolding for interactions that build the school community around its shared values. Rosenblatt and Peled (2002) have claimed that trust among school community members has a ripple effect throughout the school context and influences the ethical climate and traditions of the entire school.

278

9 The Wider School Community, the Out-of-Field Phenomenon …

As I have already argued (see Sects. 2.2 and 2.3), developing policy frameworks that will protect and support teaching and learning means a meaningful consideration of needs, and a context-consciousness. Quality education is a global vision (e.g., PISA, OECD, 2018), and policy approaches that support the objective of providing quality education protect the teaching and learning space and those who function within it. Vygotsky (1978) has emphasised that learning is a social process, and I argue that targeted strategies, approaches and policy frameworks need to focus on the construction of fundamentally socially accommodating environments as background for effective learning. Redding (1996) has emphasised that shared educational standards and values bind students, parents and teachers together. The development of healthy, well-connected school communities relies on the commitment and reliability of teachers and school leaders (Furman, 2002b), and it is the task of school leaders to ensure that school improvement policies and approaches stimulate valuable and engaged conversations between parents, teachers and school leaders for the strength these interrelationships can bring to the school. Research showed that beginning teachers highly rate professional interrelationships with parents, students and colleagues, and will either move to another school or leave the teaching profession if they experience unfulfilling professional relationships (Du Plessis et al., 2018), evidence that puts the value of relationships in an unequivocal light. Further, teacher–parent relationships are essential for quality education: Berthelsen and Walker (2008) have accentuated that parental engagement in the learning of their students in both the home and school contexts improves student achievement and learning outcomes. As I have discussed, specific relational needs develop in the out-of-field teaching and learning space, as the phenomenon not only influences communication and trust but also greatly affects the dispositions and well-being of teachers and students in these environments (Du Plessis & McDonagh, 2020). Policy frameworks for the phenomenon therefore need to be developed to ensure the social health of out-of-field teachers and their students by noticing the needs and perceptions of all stakeholders, including parents and carers, and allowing these to inform the development of such frameworks so that they become contextually cohesive. School leaders, however, are often not comfortable with the feedback and involvement of parents in areas they perceive as “internal” affairs—such as teachers being assigned to positions for which they are not suitably qualified. Yet, research indicates that parents know “real quick when things do not go well inside classrooms” (Field data: B3), and that they expect school leaders will act accountably and without hesitation when made aware of classroom problems. School leaders themselves admitted that they would generally wait for parents to communicate concerns about a particular classroom context before they would act, and yet data also indicate that parents wait until situations in these classrooms become unbearable for students before they express their concerns, a fusion of stakeholder horizons that describes a “holding-pattern” of expectation, responsibility and action that points back to the requirements placed on teachers.

9.4 Leadership Decisions and the Community

279

Other situations of communication dilemma, too, suggest the urgent need for structures that uphold necessary stakeholder interaction. Strained professional interrelationships influence parents’ willingness to engage in the learning environment: Schutz (2006) has explained that parents with a history of negative experiences of school involvement become hesitant to share their perceptions. Research data corroborated this, showing that parents would not approach a teacher if they observed that the teacher felt threatened by their engagement, or if a previous encounter had turned into a negative interaction and “block” has developed on both sides (Du Plessis, 2014). Harnessing the needs of parents to contribute to their students’ educational environments first requires an acknowledgement that a school’s social health improves when active attention is paid to relationships (Mawhinney, 2002). School leaders, too, expressed their own need for the support of educational and systemic leaders. To fully develop teachers’ potential, especially teachers assigned to out-of-field positions, school leaders need policy frameworks that prioritise resources to these areas. Out-of-field teachers need collaboration with members of their school community who have expertise in their out-of-field areas so that they can gain the necessary capacity to offer students the best learning opportunities possible. Creating a stable and consistent culture of collaboration as support for teachers in out-of-field positions requires the guidance of school improvement policies that are upheld by systemic resource priorities. Further, schools are multidimensional learning communities in which actions, structures and specific ethics construct the culture (Furman, 2002a). Policy frameworks at systemic level that demonstrate the need to acknowledge the out-of-field phenomenon are the first step in supporting school leaders to act on these needs and manage the development of these teachers. As noted (see Sect. 6.4), students’ needs, too, develop in relation to the out-offield teaching and learning space, and these require in-depth attention. As part of their duty of care, school leaders need to take responsible action to develop useful policy frameworks and strategies that build professional relationships with the students in out-of-field classrooms. Leaders can then become aware of the specific challenges students experience in their unsuitably qualified teachers’ classrooms and so construct an in-depth understanding of their needs; this noticing will ground the approaches and strategies leaders employ to influence the classroom climate, its harmony and students’ positive attitudes. Engaged leaders who notice the realities of the school experience that are linked to the out-of-field phenomenon can build a school culture of awareness, support and encouragement for both unsuitably qualified teachers and their students. In turn, a culture of trust within a school community improves social relationships and develops understanding of the value of social interdependence for a school. While the implications of out-of-field lived experiences for communication and trust in the school environment can greatly impact quality education, they can also provide focus and acknowledgement for the necessary role that interrelationships in a school community play in education. A principal declared that a school community which demonstrates a focus on “growing people” and “care” for human capital will effectively develop support strategies that bring change about, because people want to feel part of positive and successful environments (Field data: G2).

280

9 The Wider School Community, the Out-of-Field Phenomenon …

9.4.2 Remote and Rural Communities: Context-Specific Concerns and Policies It is a known and widely published international phenomenon that small and remote schools experience major difficulties recruiting suitably qualified teachers and that they frequently assign unsuitably qualified teachers (McHenry-Sorber & Budge, 2018; Monk, 2007). However, policy frameworks intending to bring stability to schooling in these regions seem to be disconnected from the contextual expectations and needs within those communities (Cuervo, 2014). I argue that top-down policy frameworks can be developed with a “one-size-fits-all” approach that overlooks the deeper issues embedded in contextual factors, and that context-consciousness has significant value for developing targeted policy frameworks, strategies and approaches to address the specific needs of these unique schools and communities. Restricted school budgets, the remoteness of systemic centres and neighbouring schools, the restricted variety of expertise within small, close-knit communities, cultural diversity and concerned parents are just some of the challenges these school communities face. The recruitment needs in remote and rural schools carry both logistical and financial burdens because of difficulties in finding suitably qualified teachers who can or will relocate, the cost of incentives that will attract teachers to their schools and the restricted resources for costly additional professional learning opportunities for teachers in these areas—a requirement that is amplified when teachers are frequently assigned to positions for which they are unsuitably qualified. An educational director explained that the situation develops “into a bit of a conundrum” (Field data: Director 1) when strategy and resource frameworks in smaller secondary schools with 500 or 600 students have to make provision for a lot of teachers teaching out-of-field, especially if these schools are to keep offering a wide curriculum. Small and remote schools often have to compete with neighbouring schools and offer a wide range of subject choices even though they might not have suitably qualified teachers to teach them. In addition, small country town schools in rural and remote areas need to accommodate students who do not have the means to attend boarding schools. These schools need to stay viable to families by enrolling Year 11 and 12 students, even when this need poses complex staffing challenges. Research showed that junior secondary (Years 8, 9 and 10) teachers in these zones can find themselves assigned to Year 11 and 12 positions trying to teach out-of-their-scope, out-of-their-confidence and out-of-their-depth. As noted, these schools experience significant difficulty providing professional development opportunities for out-of-field teachers according to their needs. Teachers need professional support and training, especially when they are out-of-field, but schools need teachers to commit to the school before they can commit to allocating resources for training. The cost of professional development and the instability of these schools’ teaching workforce, with continuous high turnover rates, stimulate

9.4 Leadership Decisions and the Community

281

hesitancy among school leaders to invest financially in out-of-field teachers’ professional development. Even if teachers stay on, resource concerns remain if uncertainties exist about what year levels/subject areas these teachers will be assigned to the following year. Further highlighting the challenges of these schools, data indicate that school leaders in remote and small schools perceive staff assignments to out-of-field positions as a temporary solution and do not involve these teachers in major decision-making strategies about subjects or other frameworks (Du Plessis et al., 2018). School leaders further stressed that building the stability of their teaching workforce is almost impossible without national policy frameworks that support this effort. I return again to the reality of policy while noticing what its “fantasy” means for the workforce, and emphasise the need to hear leaders’ and teachers’ voices that the stability of the teaching workforce in remote and isolated schools has a significant impact on students’ achievements in these communities. In field data evidence, even though educational leaders at systemic level were aware of the complex contextual factors within remote schools, they appeared to share a perception that in “very difficult contexts and very isolated schools, high levels of content knowledge are actually not the prime prerequisite for teaching” (Field data: Director 3). I emphasise that strategies and policy frameworks at systemic level must first address fundamental concepts of equitably providing all students with opportunities to access sound subject content. Moreover, while the argument for understanding and effectively working with students from different ethnic or cultural backgrounds primarily calls on teachers’ capacity to accommodate and effectively manage diversity with the classroom and school community, the art of teaching involves all of a teacher’s empathy and ability to relate to students. It requires teachers to show a real connectedness and engagement with students that “switch[es] them on to education,” which includes passion and expertise in sound subject content. As White and Reid (2008) have underlined, at the center of this call is a concern to ensure the provision of high-quality education for children in rural families and the need for well-trained teachers who are personally and professionally equipped to address the educational needs of their communities. (p. 1)

International standards for teachers highlight the place of sound content knowledge in expectations for quality teaching (Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, 2011), drawing attention to ethical and equity issues of leaders needing to justify a reduction in teacher expertise and content knowledge in order to staff schools. In addition to these challenges, research showed that out-of-field teachers experiencing the “usual” difficulties of out-of-field teaching in these environments have feelings of isolation that cause them to question how much understanding the school community has about the out-of-field teaching situation. Parental involvement in school communities can improve the quality of education through structured feedback, suggestions, complaints and classroom engagement; parents are partners and clients of the school (Zedan, 2011). However, the out-offield classroom context is a complex environment, and perceptions of responsibility mean that the teacher is often exposed to criticism from parents, students and leaders. Out-of-field teachers, too, admit that they tend to be more self-focused on their

282

9 The Wider School Community, the Out-of-Field Phenomenon …

out-of-field teaching situation and can overlook how the out-of-field phenomenon impacts the needs of students and parents. Realising that stakeholders do not construct theories in isolation suggests a need for their connectedness and engagement, which can then foster appreciation for the teacher and teaching situation. Schools’ goals and aims are decided upon through discussion and awareness of the different bodies that influence decisions and actions (Mawhinney, 2002). Valuing the contributions of out-of-field teachers and demonstrating understanding that the complexity of their teaching situation is noticed can impact the school community’s empathy and understanding. While the extent of the impact of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on trust relationships in close-knit school communities can depend on how school leaders keep parents and teachers informed, a principal in a hard-to-staff, low-socioeconomic school community expressed concerns about the absence of “close engagement” from education departments to support the development of “collaborative communities” (Field data: A7). This principal felt discouraged by uninvolved systemic entities (education departments, employers and regulatory bodies), and shared that his school budget did not leave many options for him to invest in extra staff, to relief out-of-field teachers for professional learning time or to invest in additional resources to support out-of-field teachers. He also underlined that he did not have the funds needed to support augmented teaching approaches in order that teachers could connect with geographically dispersed, disconnected or unengaged parents who were oftentimes critiquing the school without any understanding of the restrictions and constraints the school experienced regarding staffing and the need to assign teachers out-of-field to fill vacant positions. The school leader went on to explain that a “small group of parents ‘carry’” (support) the school and support teachers through the complexities that develop in out-of-field classrooms. As noted, school environments are influenced by parents’ trust and respect for teachers and their level of involvement, and Preston (2011) has noted the value of nourishing trust relationships to release resources within the school community to the advantage of schools. Certainly, in remote and isolated communities where real, contextual needs are overlooked by systemic educational leadership, partnerships between parents with shared concerns form a powerful influence on the efforts to develop a healthy school environment (Odhiambo & Hii, 2012). Sergiovanni (1995, 1998) has emphasised the role school leaders fulfil in maintaining harmony within small school communities and in demonstrating understanding for specific needs and concerns. The school leader is respected as a promoter of values by school community members (Schaps, 2009) and has the potential to guide, direct and develop a community as a school engaged community. In consideration of research data offered in this book, it would appear that leaders may need to be resourced by policy frameworks to do this effectively. Redding (1996) has stated that a school community brings people together who have a central purpose and aim to reach shared goals, values and visions, but that close engagement within a school community is influenced by its socioeconomic environment. In low-socioeconomic school environments and socially restricted communities, the influence and role of teachers can become particularly important, as their perceived social position gives them further visibility and responsibility (Du Plessis,

9.4 Leadership Decisions and the Community

283

2018a, 2018b). Out-of-field teachers admitted, however, that they particularly struggle to develop meaningful professional relationships with students and their parents when they are not well informed about community culture or traditions. Berthelsen and Walker (2008) have proposed that teachers need professional development support to effectively manage the collaboration and involvement of parents, and I argue even more so if they teach in these unique out-of-field positions. In addition, Rosenblatt and Peled (2002) have noted a high risk of conflict-infused involvement that coexists with parent collaboration. Out-of-field field teachers’ feelings of being constantly exposed to unrealistic expectations and criticism can lead to feelings of vulnerability and defensiveness, especially when these teachers feel guilty and lack confidence in the subjects they are required to teach. As has been discussed, these teachers also tend to feel threatened by parents’ enquiries and questioning, and admit that the core of these strained relationships is their own fear of losing respect and control and students’ distrust in their ability. This combination of emotion can develop into a fragile teacher–student trust relationship, further complicating an already complex learning environment. Yet, micro-education policies and targeted frameworks developed by educational leadership to support teachers in these positions while they function outside their qualifications and expertise are concerningly absent. Darling-Hammond (2010) has claimed that “untrained, inexperienced and temporary teachers” negatively influence teaching and learning, and that the out-of-field phenomenon develops environments where “students do not experience a right to learn” (p. 22). The combination of high rates of out-of-field teachers, reduced workforce stability, complex school community cultures, absence of support from educational leaders and limited resources lead to restricted opportunities in small and rural schools for students and teachers to excel. “Teachers make a difference,” according to Hattie (2009, p. 34) and the impact that out-of-field teaching practices have for student achievements and future opportunities in these areas is significant. Redding (1996) has stated that cooperation between the members of a school community makes the attainment of goals easier, drawing attention to the need for systemically encouraged and resourced micro-education policies in schools in remote and rural areas to enable leaders and other stakeholders to begin with a context-consciousness. A thorough examination of the lived experiences and specific needs involved in complex out-of-field teaching situations within such school communities should be the starting point for the development of policy frameworks.

9.5 Summary Negative perceptions and concerns in school communities about the quality of education offered by schools are influenced by the unseen and unacknowledged difficulties embedded in out-of-field teaching. Awareness and understanding of the impact of deficiencies in teachers’ content knowledge on schools and schooling, and on the wider school community, underline the urgency of developing policy frameworks

284

9 The Wider School Community, the Out-of-Field Phenomenon …

that support the management of the out-of-field phenomenon across the board, and particularly in rural and remote schools. A broad understanding of the issues and actions of out-of-field teaching that influence the effectiveness of a school community is only possible if viewed from a position closely connected to the realities in out-of-field classrooms. The value of stakeholders’ perceptions needs to be captured in the development of policy frameworks, and again, particularly those that intend to bring relief to marginalised communities. Stakeholder contributions also turn focus to a requirement for strategies and frameworks to be in place to augment and foster the partnerships and interrelationships that enhance school environments and strengthen schools. In combination with leadership strategy, the collaboration and commitment of a school community can help to combat the effects on student learning that are the inevitable run-off of teachers in complex out-of-field positions.

References Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). The Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-forteachers. Ball, S. (2013). Education, justice and democracy: The struggle over ignorance and opportunity. In A. Montgomery & I. Kehoe (Eds.), Reimagining the purpose of schools and educational organisations: Developing critical thinking, agency, beliefs in schools and educational organisations (pp. 189–206). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24699-4_14. Berthelsen, D., & Walker, S. (2008). Parents’ involvement in their children’s education. Australian Institute of Family Studies. Family Matters, 79, 34–41. Cohen, J. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical, and academic education: Creating a climate for learning, participation in democracy, and well-being. Harvard Education Review, 76(2), 201–237. Cook, H. (2015, May 26). Christopher Pyne pushes for maths or science to be compulsory for year 11 and 12 students. The Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ political-news/christopher-pyne-pushes-for-maths-or-science-to-be-compulsory-for-year-11and-12-students-20150525-gh9kjv.html. Courtney, S., & Gunter, H. (2015). Get off my bus! School leaders, vision work and the elimination of teachers. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 18(4), 395–417. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13603124.2014.992476. Cuervo, H. (2014). Problematizing the relationship between rural small schools and communities: Implications for youth lives. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 60(4), 643–655. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Du Plessis, A. (2014). Understanding the out-of-field teaching experience (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:330372. Du Plessis, A. (2018a). Barriers to effective management of diversity in classroom contexts: The out-of-field teaching phenomenon. International Journal of Educational Research. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.002. Du Plessis, A. (2018b). The lived experience of out-of-field STEM teachers: A quandary for strategising quality teaching in STEM? Research in Science Education, 1–35. Online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9740-9. Du Plessis, A. E., & McDonagh, K. (2020). Leadership for well-being: The implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon. Manuscript in preparation.

References

285

Du Plessis, A. E., & Sunde, E. (2017). The workplace experiences of beginning teachers in three countries: A message for initial teacher education from the field. Journal of Education for Teaching, 43(2), 132–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2017.1286759. Du Plessis, A. E., Carroll, A., & Gillies, R. M. (2015). Understanding the lived experiences of novice out-of-field teachers in relation to school leadership practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 4–21. Du Plessis, A. E., Gillies, R. M., & Carroll, A. (2014). Out-of-field teaching and professional development: A transnational investigation across Australia and South Africa. International Journal of Educational Research, 66, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2014.03.002. Du Plessis, A. E., Hoang, N., Wang, J., Schmidt, A., Mertens, L., Cullinan, M., & Cameron, V. (2018). Invest in the future of education: Building a stable and quality beginning teacher workforce. Critical factors for reform: Evidence from the field (Research report). Brisbane, Australia: Australian Catholic University. Furman, G. (2002a). Conclusion: What is leadership for? In G. Furman (Ed.), School as community: From promise to practice (pp. 277–294). Albany, NY: State of New York Press. Furman, G. (2002b). Introduction. In G. Furman (Ed.), School as community: From promise to practice (pp. 1–19). Albany, NY: State of New York Press. Gillies, R., & Boyle, M. (2005). Teachers’ scaffolding behaviours during cooperative learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 243–259. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632431003663214. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge. Johnson, E., & Decrates, C. (2017). Parental influence on academic achievement among the primary school students in Trinidad. Early Child Development and Care, 187(7), 1221–1227. https://doi. org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1163549. Jones, V., & Jones, L. (2007). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating communities of support and solving problems (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc. Mawhinney, H. (2002). The microecology of social capital formation: Developing community beyond the school house door. In G. Furman (Ed.), School as community: From promise to practice (pp. 235–255). Albany, NY: State of New York Press. Mayer, D. (2005). Reviving the “policy bargain” discussion: Professional accountability and the contribution of teacher-performance assessment. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 78(4), 177–182. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.78.4.177-182. McHenry-Sorber, E., & Budge, K. (2018). Revisiting the rural superintendency: Rethinking guiding theories for contemporary practice. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 33(3), 1–15. Monk, D.(2007). Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural areas. The Future of Children: Excellence in the Classroom, 17(1), 155–174. Noddings, N. (2006). Educating whole people: A response to Jonathan Cohen. Harvard Educational Review, 76(2), 238–242. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.76.2.7538k44848065xw2. Nyman, R. (2017). Interest and engagement: Perspectives on mathematics in the classroom (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle. net/2077/51917. Odhiambo, G., & Hii, A. (2012). Key stakeholders’ perceptions of effective school leadership. Educational Management & Administration leadership, 40(2), 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1741143211432412. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). PISA 2015: Results in focus. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf. Preston, J. (2011). Influencing community involvement in school: A school community council. McGill Journal of Education, 46(2), 197–212.

286

9 The Wider School Community, the Out-of-Field Phenomenon …

Prew, M. (2009). Community involvement in school development: Modifying school improvement concepts to the needs of South African township schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37, 824–846. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209345562. Redding, S. (1996). Quantifying the components of school community. The School Community Journal, 6(2), 131–147. Rosenblatt, Z., & Peled, D. (2002). School ethical climate and parental involvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(4), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230210433427. Sanders, M. (2003). Community involvement in schools: From concept to practice. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124502239390. Schaps, E. (2009). Creating caring school communities. Leadership, 38, 8–11. Schutz, A. (2006). Home is a prison in the global city: The tragic failure of school-based community engagement strategies. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 691–743. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 00346543076004691. Sergiovanni, T. (1995). Small schools, great expectations. Educational Leadership, 53(3), 48–52. Sergiovanni, T. (1998). Leadership as pedagogy, capital development and school effectiveness. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1360312980010104. Skallerud, K. (2011). School reputation and its relation to parents’ satisfaction and loyalty. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(7), 671–686. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09513541111172081. Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013. (2014). Main findings from the survey and implications for education and training policies in Europe. European Commission: Education and Training. van Manen, M. (2016a). The tact of teaching. London, UK: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. van Manen, M. (2016b). The tone of teaching. The language of pedagogy (2nd ed.). London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weldon, P. (2015). The teacher workforce in Australia: Supply, demand and data issues. Policy Insights, 2. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001& context=policyinsights. Weldon, P. (2016). Out-of-field teaching in Australian secondary schools. Policy Insights, 6. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context= policyinsights. White, S., & Reid, J. (2008). Placing teachers? Sustaining rural schooling through placeconsciousness in teacher education. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 23(7), 1–11. Wienk, M. (2016). Discipline profile of the mathematical sciences. Victoria, Australia: Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute. Zedan, R. (2011). Parent involvement according to education level, socio-economic situation, and number of family members. Journal of Educational Enquiry, 11(1), 13–28.

Chapter 10

Rethinking Policies: The Balancing Act of Building a Stable Workforce and Improving Teachers’ Capacity on an Educational Budget

Getting education policies right benefits educational budgets. The implementation of policies and decisions about teacher performance assessments, curriculum improvements, and other adjustments, transformation and change are affected by teachers’ capacity, ability and expertise in the subject areas or year levels that they teach. Concurrently, policy decisions impact teachers’ interpretations of their vocation and vocational context, and thus the strategies and approaches they use to implement these policies inside the realities of their workplace. In addition, education policies influence the culture of an education system, and those of its schools and classrooms. To be effective, policies aiming to build a stable, strong and quality workforce need to be deeply embedded in the realities of teaching where they will ultimately be implemented.

10.1 Introduction Professor Craig Craven’s warning regarding teaching workforce complexities that “there is a structural shortage and it’s going to get worse” (Burgess, 2015, p. 3) draws attention to rethinking policies and how this activity becomes an important level of education leadership engagement, not just for how shortages are managed but also for addressing the challenges these shortages create. Lingard (2016) has identified the pressures and influences that policy framework development absorbs from global education partnering organisations such as the OECD and the World Bank. As I have discussed, education policies themselves are globalised and often inter-borrowed; however, education policy-makers’ fundamental aim is to transform education (Bates, 2013). To this end, I argue that knowledge is power (Schieman & Plickert, 2008), and in this chapter, I prompt for a rethinking and reflecting on the education policies suggested by systemic authorities through the lens of the outof-field teaching phenomenon. This book offers policy-makers the opportunity of being informed by being connected to the real-life experiences of teachers, leaders, students, parents and other stakeholders trying to make the best of the out-of-field © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. E. Du Plessis, Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1948-2_10

287

288

10 Rethinking Policies: The Balancing Act of Building …

teaching phenomenon, and thus potentially provides policy with an in-depth understanding of the challenges this phenomenon poses for the teaching and learning environment and for education quality. While the measurement and comparison of student achievements is often the key approach taken to determining teaching quality and schools’ success to offer quality education, Ryan et al. (2017) have discussed evidence that indicates “test-based accountability policies may heighten teacher stress and the development of burnout” (p. 3). I have alluded to this already, but considering the widespread impact and scope of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on teachers’ performance, these factors of lived experience become global education concerns. I argue that the potential effects of targeted out-of-field teaching policies on the business of schooling can reach beyond quality education to the well-being of teachers and counteract the impact the phenomenon has on educational budgets and human capital support plans. Roberts-Hull, Jensen, and Cooper (2015) have noted a “harmful tendency” (p. 4) to view reform strategies in isolation, or focus efforts only on a specific stage; similarly, I argue that piecemeal and quick-fix approaches will not create an overall management of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon. As I have discussed, policies to effectively manage the phenomenon within a specific context need to be enabled by the strategies and frameworks that uphold school contexts in their efforts to generate a holistic and inductive analysis of the impact of the phenomenon on teachers and their students within these specific contexts. As noted in previous chapters (see Sects. 2.5.2, 4.4.2 and 6.5.5), however, a divide can exist between school leaders and teachers because of an absence of in-depth communication and trust among these different groups, a situation that allows misunderstandings to develop that affect the collaboration and professional interrelationships (Hirsch, 2006) required to attend to issues and create and enact policies. Empirical evidence so far presented indicates shortcomings in leadership understanding and teacher and leadership communication about the real effects of teachers being assigned to out-of-field positions, and shows that these have implications for both awareness and relationships in out-of-field contexts, as well as the classroom and the school as effective contexts of quality education. When school leaders’ decision-making and behaviour demonstrate a notion that a good teacher can teach anything, their unrealistic expectations are mirrored in out-of-field teachers’ and other stakeholders’ expectations of teaching and learning in these contexts. Yet, when research shows that trying to fulfil unrealistic expectations over a prolonged period of time can result in teachers experiencing feelings of burn-out (Du Plessis et al., 2018), issues of communication, understanding and well-being take on the ramifications of staff turnover and attrition. Teachers’ sound content and pedagogical content knowledge are fundamental, but acknowledging this truth in relation to the out-of-field teaching phenomenon means schools can find themselves in a conundrum; financial tension develops between the pressure to make the budget work and the school’s responsibility and accountability to assign, support and develop teachers to ensure the school fulfils its responsibility to offer quality education. However, misunderstandings and misconceptions can also provide a “convenient truth” for dismissing lived experiences and the importance of teachers’ subject- and year level- specific knowledges as a fundamental basis

10.1 Introduction

289

for education. Loughran (2010) has accentuated, “sadly, even within the profession, professional knowledge tends to be undervalued and seen as having a lower status than public/codified research knowledge” (p. 42). Content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge have already been discussed as pivotal factors in the lived experiences of out-offield teachers, their teaching practices and their students’ learning. This chapter turns attention to these teachers’ and their school leaders’ pedagogical accountability regarding these knowledges, and the meaning and impact of this accountability are summarised in the following sections through the various aspects of the essential and embedded dilemma of improving teachers’ capacity on an educational budget. Issues arising from the out-of-field teaching phenomenon suggest some of the where and why actions of possible resource allocation for educational policy-makers looking to a sustainable teaching workforce future.

10.2 Reclaiming the Power of Knowledge in Spite of the Out-of-Field Phenomenon As described in Chap. 2, the constructivist learning theory of Vygotsky (1978) emphasises the careful guidance of learning by an informed/knowledgeable other, an approach that acknowledges both students’ ownership of their own learning and the simultaneous careful guidance of their teachers. Defining teachers as the knowledgeable other in teaching and learning environments situates teachers’ expert content knowledge at the centre of student learning: As knowledgeable others, teachers are expected to possess deep knowledge of subject matter and students’ developmental needs, a description that comprises their expertise in a specific field to construct effective learning opportunities through productive classroom pedagogies that are further underpinned by their intellectual quality and connectedness (Lingard, 2014; Lingard, Hayes, Mills, & Christie, 2003), and their power to take ownership of the teaching and learning space. Lave and Wenger (1991) have underlined that knowing is a “growth and transformation of identity” (p. 122) that is influenced by collegial interrelationships and practice as well as broader social, political and economic factors. Effective classroom contexts reflect the role that knowledge for practice, knowledge in practice and knowledge of practice all play in teaching and learning environments (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). The necessary depth of teachers’ knowledge draws attention both to the various forms knowledge takes and to the value of the growth of teachers’ situated knowledge expertise. Stepping into the role of an accountable pedagogue means teachers not only notice each of their students individually and as part of the learning space in totality (i.e., how they function in terms of their struggles, weaknesses and strengths) but also demonstrate the capacity, ability and knowledge to dissect what they notice and apply this evidence to know what is the most suitable approach/action to enhance all students’ learning. The success teachers then experience with students’ achievements and performance influences their professional growth, development and identity.

290

10 Rethinking Policies: The Balancing Act of Building …

The influence of out-of-field teachers’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge on their pedagogical accountability and what this influence means for micro-education policy development form the focus of the next section. I assert that it is reclaiming the value of knowledge as an educational entity that will tilt the balance of thought away from educational misconceptions that a good teacher can teach anything and towards the realisation that knowledge is power for education quality. Knowledge underpins professional identity and confidence. Out-of-field teachers’ lack of sound content, pedagogical content and pedagogical knowledge influence not only their own confidence but also the confidence their students experience and act within in the classroom space. The multilayered complexities and experiences that go with this lack of confidence create a negative feedback loop, stimulating frustrations and uncertain dispositions in the teaching and learning space. The effects of restricted knowledge are like a web that spread the dispositions generated by these intense lived experiences, incidents and situations beyond the classroom and into students’ homes, futures and into the wider school community. Knowledge underpins effective teacher assignments. Yet, these experiences and their negative effects often get glossed over or ignored by educational leaders. Taken-for-granted attitudes towards the implications of out-of-field teaching continue to constrain the development of targeted educational and school policies, and misconceptions about it remain prevalent among school leaders—for example, that the out-of-field teaching phenomenon is not a problem when it happens in subjects taught in lower age groups or year levels. However, research observations of the lived experiences of out-of-field teachers and their students demonstrated that major challenges in effective student engagement and behaviour management are part of primary out-of-field classrooms where students’ developmental learning needs can be left unmet; further, in out-of-field lower secondary classrooms where senior school knowledge and learning behaviour are scaffolded, the management of larger and highly diverse student cohorts can push out-of-field teachers to the edge. Knowledge must be prioritised. Research showed that school leaders who engaged with and focused on teachers’ and students’ needs were able to effectively support out-of-field teachers to maintain a level of quality teaching while in pursuit of the knowledge for their specific out-of-field subject area and/or year level. A school leader described how continuous reassessment of a school’s improvement policies was focused around on “growing people,” and aimed to foster “excitement and passion in teachers and their students, especially when they are part of the outof-field teaching phenomenon” (Field data: G2). School leaders have the power and position to encourage, guide and support teachers to achieve the expected knowledge outcomes via supporting teaching practices that are loaded with intent, sound knowledge and purpose. Knowledge development requires policy support. It is clear that policy frameworks targeted to support out-of-field teachers and their students can affect the stability and consistent delivery of education. Reassessment and critical analysis, therefore, of current policy approaches and how these stand up as resource instruments that offer adequate and well-designed support are necessary so that leaders are empowered to

10.2 Reclaiming the Power of Knowledge in Spite of the Out-of-Field …

291

assist teachers in complex teaching positions to remain in spite of the difficulties they experience in these positions (Du Plessis et al., 2018). Developing and growing teachers include frameworks that deliberately encourage and actively support teachers to build the necessary sound knowledge they need for a subject area and/or year level. However, this level of commitment to knowledge places additional strain on teachers’ time management as well as demands on already-tight school budgets for staff development resources. Policy frameworks that give priority to teachers’ professional learning and development support must therefore also involve a context-conscious capacity to notice the needs in specific school contexts and make accommodation for the constraints of specific school budgets.

10.2.1 Content Knowledge and Contextual Factors Content knowledge cannot be ignored as part of the policy bargain (see Sects. 1.1, 2.1, 3.5 and 5.5) because it exists within the frame of current and future economic and social considerations. This book has purposefully turned policy-makers’ attention to out-of-field teachers’ content knowledge and the unrealistic expectations placed on these teachers to achieve and perform at the same level as specialist teachers. Decision-makers need to be attentive and responsive to the voices that represent the lifeworlds of out-of-field teachers, their students and school leaders (at various leadership levels) because of the place knowledge, especially pedagogical knowledge (which is never isolated from contextual factors), has in teachers’ development and real-life experiences (Loughran, 2010). The argument for the development of tailored micro-education policies in this area of out-of-field teaching, however, is vested in the reality that content knowledge and its delivery are not mute entities. As has been discussed, the comparative alignment of content knowledge and specific pedagogies with the content standards of particular education departments influences the perceptions of education stakeholders such as teachers, students, parents and others in the wider community. This process of observation and comparison brings about an understanding of whether or not what comprises “effectiveness” in a teacher has been present in a particular classroom or school (Shulman, 2006). While this frames content knowledge as being a function of the teacher, the ultimate use and value of content knowledge extend well beyond classrooms and the school context. Entrenched in sound content knowledge, quality teaching and learning have economic and social considerations both inside and outside the boundaries of schools. Content knowledge and its delivery are bound to expectation and value. At a basic level, for example, parents want to get their money’s worth for their students’ education and note that they feel “discouraged” (Field data: E6) if they perceive their students are receiving a “substandard education” (Field data: E3). Johnson (2011) has suggested that teachers who demonstrate their effectiveness via their cognitive ability, aspiration, passion and the delivery of quality education are not acting alone but are scaffolded by the broader temporal, social, political and economic climate, which

292

10 Rethinking Policies: The Balancing Act of Building …

requires certain content knowledge objectives to be met for the ongoing strength of society. In a real sense, all these factors have an impact on teachers’ professional identity, as Loughran has described: [teachers’] own learning role is multifaceted as they are consistently learning, teaching, relearning, revising, and through ongoing development, building up on their understandings of, and approaches to, practice. (2014, p. 260)

The overriding issue for policy development is that the need for the professional learning and development of teachers assigned to out-of-field teaching positions is not only influenced by the type of content knowledge they need to take ownership of, but also by the contextual factors that need to be concurrently acknowledged and managed. The purpose of underlining the interlaced nature of the spaces and values of education context and delivery is that fractured strategies to support these teachers’ development will mean that the phenomenon will only continue to have implications for students and teachers beyond the classroom. Unsupported out-of-field teachers with restricted content knowledge often just try to survive their current teaching positions. An inherent expectation that gaps in student learning will get passed along to the following year’s teacher to fill (Du Plessis, 2014) demonstrates that, unsupported by acknowledgement and action, the ramifications of student achievement will reach beyond the school context. An education director from the private school sector stated that “employers are frustrated” (Field data: Director 2) because students leave school with a maths learning standard that is below what they need for the workplace (Tu et al., 2016). The realities of teaching (both out-of-field and in-field) include its situated nature and its layers of meaning and accountability; lived challenges of this kind cannot be effectively addressed by piecemeal approaches. It is apparent that teachers’ lack of subject content knowledge can cause serious deficiencies in students’ learning (Hirsch, 2006). Evidence already presented has demonstrated the many aspects of out-of-field teachers’ lack of in-depth content knowledge: sharing incorrect information, unsatisfactory communication with parents; poor, inconsistent or incomplete feedback to students about tasks (including critical assessment tasks) and the destabilisation of the learning environment. When research indicates that unsuitably qualified teachers have to rely on the amount of depth and understanding of the content knowledge they can learn “from what she read up on the night before” (as a parent noted of one out-of-field teacher struggling to deliver a practical science class; Field data: G1), the fundamental purpose of targeted support policies for the out-of-field phenomenon needs to be to prioritise knowledge.

10.2.2 Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Contextual Factors Pedagogical content knowledge is defined as a sound knowledge base from which to teach particular subject matter in a specific way to reach a specific objective

10.2 Reclaiming the Power of Knowledge in Spite of the Out-of-Field …

293

(Loughran, 2010). Sound pedagogical content knowledge involves clear understanding of both the content and of the art of teaching. Further, subject-specific pedagogical content knowledge means that this strong link between teaching practices and contextual needs is expertly connected to students’ construction of new knowledge. Such an alignment between well-suited pedagogical decisions and context-consciousness is deeply embedded in teachers’ capacity to use their own knowledge to employ in-themoment, incidental teaching skills and strategies that benefit students’ knowledge construction and their internalisation of new material. It is not difficult to see that out-of-field teachers’ restricted pedagogical content knowledge compromises their effectiveness in supporting students’ knowledge construction and internalisation and reduces their skill to manage this process within the teaching and learning space in order to optimise students’ learning. Johnson (2011) has emphasised the considerable difference between “covering the curriculum” and meeting students’ needs with careful guidance towards constructing new knowledge. Teachers assigned to out-of-field positions admit the specific pedagogical knowledge that is embedded in individual subjects poses significant challenges for them when they are unfamiliar with it, and that the gaps in their pedagogical content knowledge make it hard to guide and direct students’ deep learning and stimulate the intellectual interaction and thinking processes that encourage critical analysis of the subject matter. An education director shared, Effective teaching requires a broad content knowledge of the subject. Not just what is in the lesson plan but the background knowledge. These teachers [out-of-field] have a very narrow field as far as understanding how this subject links to the real world and how it links to other subjects. (Field data: Director 2)

Another education director described an observation that teachers’ worlds turn upside down when they are assigned to out-of-field positions, saying that these assignments “…caus[e] a lot of stress” and concluding “it’s unhealthy” (Field data: Director 1). A specialist teacher echoed this, describing how their teaching beliefs and professional identity were put into disarray when, after 15 years of teaching in a specialised area, they were required to teach two unfamiliar subjects. Their sudden transformation from a specialist music teacher into an out-of-field Year 7 maths and science teacher created challenges for them both to learn and understand an unfamiliar curriculum. The teacher stated that one of their significant teaching issues was not knowing how much content to describe because they did not know how much the students already knew (Field data: C7). Vygotsky (1978), too, has underlined the importance of teachers’ knowledge of their students’ prior learning to guide and scaffold further learning, drawing attention to the scope of expert knowledge in subject fields and year levels. While research indicates that experienced teachers assigned to out-offield positions tend to cope better in managing the classroom context than beginning and inexperienced teachers, their urgent need for specialist content knowledge and pedagogy remains. Evidence of perceptions among out-of-field teachers suggest that they see specialist teachers as the good ones and out-of-field teachers as the not good or less competent ones (Du Plessis, 2014), crystallising the interplay of knowledge with

294

10 Rethinking Policies: The Balancing Act of Building …

the layers of self, interrelationships and teachers’ intrinsic motivation for quality teaching outcomes. As noted, a feature of the ability of teachers to attend to different learning needs via their contextually specific pedagogical strengths is underpinned by their confidence, passion and expertise in a specific subject area or year level. Johnson (2011) has observed that competent and secure teachers communicate their expectations and teaching beliefs confidently and display dispositions that reflect resourcefulness. I assert that this “power” can be attributed to pedagogical content knowledge. However, as previously described (see Sects. 4.3 and 4.4), out-of-field teachers’ lived experiences mirror a confidence “roller coaster” of effort, determination, self-examination and negative dispositions. Data were clear that these dispositions were rooted in teachers’ fears that they would be asked subject matter questions which they were not prepared for, and of negatively impacting students’ learning by “teach[ing] students incorrect concepts” (Field data: A2). These challenging dispositions further affected how these teachers addressed and tried to overcome gaps in their ability to effectively manage their out-of-field assignments. Teachers admitted having feelings of guilt about their limited knowledge, and of “shrinking back” and “floundering” (Field data: G5, F2) when they were unable to provide students with adequate answers. Underlying feelings of anxiety are well recognised among outof-field teachers, who explain that, beyond struggling to grasp and deliver the key concepts, they “don’t know how to teach” their out-of-field subject (Field data: E5). As noted, unsuitably qualified teachers’ restricted pedagogical content knowledge negatively affects the construction of learning approaches for diversity and behaviour management (see Sects. 1.2 and 4.2). An effective teacher “reads the class and sets this atmosphere” (Field data: E6) within the classroom with pedagogical reasoning and decisions closely linked to in-depth subject matter knowledge. As a parent summarised: Someone teaching in their specialty area will be comfortable—able to make knowledge transmission a lot more interesting, keep the kids engaged. (Field data: E4)

In short, as Loughran (2010) has asserted, pedagogical content knowledge undergirds a stream of teaching capacity. It also supports communication with students and parents, strategising lessons and effective time management. Teachers need to provide students and their parents with the substantial feedback that improves student learning and achievement. A specialist/lead teacher shared that out-of-field teachers are not able to give parents critical feedback about students’ work and performance because their restricted pedagogical content knowledge does not allow them to provide an in-depth analysis of the issues and the necessary remedial actions to address them. Johnson (2011) has emphasised that unknown characteristics of subjects affect teachers’ productivity and the productive use of class time. Teachers lacking pedagogical content knowledge find it difficult to effectively strategise lessons that prioritise the curricula to be covered and the quantity of work to be completed in the time allowed, as well as plan assessment activities. A beginning teacher assigned out-of-field to teach in Year 12 earth and environmental science as a university-entry subject explained the time-consuming effort of preparing classes: “I’ve had no experience in rocks before…so I’ve had to learn all this new content as

10.2 Reclaiming the Power of Knowledge in Spite of the Out-of-Field …

295

well as figure out some good ways to teach it so that the students will remember it” (Field data: D7). Out-of-field teachers stress that it takes time to adjust to new classroom pedagogies, suggesting that settling into new pedagogical approaches is not a quick-fix process. As has been mentioned (see Sect. 8.4), the workload of teachers assigned to out-of-field positions increases significantly because of the additional hours these teachers need to work to maintain the same quality of teaching they want to deliver when they are assigned to their specialist subject area or year level. The combination of restricted pedagogical content knowledge, increased workload and exposure to pressure and unrealistic expectations for maintaining high levels of student achievement can cause these teachers to reassess the teaching profession as a suitable career option (see Sects. 1.2.1, 7.4 and 8.3). I argue that school improvement policies must recognise and uphold the importance of specific pedagogical content knowledge and make provision to accommodate the extra time and workload commitment these teachers need for effective planning, preparation and resource building. Education policies need to resource schools by prioritising support for the development of specialist knowledge, with an ultimate view to quality education goals and growing a stable teaching workforce.

10.2.3 The Relationship Between Knowledge and Lived Experiences Research evidence demonstrates that the phenomenon influences the being of out-offield teachers, and I draw attention to the knowledge–being link that underpins their professional identity. The depth of the knowledge teachers present in the classroom context is inextricable from their being. In this sense, teachers become the milieu their students, colleagues and parents experience, perceive and observe through their dispositions, engagement, connectedness with a difference and the passion they reflect. Van Manen (2016) has suggested that teachers become what they teach. A teachers’ professional identity is closely connected to how they are perceived as a competent or good teacher. It is not only their content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge that influence these perceptions but also how successful they are in guiding students’ positive learning experiences and how they are respected by students, parents, colleagues and their leaders. In parallel, Bourdieu and Passeron (1994) have accentuated that it is not only knowledge itself which influences the quality of learning, but that there is a role played by the specific milieu in which knowledge is constructed. As noted, pedagogical content knowledge is expert and specialised, and teachers employ it to effectively guide students’ construction of new knowledge and to uniquely scaffold their learning (Loughran, 2010). In this sense, teacher support and engagement chaperone students’ lived experiences of learning and their own knowledge–being underpins quality education. Part of this is teachers’ knowing and noticing of students’ learning

296

10 Rethinking Policies: The Balancing Act of Building …

needs and enacting their teaching knowledge towards the learning goal; the art of teaching is therefore interlinked with teachers’ lived experiences, that is, with their personal perceptions, behaviour and expectations. Further, Hargreaves (1998) has emphasised that emotion, passion and feelings form the heart of teaching. Teachers’ self-understanding, influenced by their thinking and participating in the experience of being (Gadamer, 1976/2008; Linge, 2008), guides their teaching characteristics, emotions and pedagogical decisions. These decisions are inter-influenced by personal beliefs, knowledge, culture and context (Smith, 2002). In short, teachers make the classroom (Hattie, 2003), and their relationship satisfaction is an important indicator of their performance and itself influences other indicators/sensations of their professional identity (Canrinus, Helms-Lorenz, Beijaard, Buitink, & Hofman, 2012); in short, teachers’ emotions and behaviour are intrinsically intertwined, and are both of equal importance (Kristjánsson, 2007). In the light of this, the purpose of observing teachers’ lived experiences in outof-field classrooms is underlined by the Gadamerian philosophy (1975, 1976/2008) of the value of uncovering not just behaviour, situations and outcomes, but the lived meaning and understanding of things previously not evident. In this frame, the elements of knowledge and lived experience combine in the teachers’ professional identity as experts in the classroom and create the learning environment and students’ identity as learners. A teacher’s knowledge is thus paramount to their professional identity, creating a knowledge–being connection. In keeping with this, a summation of the effects of out-of-field teaching on this connection would suggest that teachers assigned to out-of-field teaching positions: • feel not knowing makes them act like a hamster in a wheel; • have to manage not only the complex emotions of not knowing, but also the complexities of maintaining their effectiveness in the classroom in spite of restricted knowledge; • realise that students’ and other stakeholders’ noticing of their confidence and knowledge dilemmas creates confusion about the process of learning in their classrooms; • are constrained in their efforts by restricted opportunities for the development of their knowledge and expertise and • feel trapped and as if they are going nowhere, which has implications for their professional identity and job satisfaction. Furthermore, and as noted by evidence presented, inextricable from all this, students’ learning achievements and teacher–student interrelationships also influence teachers’ job satisfaction. Feelings of guilt, incompetence and lack of skill leave outof-field teachers anxious and dissatisfied, while the extra hours they spend trying to catch up raise questions about burn-out (Du Plessis, 2018b). It seems unsurprising Darling-Hammond (2010) has noted that in such circumstances, teachers needing to rationalise unsatisfactory student outcomes may “end up blaming the students for their own lack of skills” (p. 39). Teachers’ job satisfaction levels have evident implications for teacher retention, attrition and turnover, and go on to affect the stability of the teaching workforce, making policy frameworks that guide and support teachers’ knowing an investment in the future stability of the teaching workforce.

10.2 Reclaiming the Power of Knowledge in Spite of the Out-of-Field …

297

Well-designed policy frameworks must offer strategies as support resources to carefully and effectively manage the underlying knowledge issues that dislodge effective teaching and the being of teachers. Clear understanding, through observation of the emotions, perceptions and expectations that develop in out-of-field classrooms, in conjunction with contextualising students’ learning needs through the insight acquired into the incidences and situations observed, can inform fit-forpurpose school improvement policy development that genuinely confronts the pivotal knowledge challenges the out-of-field phenomenon poses for quality education. While I continue to advocate exploring stakeholders’ dispositions, emotions and perceptions in relation to the out-of-field experience as being essential in making evidence-based policy decisions that target the needs and realities in the out-of-field teaching and learning environment, it is not always obvious that policy practices which are disconnected from the realities of the classroom have the potential to hinder teacher classroom practices. For example, “impractical” policies that require teachers to complete extensive administrative duties and documents reduce teachers’ instruction time; out-of-field teachers’ struggles are only exacerbated by these kinds of “paperwork issues.” Policy strategies that focus on reporting rather than supporting develop perceptions among teachers that following these policies is a waste of time. Furthermore, behaviour and classroom management policies that are disconnected from the classroom realities of out-of-field classrooms complicate an already challenging context with detailed requirements but provide sketchy support frameworks, adding pressure to out-of-field teachers’ loads.

10.3 Invest in the Future: Grow Knowing Educational leaders’ unrealistic expectations for out-of-field teachers to achieve the same results as specialist teachers without targeted support do not respect, acknowledge or appreciate education as a public service that needs to prepare and nurture the next generation of society. Investing in the future of education requires the systemic acknowledgement that the objective of building a stable and quality teaching workforce means investing in the future of teachers, especially those teachers who will inevitably be assigned to challenging and complex teaching positions. Bates (2013) has claimed that teachers are caught in a complex circle of moving away from “doing” teaching to an approach of “pushing” students to perform to reach targets for achievements and results (p. 52). I argue that without the undergirding of expert knowledge and the confidence it infuses, out-of-field teachers end up following this “single focus” style of teaching in their attempts to achieve the expected level of results with their students. This “survival” style of teaching not only harms teachers’ sensation of self-efficacy and also makes them vulnerable, but it also negatively affects students’ development (see Sect. 10.5). It is up to policy-makers to revise the current structures that cause these outcomes, create new frameworks for schools that can grow teachers into a quality and stable teaching workforce and uphold the value of knowledge in education.

298

10 Rethinking Policies: The Balancing Act of Building …

10.4 Framing Professional Support, Lived Experiences and Knowing How professional support for out-of-field teachers is framed and executed needs to have an impact on the lived experiences of students as well as teachers. Students recognise and value knowledge too; constant expectations for student achievement in spite of out-of-field teaching practices overlook the disappointment and frustration of students’ unsatisfying learning experiences in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms (see Sects. 5.6.4, 6.5.1 and 6.5.3). School leaders’ assumptions that teachers’ lack of knowledge at various levels can be concealed from students are unrealistic. To begin with, unsatisfying learning experiences are mirrored in the aggravated classroom dispositions students develop when they do not feel fully supported by teachers as experts. Research data from a specialist teacher revealed that it might be possible to mask being out-of-field to a certain degree in lower year levels but that “older students have more knowledge in certain learning areas and will be aware of content problems” (Field data: G3). Corroborating this, students admitted that they would consider not enrolling in subjects where a teacher’s professional image and identity reflect incompetent subject instruction; students showed willingness to move to another school if they thought certain teachers were not qualified enough to support their aims to achieve. A parent explained: My daughter’s expression was she “sucked” at English; I’ve changed schools—I notice now she’s getting very high marks in her English because she’s a very intelligent girl who can articulate well. The only thing I can put that down to was the way she was being taught or what she’s being taught. (Field data: E6)

Students who are stimulated to fully engage in learning by their teachers are open to new challenges and responsive to encouragement to take risks with their learning. Guiding students towards deep learning experiences requires teachers’ knowledge of the golden thread that runs through concepts so that new learning can be scaffolded by linking concepts together. Such successful connection of concepts supports the internalisation of new information and making sense of unfamiliar knowledge. Yet, out-of-field teachers frequently learn content separately by heart from textbooks in an effort to get up to speed and thus experience difficulties connecting and integrating concepts in unfamiliar subjects themselves. When out-of-field teachers voice reiterated expectations that a “good teacher would be able to connect it all and inform students about the interrelatedness of concepts” (Field data: G5), their internal dispositions of inadequacy become evident in the inherent self-exclusion this describes. These teachers recount the constant effort they make towards fulfilling expected achievements as they struggle to get time management and their escalating workloads under control while enacting unfamiliar curricula. Furthermore, teachers who do not experience the success of students’ deep learning stay in “the frustration zone and their classrooms do not reflect tranquility” (Field data: E6). These teachers admit that their inability to answer students’ questions is a “source of frustration,” and that they dread when students “throw them a curved ball,” or ask a question for which they have no answer (Field data: G5). This lack of

10.4 Framing Professional Support, Lived Experiences and Knowing

299

tranquility in classrooms is influenced by teachers’ dispositions of being “scared that they are not doing enough or feeling that they are stumbling in the dark” (Field data: G5). The complexity of classrooms and the commitment to learning diversity create further pressure on out-of-field teachers’ already taxed personal reserves. Out-of-field teachers explain that they feel trapped between pushing towards achievement expectations and their intrinsic motivation to care for students’ individual emotional learning needs. Students with flair, talent and/or potential for art, math, science, drama, design technology or music (to name a few) are significantly impacted by out-of-field teachers in these subject areas, underpinning the need to carefully consider the framing of professional support for students’ potential, which can be harmed by exposure to out-of-field teaching practices across several consecutive years, interfering with their development and achievement. Strategies schools develop to compensate for teachers’ lack of knowledge need to realise that part of the goal of providing targeted support resources to out-offield classrooms is to address the development of all students’ potential. Framing professional support for out-of-field teachers and their students means committing resources that assist teachers assigned outside their expertise to develop their knowledge. As data describe, out-of-field teachers are often assigned to their teaching positions without access to any subject/year-level induction or mentorship, and without the support of resources for the additional professional learning, development and training they need. Long et al. (2012) have underlined the significant impact of and clear link between induction programmes, mentoring and teacher retention. Policy resources need to be specifically developed to address out-of-field teachers’ professional needs with designing, transforming, adjusting and enacting the curricula in out-of-field subjects so that teachers in these complex teaching positions can maintain their professional identities and capture their students’ imaginations.

10.5 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Curriculum and Enacted Curriculum Consciousness The manner in which teachers mediate the official curriculum for their students brings the curriculum alive and makes it accessible to them. Hattie (2009) has noted that curricula direct the “balance of surface and deep understanding” (p. 35) that is presented in classrooms; however, as already argued, teachers need a certain level of content knowledge to effectively enact a curriculum. Out-of-field teachers make extraordinary commitments of time and effort to inform themselves about curriculum requirements and to gain the necessary content knowledge in order to manage their positions and keep ahead of their students’ needs, particularly through their intrinsic desire to minimise the impact of their lack of knowledge on students’ learning. While teachers who are suitably trained or qualified in a specific area have the pedagogical content knowledge to interpret the expectations set out in a curriculum differently for students’ needs or time constraints, out-of-field teachers do understand

300

10 Rethinking Policies: The Balancing Act of Building …

that the depth of the curriculum is vital but despite their efforts, still lack the subject knowledge for comprehensive understanding of curricula and thus find it difficult to distinguish between important and less important information. A parent observed that teachers teaching outside their field of qualifications “don’t know what they don’t know and they often think they do better than what they actually achieve with their students” (Field data: F2). Anxious and concerned, these teachers can tend to follow the curriculum like a textbook, which means they run into time management issues because they try “to stick to it” and do not take the necessary risks to adjust the curriculum by including additional interesting activities or deciding to “chuck another bit” that is not fitted for the specific student cohort or the time frame. Teaching can turn into an approach of “open textbooks on page so-and-so and complete exercise so-and-so” (Field data: Director 2). Out-of-field teachers are aware of concerns about their execution of the curriculum and are anxious about the possibility of neglecting to cover work that can mean the fundamental building blocks of students’ learning can be missing or resting on inadequate foundations. Despite their efforts, student achievement can be affected in subsequent years. A specialist teacher clarified the dilemma: It is sort of like a web, it is all entwined to that person [out-of-field teacher] then feeds out to children and their [teachers’] attitude is, “Ah, it should be all right you know…it would be next year’s problem.” (Field data: F1)

Recovering from incorrect or unsatisfactorily developed concepts entails extra work for students and their future teachers. A parent shared their own struggle to compensate for a “huge gap in learning” that had occurred for their child after 1 year in an out-of-field teacher’s classroom. It is clear that beyond making curricula “targets,” gaps in students learning can only increase when students are “not engaged, and specific expectations for their learning are neglected” (Field data: D5). Experiences such as these contextualise school leaders’ expectations that out-offield teachers will achieve the same outcomes as their suitably qualified and assigned colleagues as taking a concerningly unrealistic approach to teacher knowledge and student learning. In addition, research revealed that teachers in out-of-field positions are not only expected to adjust curricula during their teaching, but can also be given the responsibility of designing a particular curriculum for a school community in spite of not being suitably qualified in the subject or year level to which they have been assigned. Out-of-field teachers admitted that school leaders expected them to change both lesson plans and the curriculum and assessment activities in their out-offield subject, and felt challenged by this expectation because of their gaps in content knowledge. As an out-of-field teacher stated, “[You] need to change this subject but you just do what you know and what you know is insufficient and you go without any knowledge or prior experience” (Field data: D1). Having insufficient knowledge and teaching without a curriculum mean that out-of-field teachers “have to make stuff up, which is kind of stressful” (Field data: E5). An experienced teacher teaching in an out-of-field position shared that unrealistic expectations “make you anxious because of the possibility that you are teaching incorrect information” (Field data: A7).

10.5 The Out-of-Field Phenomenon: Curriculum …

301

It is clear that professional development opportunities to enhance the use of the curriculum would be valuable to out-of-field teachers, but as noted, these are often not available—particularly when their positions are seen as “temporary.” Educational and school leaders need to reassess frameworks, strategies and approaches to support these teachers and their students’ learning. I emphasise again that school improvement policies need to make provision for the additional workload out-offield teaching practices entail for these teachers. All teachers understand that the curriculum is an instrument that directs, guides and assists them to construct and structure students’ learning targets. However, covering or “ticking the boxes” of a curriculum does not create effective teaching (Johnson, 2011). I assert that it is not realistic to allow out-of-field teachers to carry the load on their own, as van Manen (2016) has noted, many teachers find themselves fighting silent battles and personal crusades against the blind forces of bureaucratic, administrative, and political structures in order to preserve a wholesome quality to their students’ educational experiences. (p. 166)

When research demonstrates that well-designed professional learning and development support opportunities would better enable these teachers to enact the unfamiliar curriculum to which they have been assigned in a manner that achieves quality student outcomes, knowledge needs to be prioritised (Du Plessis, 2018a, 2019).

10.6 Summary A consciousness of the factors that influence an enacted curriculum needs to direct policies that accompany the mandated delivery of official curricula. When policymakers see curriculum as a policy commodity, teachers become “instructional disseminators [or] knowledge retailers” (van Manen, 2016, p. 213), a situation that not only undermines their teaching identities as valued intellectual pedagogues but also puts them under constant systemic pressure for “improvement.” Van Manen has stated that ongoing policy changes with regard to various curriculum areas are also a source of frustration for many teachers, who are essentially robbed of their authority as subject matter experts by the never-ending pressures to “implement” or teach new or modified curricula mandated by the local, state, or federal authorities. (p. 213)

Under these conditions, teachers lose sight of their intrinsic teaching goals, and outof-field teachers’ hold on their subject matter, their teaching positions and their place in the teaching workforce can become tenuous. Entrenched unrealistic expectations that out-of-field teachers will achieve the same results as their experienced colleagues support the continuation of out-of-field practices in schools on a global scale and undervalue teachers’ knowledge. Underlining the need for policy-makers to enter into recommendations for policy development via stakeholder engagement and a rethinking of current policies,

302

10 Rethinking Policies: The Balancing Act of Building …

comments from a systemic level education director demonstrated the typical misunderstandings and taken-for-granted views that greatly interfere with and hinder the development of policy frameworks. The director stated that, “In secondary schools, out-of-area teaching only occurs in Years 8–10. In Year 11 and 12, specialist teachers are teaching specialist subjects” and was clear that education departments “tend not to put people into areas where they’ve had absolutely no experience. We don’t put people to teach science…who’ve never had anything to do with it” (Field data: Director 3). This director viewed the out-of-field phenomenon as “not that serious an issue” for their department; however, a beginning teacher employed by this education department was currently teaching two out-of-field subjects at Year 12 level. This beginning teacher described that she had not even known that one of the subjects she had to teach at senior secondary level was offered as part of the school curriculum, a comment that is telling for intersections between teachers’ content knowledge, subject interest/passion and leadership communication. When Bédard (2015) has underlined that teachers’ and school leaders’ pedagogical autonomy and accountability define their capacity and ability to make appropriate decisions regarding teaching and learning strategies, resources, materials and the implementation of frameworks in classrooms and schools, it seems clear that strategies to uphold pedagogical accountability and prioritise knowledge need microeducation policy frameworks that begin at the beginning of out-of-field teachers’ stories. Leadership engagement with out-of-field teachers’ needs, such as those for professional development and learning programmes, induction, mentoring and extra time provisions for their additional workloads, would mean a realisation of the real value of knowledge and of teachers’ expert knowledge in every classroom for all students.

References Bates, A. (2013). Transcending systems thinking in education reform: Implications for policymakers and school leaders. Journal of Education Policy, 28(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02680939.2012.684249. Bédard. M. (2015). Pedagogical autonomy and accountability: A recipe for improving academic results. Economic Note, August 2015. MEI: Ideas for a more prosperous society. Retrieved from https://www.iedm.org/sites/default/files/pub_files/note0815_en.pdf. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1994). Introduction: Language and relationship to language in the teaching situation. In P. Bourdieu, J. C. Passeron, & M. S. Martin (Eds.) and R. Teese (Trans.), Academic discourse: Linguistic misunderstanding and professorial power (pp. 1–34). Cambridge, UK: Policy Press. Burgess, M. (2015, November 6). School-age boom combines with retirement-bound teachers to create employment demand. News.com.au: CareerOne. Retrieved from https://www.news.com. au/finance/work/careers/schoolage-boom-combines-with-retirementbound-teachers-to-createemployment-demand/news-story/64847b026d32a436a8758f97ceb89ad7. Canrinus, E., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2012). Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(1), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0069-2.

References

303

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0091732X024001249. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Du Plessis, A. (2014). Understanding the out-of-field teaching experience (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:330372. Du Plessis, A. (2018a). Barriers to effective management of diversity in classroom contexts: The out-of-field teaching phenomenon. International Journal of Educational Research. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.002. Du Plessis, A. E. (2018b). The lived experience of out-of-field STEM teachers: A quandary for strategising quality teaching in STEM? Research in Science Education, 1–35. Online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9740-9. Du Plessis, A. (2019). Professional support beyond initial teacher education: Pedagogical discernment and the influence of out-of-field teaching practices. Singapore: Springer. Du Plessis, A. E., Hoang, N., Wang, J., Schmidt, A., Mertens, L., & Cameron, V. (2018). Invest in the future of education: Building a stable and quality beginning teacher workforce. Critical factors for reform: Evidence from the field (Research report). Brisbane, Australia: Australian Catholic University. Gadamer, H. (1975). Truth and method (2nd ed., J. C. B. Mohr, Trans.). New York, NY: The Seabury Press. Gadamer, H. (1976/2008). Philosophical hermeneutics (D. Linge, Ed. & Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8), 835–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(98)00025-0. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Retrieved from ACEReSearch website: https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context= research_conference_2003. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge. Hirsch, E., Jr. (2006). The knowledge deficit: Closing the shocking gap for American children. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Johnson, L. (2011). Teaching outside the box: How to grab your students by their brains. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kristjánsson, K. (2007). Aristotle, emotions, and education. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lingard, B. (2014). Politics, policies and pedagogies in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Lingard, B. (2016). Part II: Educational issues and challenges (Introduction). In K. Mundy, A. Green, B. Lingard, & A. Verger (Eds.), Handbook of global education policy (pp. 164–168). New York, NY: Wiley. Lingard, B., Hayes, D., Mills, M., & Christie, P. (2003). Leading learning: Making hope practical in schools. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Linge, D. (2008). Editor’s introduction. In D. Linge (Ed.), Hans-Georg Gadamer: Philosophical hermeneutics (pp. xi–xviii). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Long, J., McKenzie-Robblee, S., Schaefer, L., Steeves, P., Wnuk, S., Pinnegar, E., et al. (2012). Literature review on induction and mentoring related to early career teacher attrition and retention. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267. 2012.645598. Loughran, J. (2010). What expert teachers do: Enhancing professional knowledge for classroom practice. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin. Loughran, J. (2014). Professionally developing as a teacher educator. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114533386.

304

10 Rethinking Policies: The Balancing Act of Building …

Roberts-Hull, K., Jensen, B., & Cooper, S. (2015). A new approach: Teacher education reform. In Learning first: Spotlight series. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/ static/531fd05ee4b00a4fbb7b1c67/t/55150cf0e4b0932ce9c67096/1427442928401/A+new+ approach.pdf. Ryan, S., Von der Embse, N., Pendergast, L., Saeki, E., Segool, N., & Schwing, S. (2017). Leaving the teaching profession: The role of teacher stress and educational accountability policies on turnover intent. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017. 03.016. Schieman, S., & Plickert, G. (2008). How knowledge is power: Education and the sense of control. Social Forces, 87(1), 153–183. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.0.0065. Shulman, L. (2006). Mission impossible: The exasperating mentee. In J. Shulman & M. Sato (Eds.), Mentoring teachers toward excellence: Supporting and developing highly qualified teachers (pp. 177–196). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Smith, B. (2002). Keeping emotions in mind. In P. Goldie (Ed.), Understanding emotions: Mind and morals (pp. 111–121). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Tu, T., Colahan, M., Hale, C., D’Souza, J., McCallum, A., Mallows, D., … Litster, J. (2016). Impact of poor basic literacy and numeracy on employers (BIS Research Paper 266). Retrieved from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/25449/1/BIS-16-36-impact-of-poor-basic-literacyand-numeracy-on-employers.pdf. van Manen, M. (2016). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. New York, NY: Routledge. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chapter 11

Policy Development: A Process of Reflection, Engagement and Insurance?

A focus on building a stable and quality teacher workforce in spite of the epidemic out-of-field teaching phenomenon involves policies that (a) improve teacher quality through training, (b) support teachers’ career development, (c) give attention to the effective management of teacher assignments, (d) show awareness of empirical research evidence, (e) notice the complex and challenging situations of out-of-field teachers in hard-to-staff schools, (f) reassess existing policy frameworks and approaches that overlook the implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon, (g) review teacher shortages, (h) reflect on school leaders’ impact on the development and implementation of school improvement policies, and (i) prioritise the importance of school leadership autonomy in driving workforce innovation, since it benefits greater flexibility in the industrial relations forum for school workers.

11.1 Implications of Targeted Policies The arguably ubiquitous effects of education in society highlight the need for educational policies that reach the heart of the matter. Policies commissioned to support the management of the out-of-field phenomenon in schools need to focus on the specific complexities created by the phenomenon in classroom and school contexts. The implications for teacher attrition, retention and turnover can be effectively addressed at school level with the support of micro-education policies that reflect context-consciousness. Micro-education policies can improve how engaged school leaders support teachers with timely management of complexities and targeted policy-making. This chapter raises questions about the aims and objectives of school and educational leaders, and turns attention to how these objectives align with policy outcomes as resources or the reality of policies as a supportive resource agency for teachers, schools, and ultimately, quality education. Critical reflection on the role school leaders play in teachers’ career decisions turns focus towards school improvement policies and the role they can play in the development of fit-forpurpose strategies that effectively counteract the implications of a global teaching phenomenon. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. E. Du Plessis, Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1948-2_11

305

306

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

It is clear that unaddressed complexities in classroom and school contexts influence teachers’ career decisions, especially teachers in complex teaching positions (TALIS, 2014). On its own, the great cost of teacher attrition for governments emphasises the need to focus on policies that will effectively manage the factors implicated. Buckingham (2014) has noted the impact of education costs in Australia: “An imbalance in the supply and demand for teachers creates considerable costs to government—more than $250 million each year, based on numbers of teaching graduates and their employment rates” (p. 1). Weale (2018) has noted that in the U.K., the government spends £555 million on the training of new teachers but only £36 million on strategies for teacher retention and development. Early-career teacher attrition is also a global concern with its own set of specific factors highlighted and summarised in research (see Buchanan, 2010; Gallant & Riley, 2014; Howes & Goodman-Delahunty, 2015; Mason & Poyatos Matas, 2015). Concerns from these empirically based research projects conducted over more than two decades underline issues that need policy attention, such as, for example, beginning teachers’ workloads and need for support. Teacher attrition and effective retention are global concerns, yet statistical information about rates can vary widely. In Australia, a variety of statistical data are described. A review of the statistics by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL, 2016b) has noted that Australian teacher attrition ranges from 5.7% (McKenzie et al., 2014; Willet, Segal, Walford, Ernest & Young, 2014) to between 8 and 50% (Queensland College of Teachers, 2013), raising serious questions about the availability of reliable data on this subject. Australian beginning teachers are cited as leaving the profession each year at a rate of either 25% (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training, 2007) or between 30 and 40% (Ewing & Manual, 2005; Milburn, 2011). Statistical information from the United Kingdom suggests that only 57% of graduate teachers who started their teaching career in inner city London during 2012 were still in the teaching profession during 2017 (Weale, 2018). Den Brok, Wubbels, and van Tartwijk (2017) have offered data that beginning teachers’ attrition rates in the first 5 years of teaching are at 30–50% in the U.S. and 50% in the U.K., with reportedly 40% of the graduate total in the U.K. not entering the teaching workforce after completion of their ITE programmes. Also according to these authors, Hong Kong reflects a comparatively low attrition of 4.8–5% of teachers in their first 5 years, and the Netherlands is at 15%, while Bauer (2011) has noted that in South Africa, beginning teachers leave the profession in their first 2 years at a rate of 25–33%. The consistency of approach taken by Den Brok et al. suggests that these figures are comparable in terms of the frame used to acquire them; since Hong Kong reflects such a low attrition rate in comparison with other teaching environments, investigation into practices, policies and strategies to illuminate its management of teaching and learning environments seems worthwhile. Mason and Poyatos Matas (2015) have suggested that a focus on human social, structural and positive psychological capital provides a holistic way to inform policy to address teacher attrition in Australia. They further underlined the absence of

11.1 Implications of Targeted Policies

307

in-depth research to understand the problem of teacher attrition. Supported by substantial data, I assert that the impact of the constant exposure to out-of-field teaching practices on teachers’ career decisions and the absence of policies to support the effective management of the phenomenon are issues that need to be identified in teacher retention research. I further argue that increasing teacher recruitment to “solve” high attrition rates overlooks that strategising and developing a stable teaching workforce also entails a focus on the retention of existing teachers. Building a quality and stable teaching workforce means investing in the development of competent, expert and wellpositioned teachers who remain in teaching. Well-designed policies to impact teacher retention and therefore the stability of the teaching profession need to begin by noticing the factors that affect teachers’ career decisions. I have emphasised that the out-of-field teaching phenomenon is connected to the factors involved in a troubling culture of attrition, and that creating an in-depth understanding of what is required by policy to address it will situate policy-making for a genuine transformation of the education environment in this regard. Most recently, research has suggested that teaching in complex teaching situations without the necessary support, resources or adequate professional skill development stimulates teachers’ continuous critical reflection on their self-efficacy, suitability and competence (Du Plessis et al., 2018). These continuous critical reflections on performance lead to feelings of being trapped between expectations and demands on one side and the drive to achieve that tends towards burn-out on the other (Ekstedt & Fagerberg, 2005).

11.2 Policies Impact Educational Practice The purpose of education policies is the improvement and safeguarding of the teaching and learning environment, and, I argue, resourcing the stability of a teaching workforce through the awareness they reflect about the realities in the field. Clear frameworks can address the need to provide teachers assigned to out-of-field positions with the support structures they need to maintain effective practices in spite of their out-of-field positions. I further emphasise that policy frameworks which reflect awareness of differences between the educational practices of out-of-field teachers and specialist teachers and show a clear understanding of the challenges out-of-field teachers experience can offer these teachers a space in which they can confidently explore their assignments and teaching practices. Inherent in this is the complexity of viewpoint that must be contained in education policy, and with this in mind, this section summarises that the policy frame required in schools needs to attend to the following themes: • connecting policies to ontological evidence, • general awareness of the out-of-field phenomenon in policies, • priority for teachers’ professional learning and development,

308

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

• development of tailored micro-education policies that prioritise teachers as the knowledgeable other, • support for out-of-field teachers’ scaffolding of new knowledge and concepts, • support for curricula development and assessment processes, • support for out-of-field teachers in assessing students’ work, • structures for inspiring and intriguing students to take ownership of learning and • protection for students’ development. Where education policies are focused on improving and safeguarding the teaching and learning environment, well-designed policies should add value to the quality of education and improve educational practice with flow-on effects to the perceptions of stakeholders about the quality of teaching and learning.

11.2.1 General Awareness Reflected in Policies This section offers a general summary of the issues regarding the out-of-field phenomenon—for example, teacher performance, teacher quality, student behaviour and student achievement—that this think tank has presented, in order that their multilayered and intersecting nature can be noticed and addressed by educational policyand decision-makers. School improvement policies, in particular, can accommodate and offer support for teachers and students in challenging teaching and learning environments, and as such provide an immediate and local framework for creating context-conscious, fit-for-purpose policies. Empirical evidence thus far presented shows that the out-of-field teaching situation transforms teaching and educational practices. As noted, students’ achievement is deeply embedded in teachers and teaching, in their sound knowledge and skills, in how they understand and accommodate a specific year level and in how effectively they take ownership, control and management of a subject area, students’ behaviour and diverse learning needs. All these factors affect the teaching and learning environment, its climate and its outcomes. Ensuring that all students have equal opportunities for the highest quality of education means considering expert knowledge to be fundamental. Hong (2012) has emphasised the need to notice and understand the interests of teachers and “how deeply [these are] integrated with their sense of identity” (p. 432), and it is clear from the presented research evidence that teachers’ professional identifies are affected by their out-of-field positions and the complexity of teaching these present to them. Further, Cleaver and Ballantyne (2014) have suggested that power relationships in the school and classroom context impact teachers’ performance and what they actually do in their classrooms, drawing policy attention to the social justice aspects of teacher placements and the opportunities teachers have to access targeted professional learning opportunities to improve their performance while assigned to out-of-field positions. Research has demonstrated that the majority of teachers take a specific position because their school leaders ask them to fill it (Du Plessis et al.,

11.2 Policies Impact Educational Practice

309

2018). Teachers admit that they will adhere to their principal’s request, even if they feel it might have a negative impact on their performance, and share that they take the position to help the principal but that they often “feel left behind and unappreciated” once they are in the position (Field data: C1).

11.2.2 Connecting Policies to Ontological Evidence The obstacles out-of-field teachers experience are connected to “not knowing how to manage it all while experiencing their gaps in knowledge as huge hurdle” (Field data: C7). Out-of-field teachers admit that their lack of knowledge leaves them feeling exposed and isolated. Ontological evidence from classroom observations with the same student cohort in both specialist teachers’ and out-of-field teachers’ classrooms shows the significant impact of sound pedagogical content knowledge on the quality of teaching and learning (Du Plessis, 2014). The clarity and deep understanding of curriculum requirements provided by specialist teachers and their capacity to construct a learning environment that nurtures a passion, interest and love for a specific subject and for learning in general are indispensable to quality education. A sole focus on developing fit-for-purpose policies to manage the complex implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon will not only impact the teaching and learning space: How these policies get effectively and consistently implemented will affect these teachers’ and their students’ lived experiences. Feelings of guilt that students in their care do not “get enough out of the lessons they offer in comparison to specialist teachers with expertise” (Field data: E6) corrode out-of-field teachers’ professional identity as competent teachers. Out-of-field teachers share dispositions of doubt and continuous concern that their teaching practices do not offer students the “best way of learning”; they worry about “lost opportunities” and see the intersection of their students’ needs and their own responsibilities as an issue of timeliness, “because there is so much to learn” (Field data: E4).

11.2.3 Prioritising Teachers’ Quality Professional Learning and Development As discussed in previous chapters, teachers in out-of-field positions express a prominent need for assistance and support to overcome the gaps in their content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Teachers assigned to positions outside their field of qualifications or expertise need training. For example, teachers qualified for upper primary school or middle school who are assigned to teach in the foundation phase of junior primary need access to official professional learning and professional development before they take on roles outside their qualifications.

310

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

A good example of the need for the reassessment of the implications of newly implemented policies for teaching and educational practices is that of the systemic move in the state of Queensland, Australia of Year 7 students and teachers from the primary school context to the junior secondary school context. A national framework implementation like this has multilayered implications for the teachers in these positions, and teachers who made the move to high schools because of the systemic framework change admitted that they had been requested to teach subjects for which they were not qualified at year levels beyond Year 7 once they reached the high school. Loughran (2010) has accentuated that the specific decisions teachers make are closely linked to their understanding, development and application of knowledge, and their application of the subject matter. Specialist teachers and out-of-field teachers often show the substantive differences in their level of subject content knowledge and the strategies that are aligned with it via their pedagogical content knowledge in the way they go about their teaching practice (such as in the assessment design decisions they make). School improvement policies need to be developed to minimise and limit the inequalities and disadvantages that are created by this situation by prioritising teacher training and expertise.

11.2.4 Preparing Tailored Micro-Education Policies to Develop a Knowledgeable Other The needs of out-of-field teachers and their students in primary and secondary schools are different but the different needs within these phases do not imply that one phase is more important than the other. Each developmental phase requires careful guidance from the knowledgeable other in the classroom. Research has demonstrated that a common perception exists among educational leaders that the out-of-field teaching phenomenon is only detrimental if it occurs in secondary schools, since the primary phase of education has less content focus, and primary school teachers “are all generalists” (Du Plessis, 2014). These perceptions have significant implications for policies of teacher placement and those for teachers’ professional learning and development.

11.2.5 Scaffolding Knowledge and Concepts Teachers’ conceptual framing of a subject, field or year level and the content or developmental milestones required for it play a major role in how they attempt the process of new knowledge construction. Effective and quality teaching practices are underpinned by well thought through lesson executions to scaffold students’ learning. The

11.2 Policies Impact Educational Practice

311

construction and application of knowledge are supported by activities and performances that stimulate rephrasing and recalling of internalised knowledge. Loughran (2010) has posited that learning is the practice of amalgamating information that is shared through the careful guidance of teaching practices. Students can start to struggle with “the fundamentals, the basis and cores” (Field data: B2) of subjects when concepts are not adequately or properly developed. Students’ scaffolding of new knowledge is a complex process that requires continual expert guidance, and the systematic scaffolding of content knowledge through each progressive year level creates a firm basis on which students can build future learning attempts. Such construction can take longer in an out-of-field teacher’s classroom, and parts of the scaffolding can be missed; these realities have implications for teachers’ time management and the assessment of students in their classrooms, as well as for their continuing development. The interrelationships between time management, scaffolding the construction of new knowledge on prior knowledge and assessing students’ work create challenges for out-of-field teachers. In short, gaps in out-of-field teachers’ sound content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge influence how effectively students internalise content and move to deep learning in their classrooms.

11.2.6 Policies to Support Out-of-Field Teachers to Assess or Appraise Students’ Work and Progress Teachers’ professional interrelationships with students at different levels of schooling entail an appreciative consideration of their learning needs that is embedded in a sound understanding of their social, emotional and physical development. Teachers in out-of-field positions without this kind of knowledge are less qualified to make judgements about students’ progress and their reaching of developmental milestones, or even assess the relevant comparative quality of students’ work, behaviour and activities in a specific subject and/or year level, making it difficult for them to recommend either extension work or remedial intervention.

11.2.7 Inspiring and Intriguing Students to Take Ownership of Learning Students’ experiences of deep learning change how they see themselves as learners, apply their knowledge and view the world around them. Teachers support this process of developing new knowledge by fully capturing students’ attention—effectively, by “intriguing students”—support that makes substantial and deeper reasoning possible (Hattie, 2009, p. 261). Lingard, Hayes, Mills, and Christie (2003) have claimed that

312

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

understanding and knowledge of the content ensure productive pedagogies, highlighting the important relationship that exists between a teachers’ connectedness with their subject and their connection with their students. As I have discussed, outof-field teachers’ restricted knowledge is problematic in any subject or year level, yet, teachers assigned to specialised areas such as design technology, science, mathematics, art, music, drama can inhibit students’ creativity and reasoning by their failure to inspire students with their expert knowledge of practice and content. A parent who was assisting an out-of-field teacher in an art classroom over an extended period of time explained that there were highly “artistic students in the class but not having a qualified art teacher, the lesson became stagnant and without stimulation” (Field data: C3). Training teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for effective teaching and development of a specific subject (Shulman, 1987) is an essential part of inspiring students’ learning.

11.2.8 Protecting Students’ Development School improvement policies need to support out-of-field teachers offering the students in their care the most effective and timely help. Students with learning difficulties are more vulnerable in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms. A parent shared that a student with a learning difficulty lost a whole term of progress in an outof-field teacher’s classroom before school leaders admitted that a significant problem had developed and the student was moved to a specialist teacher’s classroom. This student’s learning and development showed a major regression while under the care of the out-of-field teacher, a situation evocatively described by the parent as “progression goes so rapidly downhill” (Field data: C7). When research has shown that out-of-field classroom environments are often challenging and disruptive teaching and learning environments (Du Plessis, 2014; Du Plessis et al., 2018) where teachers struggle to be in control of the subject and the classroom, policies need to be in place to safeguard the learning of vulnerable students.

11.3 Efforts to Maintain Effectiveness and Positive Dispositions Sullivan (2008) has explained that comfortableness with a subject requires a level of content knowledge that allows teachers to adjust to transformation and new ways of reasoning without extreme feelings of anxiety. Teachers’ self-confidence with content knowledge thus influences their dispositions, and their interest and passion towards their subject area affect how effectively they are able to stimulate their students’ interest and passion for that field. Similarly, when teachers experience issues with the implementation of the curriculum, the level of difficulty and the depth or

11.3 Efforts to Maintain Effectiveness and Positive Dispositions

313

breath of new knowledge that needs to be offered and constructed, this impacts not only students’ learning experiences and outcomes but also teachers’ perceptions of their own competence and self-efficacy. While Loughran (2010) has noted that experienced teachers recognise learning theories that align with the teaching practices required and that this ability assists them to effectively employ and apply new teaching strategies to benefit students’ learning, the useful application of pedagogical content knowledge stimulates teachers’ feelings of success and dispositions of confidence. Teachers’ view of their own efficacy is therefore a key component of how they engage with their students and what level of support they provide to grow their students’ academic independence (Ireson, Mortimore, & Hallam, 1999). In keeping with this, evidence from the field shows that out-of-field teachers’ self-critique shapes how they perceive themselves as able and competent teachers, and these dispositions about their achievement inform how they are able to guide students towards learning. In a sense, teachers’ professional identity sits at the intersection of their content knowledge, their pedagogical content knowledge, and their confidence and selfefficacy. Out-of-field teachers realise they need to allocate a lot of extra time to the preparation of lessons in their out-of-field subjects before they feel confident about the quality of the lessons they offer (Du Plessis, 2014). This thorough planning and the comprehensive amounts of time they spend on resource preparation are a necessary part of their efforts to maintain a sense of competence and deliver a level of teaching success. When teachers’ determination to succeed has such a significant impact on their workload, the common misconception among school leaders that a good teacher should be able to teach anything if they “commit” to it overlooks the extreme workload involved in this commitment. Loughran (2010) has added that teachers’ capacity to develop and adjust their teaching practices and professional knowledge is entrenched in their teaching philosophy and beliefs, a reality that draws attention to the interdependent nature of disposition, pedagogy and identity. Teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy, confidence, self-esteem and self-critique affect and shape their dispositions, which in turn influence and can define the teaching and learning environment. Teachers’ being is an essential policy concern. School improvement policies need to acknowledge out-of-field teachers’ efforts to maintain their effectiveness in spite of out-of-field teaching positions; I return again to the ethics of assigning teachers to positions of this kind without giving them sufficient resources and support. Research indicates that it takes out-of-field teachers 3 to 5 years to develop sufficient expertise in an out-of-field subject area and/or year level before they feel comfortable to define themselves as an expert or specialist in the area. Such empirical evidence has significant implications for school environments where school leaders continuously move teachers from one out-of-field subject area to another. Strategies or approaches that constantly assign teachers to new subjects mean that teachers’ preparation, planning and resource-development workloads can remain extensive. Constant subject changes and unfamiliar pedagogies can leave under- or un-resourced teachers feeling overwhelmed and worn out. In this frame, attention turns to policy responsibilities for the junction between out-of-field teachers’ strained capacity as the knowledgeable other and their students’ learning and learning dispositions. It is clear that teachers in out-of-field positions

314

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

know that their lack of sound content and pedagogical content knowledge make it difficult for them to attend to the diverse learning needs in their classrooms. They find it a challenge to engage with gifted students and disclose that they shy away from in-depth conceptual debates. They admit that they rely heavily on textbook teaching and develop their teaching planning and practice for the average students in the classroom, without careful differentiation for either gifted students or those with learning difficulties. Bourdieu and Passeron (1994) have underlined that students who are passionate and interested in a subject field or particular content have expectations for a total learning experience that is possible through quality teaching and learning. However, instability in the teaching and learning space stimulates experiences and dispositions that affect how they progress towards self-realisation, anticipate their future achievements and perceive their learning opportunities (Ireson et al., 1999). Neil and Morgan (2003) have accentuated the responsibility of school leaders to ensure that the school is a “learning community” for all (p. 156). As part of a commitment to accommodating the diverse learning needs of students, school improvement policies need to address the dispositions that interfere with learning effectiveness, and commit to offering frameworks in which all students can progress at their own level. Out-of-field teachers need structured engagement from their school leaders in order to progress and develop into confident teachers with a strong professional identity. Policy frameworks that structure continuous interaction, timely feedback and support between school leaders and teachers, especially teachers in complex teaching positions, have the potential to change school cultures.

11.3.1 Policies and the Development of Leaders and Leadership Skills School leaders’ realisation that policy frameworks can have a significant impact on teachers’ behaviour and dispositions can be reflected in the school improvement policies they develop to guide, stimulate and encourage support for teachers in their schools via (for example) collaboration and mentorship. Teachers adopt certain coping mechanisms to uphold the goals and fulfil the expectations set by the school and its leadership; school leaders’ noticing of these lived meanings of out-of-field teaching can provide them with a context-conscious position from which to acquire the necessary insight for policies and approaches that will change what happens inside out-of-field classrooms. Further, noticing the strengths and weaknesses of the culture of the wider school community can assist school leaders in developing fit-forpurpose policies that will shape a school culture that acknowledges the phenomenon and upholds its effective management. School community expectations, culture and specific beliefs can intensify within out-of-field teaching and learning environments and thus can be directed to play a significant role in the professional growth and nurturing of out-of-field teachers if the

11.3 Efforts to Maintain Effectiveness and Positive Dispositions

315

situation is sensitively handled and well structured by leaders. School leaders need to offer improvement frameworks that provide teachers with consistency, for example, the CANNAS-leadership model (connectedness, awareness, needs analysis, negotiation, action and support; Du Plessis, 2017, 2019). Knowledge is socially constructed (Groundwater-Smith & Campbell, 2010), and well-designed school improvement policies need to acknowledge the usefulness of frameworks that structure collaboration between different stakeholders, including differently experienced colleagues in the teaching and learning environment. Loughran (2010) has suggested that specialist teachers make teaching look easy, with the unfortunate consequence that the expertise and preparedness needed to effectively guide students’ learning can be undervalued and misunderstood. With their specialised expertise, expert teachers have the capacity to engage challenging sets of connections in curricula with specific subject knowledge (Hallam & Ireson, 1999); they know how to teach the content and share their deep knowledge while also effectively managing challenging students, incidents and situations in the teaching and learning space. Out-of-field teachers already claim that it is their colleagues that pull them through the most challenging of their out-of-field experiences; I assert that specialist teachers’ ratified sense of being, suitably valued and shared, is a potential source of collaborative understanding that well-designed policies can uphold and prioritise for teachers and schools.

11.3.2 Advancing Pedagogical Reasoning Professional support is the lifeline that can inform and advance out-of-field teachers’ pedagogical reasoning. However, developing school policy frameworks that ensure teachers get access to consistently implemented professional support opportunities is often not the highest management priority for school leaders. Yet, leadership decisions about school budgets or financial priorities, student behaviour management and teachers’ professional support priorities all influence how teachers experience teaching and students experience learning in a school context. School leaders’ pedagogical accountability and autonomy influence what happens inside classrooms, and decisions they make can and do have significant implications for out-of-field teachers’ capacity to maintain a level of quality teaching when they are out-of-their-depth. Out-of-field teachers shared that once they are assigned to out-of-field positions by their leaders, they are left to find their own support network or other means of gaining control over their teaching situation and the content of unfamiliar subject areas. Zepeda (2006) has highlighted that 50% of teachers in teaching positions for which they do not have the needed experience or qualifications manage their situations without proper support. Well-developed policies are the foundation on which support strategies and approaches are built. In tension with this reality, however, professional development programmes are not a “patch cure” (quick-fix solution) for the complex challenges presented by out-of-field teaching. Concerns about professional development programmes range from the acknowledgement that approaches can involve a “convoluted nature” that

316

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

is disconnected from actual teaching practice (Hardy, 2012, p. 181), to Loughran’s (2010) caution that while focus needs to turn to strategies to develop teachers’ skills, knowledge and abilities, development programmes can generate a false sense of expectation and confidence. School leaders and teachers together need to endeavour to remain on a journey of constant context-consciousness and recognition of the areas that need to be addressed that intersect with but go beyond merely getting “skills.” Not knowing fundamental subject matter means that these teachers “don’t know what they don’t know,” a revealing remark which highlights that their dependence on support is inherently layered with the complexities of anxiety. In this framework of being, teachers are both without the fundamental concepts of their out-of-field subjects to scaffold their construction of new learning, and are internally floundering. The design of professional support offered to these teachers can either intimidate, demotivate and stimulate their anxieties, or it can support them and set them up for the expansion of their abilities and professional growth that they need. Darling-Hammond (2010) has stated that professional development programmes are most effective when they provide “hands on” (p. 227) options and develop content knowledge. Defining what hands-on professional support means for out-of-field teachers entails awareness, close interaction, full engagement and noticing of the specific challenges that incidences or situations require them to navigate. Targeted support programmes and well-designed policy frameworks need to be constructed with a specific focus on these teachers’ need to maintain quality teaching and student outcomes in spite of the out-of-field phenomenon. Gadamer (1975) has noted the value of “acknowledging the past in its otherness— in such a way that it has something to say to me” (p. 324). Part of understanding how micro-education policies can assist out-of-field teachers and the contexts in which they practice requires leaders committed to pedagogical accountability to open up a discourse of resourcing teachers. The current focus on quality teaching and teachers highlights the importance of developing policies in collaboration with teachers that build on teachers’ previous experiences and take account of research evidence.

11.3.3 Policies as Support Resources in Classroom Contexts Policy frameworks, strategies and approaches that allow teachers in challenging teaching positions to establish professional trust relationships with their colleagues create opportunities for staff to develop and excel. The development of microeducation policies in this area is linked to recommendations to create and value collegial connections for out-of-field teachers (see Sect. 9.2) so that various aspects of the phenomenon that affect the stability of the teaching and learning space can be counteracted by the strength and confidence of interrelationships and shared expertise. Timperley, Wilson, Barrar and Fung (2007) have observed the involvement of outside experts in developing staff in school contexts, and noted that there can be differences in the effectiveness of the deep content discussions outside experts offer

11.3 Efforts to Maintain Effectiveness and Positive Dispositions

317

to existing staff in comparison with those offered intra-organisationally by existing staff members—even though these latter may not have the same qualifications or expertise as the external experts. I underline the value and influence of contextconsciousness on any tailored support strategies that intend to usefully develop teachers’ behaviour, attitudes and dispositions; what might be successful in one context might not work in another, and targeted policy frameworks need to be best fitted for the school and classroom context and the staff members involved. Zepeda (2006) has emphasised the value of timely professional development that focuses on individual professional needs; structured collegial involvement makes timely and personally connected intervention possible for teachers, as well as creating immediate opportunities for improving teaching effectiveness and adding professional growth in a relational manner. Loughran (2010) has underlined that knowledge in teaching and learning needs to focus on engaging students in being fully part of their learning experiences by also informing their lived experiences of being in the world. Out-of-field teachers’ teaching practices are dislodged during the phases of change they progress through; as discussed, concerns and tribulations in their dispositions have the potential to unsettle the teaching and learning habitus. As research presented has demonstrated, healthy teacher–student relationships affect classroom management (Hattie, 2009); further, classroom management hugely and directly impacts teaching quality and learning effectiveness (Klieme, 2018). School improvement policies need to prioritise keeping classroom environments stable and learning approaches consistent during times of adjustment (Loughran, 2010). For classroom environments to deliver these essential ingredients of students’ learning and being, teachers’ effectiveness needs to be upheld by policies that give them confidence by offering them timely support and resources to link their existing theoretical frameworks to their new practices, allowing them to find pathways to own and control their professional and social knowledge to benefit their students’ learning. Realistic expectations for student learning in out-of-field classrooms, alongside frameworks that deliver teachers the necessary knowledge of pedagogies and processes that align with students’ contextual learning needs, will offer a secure and safe learning climate and classroom atmosphere where students can fully engage in their learning process with limited stimulus for behavioural issues. Sieberer-Nagler (2016) has stated that classroom frameworks are influential for the development of “students’ academic and social behaviour” (p. 165) and added that well-defined rules support students knowing what is appropriate behaviour in the learning space. She further describes how teachers influence the classroom context and policies: …When a teacher loves to teach, the students may very well love to learn. Effective teachers display a high level of enthusiasm that reflects their professional competence and confidence. Teachers can begin to establish a positive learning environment by showing their passion for the subject matter, using student names, reinforcing student participation during class and being active in moving among the students. (2016, p. 171)

318

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

11.3.4 Policy Guidance for Teacher and Student Behaviour: Moving Beyond the Obvious This section highlights two key themes: First, the restricted confidence and vulnerability of teachers teaching in subjects and/or year levels outside qualifications (see Sect. 5.1), particularly in comparison with the confident behaviour of expert teachers and what “confidence” means for the classroom context; and second, structured frameworks for collegial support and professional trust relationships (see also Sects. 5.2 and 7.4.3). Moving beyond the obvious (see Sects. 6.5.4 and 9.3.3), I argue that micro-education policies have the potential to affect how out-of-field teachers’ confidence grows and develops—or decreases. Confidence grows for teachers who feel at-home in their subject and/or year level and know that they belong in the school community; such teachers will address the everydayness of their teaching responsibilities differently from those who are anxious about “what they don’t know” and are running to catch up. Teachers with a broad, sound knowledge base have the pedagogical sensitivity to know what to teach and when to teach it and can keep their students motivated and engaged (Loughran, 2010). As a knowledgeable other, an expert teacher projects confidence and receives the respect of their students; these positive teacher–student relationships determine student behaviour and the classroom atmosphere. Expert teachers have positive dispositions towards building close interpersonal relationships with students and their parents are confident to challenge students with their learning, and can effectively engage them in the learning processes. As data have described, the depth of the feedback teachers offer to both students and parents is intertwined with how confident they are to take ownership of the content and pedagogical content knowledge; confident, hands-on teachers are comfortable to share their pedagogical reasoning with peers, students and parents. On the other hand, out-of-field teachers who are not in control of their subject knowledge get distracted by keeping up with their teaching, lose ownership of the teaching and learning environment, have difficulty engaging parents about students’ progress and foster learning environments that negatively influence students’ behaviour and attitudes towards learning (Du Plessis, 2017). Students’ disengagement from the teaching and learning environment and their loss of interest in subjects are intertwined with their lived experiences of teachers and teaching in the classroom. Teachers’ confidence affects students’ dispositions towards learning, their attitudes towards the subject and how they behave in classrooms. Further, restricted and misinterpreted content knowledge not only influences the depth and correctness with which teachers read and apply the curriculum but also affects what students learn and how they perceive their learning. The flip side of outof-field teachers’ lack of confidence can cause them to have unrealistic expectations of their students because of their own restricted curriculum interpretations and desire to appear knowledgeable and in control. This approach can result in teacher and student frustration because of confusion around subject matter, concept explanations

11.3 Efforts to Maintain Effectiveness and Positive Dispositions

319

and consistency, and end in challenging student behaviour or student disengagement, adding challenging classroom situations to teachers’ challenges. Moving beyond the obvious entails grasping awareness of what teacher confidence means for in-the-moment teaching decisions. Applied pedagogical content knowledge is demonstrated in an openness during incidental teaching decisions that optimises the potential of pedagogical moments. The value of in-the-moment teaching opportunities for students’ learning experiences has been noted by other authors, for example, Schoenfeld (2014) and Loughran (2010) have both defined teachers’ openmindedness as a preparedness to listen to all perspectives. The open-mindedness to reconsider their own existing knowledge, beliefs and procedures requires teachers’ confidence in belonging to the space and the content, and has a considerable impact on students’ behaviour and dispositions towards the teacher and learning. This kind of teaching disposition and behaviour (via both verbal and nonverbal cues) can build students’ willingness to explore deeper learning (Johnson, 2011). Out-of-field teachers’ teaching confidence forms an intersection with their “belongingness” to their teaching position and the school culture. As I have described (see Sect. 1.6), this changes how they relate to their colleagues. Out-of-field teachers acknowledge demonstrating behaviour that reflects their dependence on colleagues to survive their teaching positions. They admit that they rely heavily on specialist teachers for professional learning and clarification of their understanding of concepts and specific curricula and for their understanding of what the professional standards expect from teachers in their subject areas/year levels (Mayer et al., 2005). Empirical evidence has shown that out-of-field teachers worry about how they look in front of their more experienced colleagues. Not wanting to look like “imposters,” these teachers are not comfortable or confident when attending professional development workshops with their specialist colleagues and are hesitant to engage or to make contributions in case they demonstrate their ignorance (Du Plessis, 2014). However, these teachers are willing to engage in one-on-one conversations with a colleague they feel safe with and whom they trust. In support of professional interrelationships, Bell (1991) has emphasised that professional development and growth which engages the whole staff can have positive effects on the culture of a school. Policy frameworks that stimulate dispositions of empathy and a strong culture of collaboration among colleagues, especially one-on-one targeted mentoring, have the potential to offer out-of-field teachers the support they require for the confidence to proceed in their teaching positions. Hattie (2009) has underlined that teaching is a “deliberate intervention” (p. 23) to enhance the cognitive development of students, and that teachers with confidence in their sound pedagogical content knowledge display flexibility are able to accommodate different learning approaches and strategies and show openness to innovative and challenging reasoning from their students. They are also open to improvisation during their instruction, with an interest in building and developing the curriculum to further stimulate their students. It is clear that there is more than one way that teachers, as Hattie (2009) has noted, can be central resources for learning, and that “what teachers do matters” (emphasis in original, p. 22). I argue that out-of-field

320

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

teachers’ lack of confidence is a key area that must be targeted for the effective management of the phenomenon. School improvement policies need to enable, encourage and support out-of-field teachers to build the confidence they require to act in their vocational capacity.

11.4 Policies Charged with Accountability School leaders are responsible for the effectiveness of the teaching and learning opportunities schools offer, and I argue that tailored micro-education policies can become instruments that reflect school leaders’ decisions and accountability. However, the level at which educational systems and education partnerships (regulatory authorities, education unions, employers, teachers, school leaders, students and parents) accept their accountability for the quality of teaching and learning influences the image of policies within the school context. As I have described (see Sect. 10.6), policy accountability can be seen as a lever for current expectations. In keeping with this, Clifton and Burnett (2018) have claimed that Canadian universities place political correctness above educating students; I can’t help but wonder if the same tendency is present when strategies and frameworks are employed to manage complexities within other teaching contexts. Are embedded concepts such as political correctness placed above the needs of teachers and students in the realities and truths of classrooms? Policies need not be “a heavy joke to bear,” but need to be resources that offer teachers support to develop and sustain their accountability for their role in the teaching and learning process. Earl (2005) has explained that a logic of urgency is created by the amount of risk perceived in highstakes accountability and pressure to change, and I argue that this is what brings us to the current STEM focus that, while bringing out-of-field teaching to the attention of policy-makers, has created its own whirlpool that in many ways still fails to observe the root of the problem. Teachers need to be fairly and adequately equipped by policy for their role in ideology. Critically, the accountability of teachers for their students is closely linked to a context-consciousness because “information becomes knowledge when it is shaped, organised and embedded in a context that gives it meaning and connectedness” (Earl, 2005, p. 8). As a policy think tank, this book highlights both the depth and essence of the multilayered out-of-field teaching phenomenon via the real-life experiences of teachers, leaders, students, parents and the wider education community in an effort to demonstrate the pressing need to create relevant policies that effectively manage the implications of this ever-growing global teaching phenomenon. Even so, the lived experiences presented stimulate more questions about the phenomenon and how it can be successfully navigated. Gadamer (1975) has underlined that “the essence of the question is the opening up, and the keeping open, of possibilities” (p. 266), and I emphasise that for policy framework development to connect usefully with the out-of-field teaching phenomenon, strategies need to reflect an openness to creating

11.4 Policies Charged with Accountability

321

a range of possibilities to manage the phenomenon, and insist on their contextconsciousness. This way, policies will be deeply embedded in the meanings of the phenomenon via an understanding of these in the school and classroom contexts where they occur. Well-designed policies need to embrace the hermeneutic circle of the cultures, beliefs, values and traditions that exist within a specific context. As Gadamer (1976/2008) has emphasised, interpersonal communication reveals the true foundation of meaning. A clear understanding, therefore, of lived experiences and how these impact each teaching and learning environment is the single most important strategy for the development of effective policy frameworks that are connected to human capital. To this end, nurturing a culture of interaction, sharing and communication is the responsibility and obligation of school and education leaders. Policy frameworks that are accountable to genuinely support the management of the phenomenon cannot be developed in isolation or disconnected from lived experiences. Instead, researched, informed policy development entails a critical reflection on school and classroom contexts because that is where the implications of the phenomenon need to be effectively managed to minimise their impact on teachers and their students’ achievements. The policy language adopted by policy-developers and decision-makers can be of either detachment or compassion, where the latter will reflect a depth of understanding of the out-of-field teaching realities in the teaching and learning space, as well as educational accountability. Further, understanding the intertwined layers of meaning presented by out-of-field teaching is necessary if policies are to be fit-for-purpose and have a significant impact on the current situation. The view that “one-size-fits-all” school improvement policies will offer the same outcome in different contexts is far-fetched. The imperative role contextconsciousness plays underpins recognition of the ontological connection of the teacher with policies and context; specifically understanding and identifying what is happening is then able to structure the support, up-skilling and professional development of teachers in their specific out-of-field positions. A straightforward example is the misconception that out-of-field teaching practices cause less student learning dislodgment in primary schools in comparison with secondary schools and are therefore not an urgent education practice concern. Cooper and McIntyre (1994) have stressed that as the knowledgeable other, teachers play a determining role in developing students’ learning approaches and interest in subject fields and areas, regardless of students’ level of progress; misconceptions of this kind need to be discarded and their effects addressed. Earl (2005) has conceptualised teachers’ pedagogical accountability this way: It is a moral and professional responsibility to be knowledgeable and fair in teaching and in interaction with students and their parents. It engenders respect, trust, shared understanding and mutual support. (p. 7)

As students’ interest and passion for learning and their identities as learners develop from an early age, and since their foundational learning plays an essential role in their progression through their schooling, perceptions that unsuitably qualified and struggling teachers can be assigned, unsupported, to primary year levels needs to

322

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

be addressed by both teacher placement/utilisation policies and school improvement strategies that connect the teaching and learning space to positive school cultures and staff collaboration. School and educational leaders are obligated to develop policy frameworks that address the repercussions out-of-field teaching practices have for students’ futures.

11.4.1 The Link: Tertiary Institutions, Employers and Schools Collaboration between tertiary institutions, employers and teachers that embraces the concerns experienced by those engaged in these systemic sectors of the education workforce has the potential to benefit the direction of education workforce management. Dimmock and Walker (2005) have explained that positive social–interpersonal relationships between staff and leaders can change attitudes and dispositions in the teaching and learning environment. Policy frameworks that stimulate and offer opportunities for ITE educators, teachers and school leaders to enter into in-depth discussions about the different layers of experiences linked to the out-of-field teaching phenomenon can inform a greater understanding of teachers’—and particularly beginning teachers’—struggles in out-of-field positions. Such a platform of investigation could provide, for example, structured and consistent investigation of the multilayered factors (including those of the out-of-field phenomenon) involved in graduate teachers’ preparedness for their teaching responsibilities and early-career attrition (AITSL, 2016a, 2016b). Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of socio-interdependence in the learning environment emphasises the power of harnessing context-consciousness into the development of policy frameworks. Recognising socio-interdependence in the broader education forum can closely bind out-of-field teachers’ personal teaching experiences and their school leaders’ leadership skills, teaching assignment strategies, and out-of-field policy-development and support approaches together. Further, I argue that paying attention to the representation of fairness in the expectations that policies project has the potential to reframe and ethically situate issues of out-of-field teacher confidence, self-esteem, self-critique, trust, respect and professional identity that are currently victims of misunderstanding and ignorance. Policy frameworks developed to embrace strategies of interaction between the various systemic education entities, from ITE programme providers, schools as employers and members of the teaching workforce, must firstly acknowledge the real socio-interdependence of these sectors, and secondly provide a platform and framework for collaboration on workforce management concerns.

11.4 Policies Charged with Accountability

323

11.4.2 Teacher Performance Assessment: Fairness and Policies Questions about “one-size-fits-all” systemic teacher performance assessments, appraisal processes and achievement evaluations raise concerns about both fairness and ethics when such policies are applied uniformly to teachers suitably qualified for their positions and teachers assigned to out-of-field positions. Policies need to acknowledge the complexities out-of-field teachers face in order to properly address concerns about fair practices in relation to teacher appraisal policies, particularly in the light of research evidence that the majority of teachers take an out-of-field assignment because their school leaders asked them to fill it (Du Plessis et al., 2018). Further, teacher performance ratings that stem from standardised tests influence school leaders’ decisions about teachers’ future work contracts or job offers, placing these results firmly within the scope of equity. Gadamer’s philosophy of the hermeneutic circle (1976/2008) accentuates the development of deeper understanding via an acknowledgement of tradition, culture and history. The history of out-of-field teaching has been widely discussed in literature over the last decades. Assigning teachers to out-of-field positions is accepted as common practice and is condoned by the wider school and education community, despite its implications, because it is an acceptable quick-fix solution for pressing and unwieldy teaching workforce issues. The absence of policy frameworks to address teacher utilisation issues that result in out-of-field teaching assignments and the general acceptance of this practice in the education community create an environment of not noticing actions and decisions that, if appraised contextually, are unjust. The reality in both the teaching environment and for systemic educational leadership is that the unjust culture of out-of-field teaching has been part of education for a long time—whether it needs to remain unjust as it takes its part in education in the future depends on how it is addressed and managed now. As I have emphasised, not noticing out-of-field teachers’ challenges because of the historical culture of the phenomenon has resulted in a taken-for-granted culture about the implications of the phenomenon and how these affect quality education; in short, the results arising from the phenomenon either go unnoticed in schools or are misattributed to other causes. As empirical data demonstrate, where leaders’ perceptions are that a disruptive classroom is an initial sign that teachers are struggling and so turn their focus to immediate issues of student behaviour, the deeper reality that teachers may be experiencing difficulties managing out-of-field teaching positions and need the recognition and support of leaders and targeted policy structures can be overlooked. In addition, school leaders’ lack of in-depth understanding and admission of the impact of the phenomenon on teachers’ dispositions, behaviour and their classroom management strategies can stimulate teachers’ anxieties and feelings of burn-out, which intensify when they perceive their leaders as disconnected, unaware and not fully engaged in the challenges they experience in the classroom (Groundwater-Smith, Ewing, & Le Cornu, 2011). As one specialist teacher conceptualised:

324

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

They struggle, they do their best, but they felt stressed and burnt out and would not last the distance. (Field data: C2)

The development of teachers’ professional identity plays an influential role in their confidence as teachers and in the career choices they make, and Hobbs (2013) has underlined that out-of-field teaching positions constrain the development of a teacher’s professional identity and self-efficacy. When these appraisals impact teachers’ future career opportunities and contract possibilities, the fairness of assessing and evaluating teachers while they are assigned to out-of-field positions needs to be urgently examined. Well-designed school improvement policies need to address a culture of glossing over or ignoring the realities of out-of-field teaching. They should further confront misconceptions and misattribution through a clear understanding of the concerns and issues that exist within out-of-field teaching environments via frameworks that transform the way in which the out-of-field teaching phenomenon is both perceived and managed. As noted, contextual factors within the school context can pose significant challenges for teachers in out-of-field positions, especially if these challenges are not honestly and openly discussed and opportunities for sharing about teaching difficulties are not strategised. Du Plessis, Carroll and Gillies (2015) have shown that beginning teachers are more vulnerable to being utilised in positions for which they are not suitably qualified and, particularly in secondary schools, have a greater possibility of being assigned to the lower secondary classes no one else wants to teach that involve larger student cohorts and more challenging classes, and which a school leader acknowledged are the “hard yards” in a high school context (Field data: E3). This school leader admitted that it is common practice to assign beginning teachers to such classes, demonstrating an entrenched tendency by leadership to overlook the effects of a potent combination of teacher inexperience, unsuitable qualifications, and a complex and challenging situation on teachers and their students. Assessing a teacher in such a situation with the same framework that is used to assess the capability of an experienced teacher in their area of expertise does not acknowledge either the beginning teacher’s out-of-field status or the complexity of teaching a large or challenging class. Gadamer (1976/2008) has underlined that full understanding is not possible without some level of awareness of prejudice or pre-understanding (see Sect. 1.6) to stimulate the process of reasoning and align previous knowledge with new life experiences. Further, Gadamer’s (1976) notion of open interaction accommodates and appreciates the uniqueness of each person’s own “language” to enable understanding of their lived experiences. Open interaction can be defined as noticing, developing awareness of difficulties, listening attentively, and focusing on verbal and nonverbal communication. In this frame, I assert that the pre-understandings of education and school leaders about out-of-field classroom realities need to be acknowledged, and that policy-developers need to engage in open interaction with out-of-field teachers and other stakeholders (for example, parents) in order to resituate their thinking on these real-life experiences so they can develop policies, strategies and approaches that can genuinely impact the situation and provide support. The value of open interaction

11.4 Policies Charged with Accountability

325

lies in allowing it to create a space for developing an understanding of shortcomings and problem areas while it stimulates active engagement from stakeholders committed to developing a healthy school community. As I have described, higher levels of trust between teachers and parents improve open conversations between these parties and are linked to positive outcomes for school culture, such as increased “prosocial behaviour, decreased peer problems, and decreased total difficulties” (Santiago, Garbacz, Beattie, & Moore, 2016, p. 1013). In analysis, development and execution, policy needs to place value on open communication. Moreover, a commitment to understanding as a process rather than a one-off occurrence has the potential to develop a reflexive comprehension of teachers’ needs for support. Developing a full understanding of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon cannot be stagnant but needs to transform via context-consciousness according to changing contextual factors and needs. Policy structures that work in a certain outof-field context might not work in another out-of-field context. Both national and school improvement policy-makers need to consider the various contextual factors of the learning environment—for example, school and classroom diversity, student cohort size, the continuity of out-of-field exposure (for teachers and students) and other specific contextual lived experiences of teachers and students. Pre-examining specific scenarios and factors (via in-depth reflection) that add to out-of-field teaching challenges will affect how these challenges are noticed and accommodated within specific contexts. In addition, a policy consciousness that acknowledges the different levels of challenge and intensity that exist within in-field and out-of-field teachers’ classrooms can confront taken-for-granted imbalances in teacher performance appraisals. Policy can be equipped to create a safe environment for out-of-field teachers who feel vulnerable both because of the reality of what really happens in out-of-field classrooms and because they are constantly exposed to entrenched discrepancies between their own capacity and stakeholders’ expectations of education.

11.4.3 Beginning Teachers: Address Learning Needs Leaman (2006) has suggested that the lived experiences of the first 5 years of teaching influence teachers’ teaching future. As well, the way beginning teachers perceive their roles as teachers and their career objectives are influenced by their ITE programme preparation (Tamir, 2010). In the context of teachers’ intrinsic motivation for a teaching career, this combination of expectation and (in)experience validates the emphasis I have put on educational leaders’ careful reconsideration to develop education policies that will restrict the assignment of beginning teachers to out-offield positions, as their lived experiences in these positions can greatly influence their future in the teaching workforce. Beginning teachers need extra support during their formative teaching years, and I argue that what can be an already fragile situation for these teachers can easily get out of control when they are assigned to out-of-field positions and left without support (Du Plessis, 2019).

326

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

Research indicated that some school leaders were aware of this potentially negative intersection and noted concerns about out-of-field beginning teachers having issues with classroom management, with classrooms developing into dysfunctional learning environments that stimulated further social and behavioural issues. In light of this, I argue that workplace and workforce stability are only some of the issues directly influenced by the taken-for-granted dispositions of leadership when they assign beginning teachers to challenging out-of-field positions without developing fit-for-purpose policy frameworks as support resources. Schools are environments of continuous transformation—in pedagogies, curriculum requirements and demands from the social environment and its multicultural ethos—making it beneficial, if not essential, to have a stable, quality and strong teaching workforce in the workplace.

11.4.4 Accountability in STEM Out-of-Field Teaching Wienk (2016) has claimed that an already small mathematical sciences workforce is “ageing more rapidly than other STEM disciplines…due to a lack of younger people entering the mathematical workforce” (p. 33). Wienk’s report further claimed that more than half of the adult Australian population can only master basic numeracy skills. Other research which asserts that 75% of the fastest growing workforce areas in this century will require science, technology, engineering or mathematics skills (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2014) necessarily underpins concerns about these subjects being taught by suitably qualified teachers. The impact of teachers’ and school leaders’ pedagogical accountability is revealed in the current dilemmas being experienced in STEM education. The tradition of condoning the assignment of out-of-field teachers in STEM subject domains not only influences student achievements and outcomes in these areas but also students’ future interest in STEM domains. Lack of awareness of the cascade effects of the phenomenon on students’ learning experiences and futures shapes leaders’ engagement with their accountability and decisions regarding school improvement policies that could affect the STEM domain in their schools. Klieme (2018) has explained that teachers’ sound content knowledge affects their confidence to engage more continuous formative assessment during instruction, such as pop quizzes in mathematics, which stimulate student engagement and content discussions. Policy decisions about teacher placements in STEM domains impact not only students’ outcomes in these subjects but also influence how they apply concepts to the context in which they live, and how they internalise and see the value of the new knowledge introduced to them. As knowledgeable other, the teacher has the pedagogical accountability to guide students’ construction of knowledge according to students’ needs and the needs of society for a future workforce. Policy decisions that harm a subject reflect a disconnection between what really happens inside out-of-field classrooms and school leaders’ perception of their responsibilities. School leaders have autonomy to apply their teaching workforce according

11.4 Policies Charged with Accountability

327

to the needs within their school context and can assign teachers to positions they perceive as a best fit. However, when leaders are busy, disconnected and disengaged, they can be unaware of what these decisions mean for teachers who have restricted knowledge in STEM domain areas, with the result that schools are unable to provide students with stimulating and engaging teaching and learning in these areas. Even basic health and safety issues can become a concern in out-of-field classrooms if a teacher without domain knowledge has to manage experiments and practical work in science classes without the necessary understanding or qualifications. Moreover, teachers required to work with and take responsibility for students working with laboratory equipment without the required content and pedagogical content knowledge qualifications can become very anxious about engaging students in this kind of work. The absence of micro-education policies and thus the attention required to address to the impact of out-of-teaching practices on subjects with a substantial percentage of practical curriculum (such as STEM subjects, but other domains require practical work) makes the specific issues surrounding these out-of-field teaching situations more complex. Where these complexities include students’ safety and teachers’ accountability and consistency, concerns about students’ practical and engaged learning in STEM subjects run alongside issues of the school’s duty of care and pedagogical accountability in teacher placement. Critical insights from research into out-of-field teachers’ lifeworlds reveal the intensity of these teachers’ dispositions and emotional experiences that affect their capacity to manage their classrooms, student behaviour and professional interrelationships while they are concurrently exposed to their own and others’ unrealistic expectations. The current global focus on strategies and policies to improve students achievement and interest in STEM domains overlooks the implications out-of-field teaching practices have for these efforts and sets aside the reality that without attention to the effects of the phenomenon in STEM, school improvement policies in this area will continue to struggle to accomplish the anticipated outcomes. The absence of a structure for continuous critical reassessment of school improvement policies that shows context-consciousness results in restricted validation of micro-education policies to transform concerns about quality within the STEM field. School leaders who are entrenched in misunderstandings about the realities of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon will very likely continue to rely on out-of-field teaching as quick-fix staffing solution. Without micro-education policies that effectively support, guide and resource out-of-field teachers in STEM subjects, the phenomenon will continue to negatively influence students’ interest in these subject domains and create disadvantages for students’ learning in these critical fields. Furthermore, education and school leaders who have responsibility and control regarding decision-making processes and development strategies for teacher utilisation need awareness of the issues in the field that will need to be managed or addressed by policies that attend out-of-field placements in STEM areas. Hattingh, Aldous, and Rogan (2007) have emphasised that successful strategies to innovate and improve the quality of teaching and learning depend on teacher factors, student factors, school leadership and physical resources. Policies, strategies and frameworks that aim to improve STEM subject domains need to reflect a clear understanding of the what

328

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

out-of-field teaching practices in these fields mean for teachers, students, school leaders and the effective use of resources if they are to successfully address STEM concerns.

11.4.5 Accountability Towards at Risk/Vulnerable Students Misconceptions and a lack of acknowledgement about the real effects of out-offield teaching practices result in complex learning challenges for vulnerable and at-risk students. Education departments already put additional financial and physical resources in place to support at-risk students’ specific learning needs. I argue that there is a conceptual gap in the understanding of the intersection between at-risk learners and out-of-field teaching that needs to be closed by school improvement policies. Carroll et al. (2006) have emphasised the impact of social factors on students with existing complex, challenging and fragile emotional and behavioural selfcontrol. Research (Du Plessis, 2014) shows, firstly, that these students’ development and learning regress when they find themselves in the classroom of an out-of-field teacher who does not cope, and secondly, that in these unstable teaching and learning environments, students become anxious and their behaviour can become even more challenging. Data show that without suitable frameworks to include the out-of-field situation in the reckoning, these situations can result in the student taking the blame for the dysfunctionality in the classroom (see Sects. 5.5.1.5, 6.5.1, 6.5.3 and 7.3). Schools are accountable for the learning needs of all students. School improvement policies that focus on the management of social factors to create learning cultures that benefit all students reflect a socially just learning environment. Classrooms that do not offer an environment where students feel accommodated and safe can create complexities that some students find it difficult to adjust to. Context-consciousness is the pivot for the development of effective school improvement policies that attend to the needs of at-risk or vulnerable learners. Frameworks can ensure vulnerable learners are assigned to more experienced and suitably qualified teachers’ classrooms, or can strategise close observations of teachers and at-risk students in out-of-field classrooms to ensure that teachers and students cope.

11.5 Recommendations The micro-education policy recommendations contained in this section have been developed from the evidence gathered through international research (Du Plessis, 2014, 2017, 2019), and I offer a micro-education policy development model (MEPmodel) as a framework for structuring decisions and constructing tailored policies that reflect context-consciousness. The strong structure of the model for the recommendations makes the specific factors discussed in this book more accessible

11.5 Recommendations

329

for context-conscious policy development. The MEP model (see Fig. 11.1) is situated on a deep context-consciousness that binds policy development to a continuous cycle of four major approaches, namely, noticing, knowing, acting and reconsidering. The issues that need to be addressed, managed or supported are often difficult to logically order because they are deeply intertwined. The MEP model is therefore built to illuminate through these approaches, which extend via concepts of awareness, investigation, acknowledgement, context-conscious action and reconsideration. Micro-education policies can offer a personal (i.e., context-conscious) touch to the careful management of the global issue of out-of-field teaching. Few schools have strategies or policy frameworks in place to manage the complexity of issues and experiences that develop because of the implications the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on teachers’ and students’ achievements. The MEP model supports and resources a focus on the value of human capital, their lived experiences and on finding the most suitable processes to manage their specific school and classroom contexts. Tailored micro-education policies support a leadership philosophy of “growing people” (see Fig. 11.1) and acknowledge the leadership responsibility that “we need to equip you,” which forms the foundation of effective school improvement and support resources. Hattingh and Lillejord (2005) have noted that transformation happens from within institutions such as schools when dispositions of ownership develop a collaborative and active engagement that enables sustainable change. The MEP model discussed in this section sets out recommendations for micro-education policy frameworks that will support the reassessment of existing policies for their adjustment, and proposes new policy structures designed to address issues of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon with a focus on supporting the improvement of teaching and

WORKFORCE CULTURE Value human capital Acknowledge expectations Regulate exposure Negotiate teaching positions Provide professional development Address misconceptions

BUILD ON NEED ANALYSES

SCHOOL CULTURE Open communication Teacher well-being, awareness and care Professional interrelationships Collaboration and mentoring frameworks Support, feedback, growing expert teachers

A) SYSTEMIC POLICY DISCOURSE Student achievement Teacher performance Decisions based on empirical evidence

THE CULTURE OF BEING A TEACHER Professional identity Self-efficacy, confidence and satisfaction Teachers’ status and image Intrinsic motivation

MICRO-EDUCATION POLICIES CONTEXT-CONSCIOUS AT SCHOOL LEVEL

B) LEADERS’ PEDAGOGICAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND AUTONOMY Noticing Acknowledgement Action

POLICIES AS TAILORED SUPPORT AND RESOURCE INSTRUMENTS

CLASSROOM CULTURE Active instruction time Teaching quality and passion Teacher ownership of content, pedagogies and assessment processes Student learning needs: diversity and behaviour Parent engagement

Fig. 11.1 Micro-education policy development model (MEP model)

330

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

learning outcomes. The MEP model in Fig. 11.1 highlights the interconnectedness of education factors with education reform, and describes the effect tailored microeducation policies can have on education. Although developed to effectively manage the implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on quality teaching and learning, the model is applicable to the everydayness of schooling. The MEP model embraces concerns, and the need to address these concerns, beyond just providing timely support; rather, it goes deeper, towards noticing, knowing and acting. Policies developed from the model can lead to the development of a structure that forms a clearer bridge (or alignment) between national, state and local school policies. Ensuring a close alignment of micro-education policies at school level with macro-education system policy frameworks would enhance effective implementation of policies and would allow complex situations to be catered for in different contexts. Alignment of these two policy spaces regarding the management of the out-of-field phenomenon will create a unified policy space that supports those involved (teachers, school leaders and educational leaders at systemic level) to engage in collaborative decision-making. The discourse of policy frameworks is then part of the support resources that embrace strategies at a micro-level. Via this model, education policies can demonstrate a context-conscious lens on the implications the out-of-field teaching phenomenon has, for example, within a specific school, for a specific student cohort, for beginning teachers, for teacher performance assessments, for student and teacher well-being and lived experience, and for what these mean for their identity development.

11.5.1 Paying Attention to the Primary and Secondary School “Divide” While the teaching focus in secondary schools is on the quality of content knowledge, deep learning and integrated concept construction, the focus in primary schools is the fundamental development of concepts within a learning environment that is embedded in a pastoral duty. Research has demonstrated that the results of the phenomenon in both environments impact teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. The impact of the out-of-field phenomenon is therefore detrimental for both environments, and issues need to be structurally and contextually addressed by school leaders in policy frameworks designed for each context. Yet, first, educational and school leaders need to acknowledge and reevaluate the entrenched opinion that out-of-field teaching practices have fewer implications in primary schools than in secondary schools. School improvement policies need to carefully guide the placement of out-of-field teachers not only in specific subjects but also in specific year levels. Out-of-field teachers’ complicated and tough teaching demands and classrooms can rapidly transform into spaces that fuel anxiety and tension, with implications for quality teaching (see Sects. 2.7 and 6.4), and their feelings of not being good enough stimulate feelings of isolation and guilt, with implications for their professional

11.5 Recommendations

331

identity as teachers. Teachers’ lived experiences, professional interrelationships and support needs can be mirrored in micro-education policy frameworks in the way that these policies demonstrate acknowledgement, awareness, recognition and negotiation of the challenges out-of-field teachers experience and how teachers’ agency is resourced within the different contexts of primary and secondary schools. The pressure to maintain quality teaching and learning in spite of the out-of-field phenomenon is considerable, and alleviating it should be the main objective for policy development that targets the well-being and feelings of burn-out evident in out-of-field teaching environments. Workforce utilisation policies that, for example, regulate teacher exposure to out-of-field positions and those that resource and support teachers in their specific positions to develop into experts in these new fields can be crafted to address various situations directly. The continuous moving of teachers from one out-of-field teaching position to another must be addressed through policies. Research indicates that it takes out-of-field teachers 3 to 5 years to develop expertise in these subjects (Du Plessis, 2014); I argue that continuous exposure to the anxiety and workload of changing out-of-field teaching creates interwoven complexities in primary and secondary schools that reach to student learning outcomes, teacher exhaustion and workforce attrition. Reflecting on the practice of evaluating teachers while they are assigned to outof-field positions stimulates questions about leadership and policy understanding of out-of-field teaching experiences at both school and national level. Conducting teacher performance appraisals and evaluations while teachers are assigned to outof-field positions without acknowledgement that they are functioning an out-of-field position needs to be viewed as an unfair labour practice, since it is known that teachers cannot perform at their expert best under such conditions. Recognition of the impact of the out-of-field phenomenon on teacher achievement as well as student achievement needs to be prioritised via future research that focuses on statistical information and structures intervention with the out-of-field phenomenon to empirically assess outcomes (e.g., teacher, teaching, student and school outcomes) as a dependent variable. It is further recommended that teacher performance assessments for out-of-field teachers are strategised around feedback mechanisms that offer teachers in these positions opportunities to reflect on their teaching practices through a different lens, to communicate lived experiences, issues and difficulties, and to describe their unique needs and requirements for additional support. Micro-education policy frameworks that acknowledge the complexities out-offield teachers in primary and secondary schools experience can reflect appreciation for the specific needs that are presented in these contexts. Teachers and students’ lived experiences in primary and secondary schools should be the compass for the construction of policy structures that provide out-of-field teachers in these different contexts and positions with the sense of legitimacy and recognition that will bolster their professional identity and confidence. No school context is more important that another. The reality of quality teaching and the impact it has on students’ learning experiences and achievements is underlined by the important connection between the foundation of quality knowledge construction in primary schools and that of deep

332

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

learning in secondary schools, which together move students towards subject-specific knowledge construction for life.

11.5.2 Improved Communication Frameworks: Strategised Connectedness and Engagement School leaders’ lack of awareness of out-of-field teachers’ real-life experiences and difficulties mean that restricted trust relationships develop between these teachers and their school leaders. The hesitation of out-of-field teachers to share their truths further influences school leaders’ perceptions about the level of support teachers in these positions require. Strategising improved communication frameworks that encourage communication will improve a. recognition of out-of-field teaching teacher assignments in schools; b. consultation between out-of-field teachers and school leaders to provide teachers with reassurance that leaders are aware of and understand the complexities of their teaching and learning spaces; c. construction of open communication channels for structured feedback opportunities where teachers can describe their specific needs for support; d. construction of information channels for school community understanding of the phenomenon and its feedback (and those for healthy teacher–parent professional interrelationships) and e. commitment to tailored support and development programmes for out-of-field teachers. By giving priority to open interaction, these strategies and frameworks can prevent perceptions that school leaders are unaware of the difficulties and challenges that develop in the teaching and learning environments because of the out-of-field phenomenon. Specifically, out-of-field teachers’ dissatisfaction with leadership styles and skills is reportedly caught up in their professional needs being misunderstood, overlooked, dismissed, glossed over, mismanaged or ignored. Research evidence shows that school leaders’ attention to supporting the development of interpersonal relationships with out-of-field teachers improves trust relationships (Du Plessis, 2014; Du Plessis et al., 2018). It is recommended that leaders allocate specific time for one-on-one discussions with out-of-field teachers; these discussions should aim to build trust relationships and need to respect out-of-field teachers’ right to confidentiality. Only then will school leaders receive the full picture of the extent of these teachers’ classroom challenges and teaching complexities. Various types of communication channels can be opened up within a structured framework of micro-education policies best suited for the specific context.

11.5 Recommendations

11.5.2.1

333

Assignment Consultation or Workforce Utilisation

Assignment consultation between school leaders and teachers about school workforce utilisation requirements needs to form part of school management policies about out-of-field teaching before teachers are assigned to unfamiliar or out-of-field subjects. Teachers in out-of-field positions shared that they often realise for the first time that they will be responsible for out-of-field subjects when they receive their term timetables. Rogers (2011) has noted that teachers with an interest in a topic show enthusiasm, active involvement and concern about students’ progress, assisting them with the effort of teaching and keeping students captured and engaged. Open communication between leaders and teachers prior to teacher assignments, placements and/or subject allocations would give leaders an opportunity to make more advantageous and connected placement decisions via negotiation with teachers about their fields of passion or interest. Assignment or placement consultation could involve strategies such as a. b. c. d. e.

leaders being open about their needs analyses for workforce utilisation; leaders connecting to teachers’ strengths, weaknesses, passions and interests; parties making joint decisions via negotiation; teachers giving informed agreement and parties committing to support strategies for out-of-field assignments.

11.5.2.2

School and Classroom Context Appraisals

As part of the framework of context-consciousness, school policies need to be in place to assess classrooms for factors that contribute to the development of complex and challenging classroom management situations, such as large student cohorts and the proportion of students with diverse learning needs and/or language challenges. As noted, challenging student behaviour is often part of out-of-field teaching and learning environments because uncertain out-of-field teachers tend to hesitate rather than proactively deal with student behaviour, and students know when their teachers are imposters. Unregulated student behaviour incidences discompose classroom climates and deteriorate trust relationships between out-of-field teachers and their students when inconsistent or ineffective management of behaviour subsequently impacts the learning and development of the whole class. Trying to manage these challenges on their own while being judged as inadequate leaves teachers feeling trapped. Part of the classroom dysfunctionality or chaos for out-of-field teachers is feeling unsupported and unacknowledged while functioning in an environment without policy frameworks that are connected to the realities in the classroom. Structures that firstly acknowledge these extra contextual challenges and secondly ensure communication channels remain open (and which have support resources on the other end of them) will undergird the intrinsic motivation and determination of teachers to carry on and succeed.

334

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

Current practices for standardised tests give no exceptions or recognition for students taught by out-of-field teachers, or those students taught by unsuitably qualified teachers for consecutive year levels—as happens in certain school contexts such as rural and remote schools. Students who have been learning in classrooms with out-of-field teachers sit exactly the same standardised tests as those students taught by specialist teachers. Since teaching and learning quality as well as classroom climate are affected by out-of-field teaching, I recommend that school leaders’ decisions regarding the development of micro-education policies for school improvement need to address the specific difficulties out-of-field teachers experience with classroom management strategies and approaches and how these micro-policies can work to improve teachers’ confidence, ownership and control in classrooms. Identifying the teacher’s coping style (via deliberate contextual application of connectedness and needs analysis) needs to ground what actions are made to support the teacher’s growth while prioritising student learning (see Fig. 11.1).

11.5.2.3

Recognition of Increased Workload

Out-of-field teachers admit that it takes them twice or sometimes five times as long to plan, prepare and develop suitable resources for lessons in out-of-field subjects. Teachers responsible for subjects in the area or field for which they are qualified admit that they sometimes need to neglect planning and preparing in their specialist subject to cope with the demands of their out-of-field subject (Du Plessis et al., 2018). Compounding this, teachers are often made aware of out-of-field subject responsibilities on short notice. I recommend that micro-education policies ensure that teachers in out-of-field teaching positions have sufficient time to acquire the new content and pedagogical content knowledge that they need before the commencement of their out-of-field positions, not least in consideration of the requirements of teacher professional standards that teachers have a sound subject knowledge. Micro-education policies can ensure that teachers are required to receive detailed information of the classes they will be teaching when they arrive at a school and if they are required to teach in out-of-field positions. It is further recommended that micro-education policies address the prominent need of out-of-field teachers for consistent, structured and content-targeted collaboration and mentoring frameworks. These frameworks are most valuable for out-of-field teachers when provided within a one-on-one discussion model.

11.5.2.4

Awareness of Differences: Action to Manage the Impact of the Phenomenon on Students

Awareness of the differences in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms in comparison with specialist teachers’ classrooms can inform the development of tailored microeducation policies for improvement and support. Ontological evidence shows that

11.5 Recommendations

335

specialist teachers demonstrate a more balanced approach to learning, engaging students in a variety of learning styles including structured debates and discussions. Hattie (2003) has stated that teachers’ efficacy greatly influences student achievement (by up to 30%). It is recommended that micro-education policies reflect recognition of the impact of out-of-field teaching practices on students’ development, achievement and outcomes, particularly in rural contexts where this can occur over consecutive years. Further research about the relationship between the out-of-field teaching phenomenon and students’ short- and long-term suspension records also needs to be undertaken with the out-of-field phenomenon as a variable. It is important to note that there are currently no formal policies for national standardised tests processes to acknowledge the impact of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on students’ development or the quality of teachers’ teaching. Yet the outcomes of standardised student achievement tests not only offer information on individual students’ results but are also used to reflect on teachers’ effectiveness and the quality of their teaching. Lingard et al. (2003) have noted the importance of teacher confidence and connectedness in the classroom; the value of well-managed teaching and learning environment is reflected in the quality of student achievements, a truth that attends the expectations of the school community. School leaders’ decisions in the development of school improvement policies need to include open communication frameworks that will engender awareness about the situation and support students in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms to cope with teachers’ developing teaching styles. Further, I recommend that both students’ and teachers’ performance and achievement results are sensitively mitigated and given context in the eyes of stakeholders by active management of the phenomenon. This entails school leaders having insight into the interdependence of the contextual performance factors linked to the phenomenon and what the phenomenon means for “the truths” standardised test results reflect, as well as how creating a contextual frame for standardised tests can be developed to offer balanced perspectives that enhance quality education and the connectedness of education to workforce needs in the eyes of the community.

11.5.2.5

Acknowledgement and Protection Frameworks for Teachers

This book emphasises that teaching and learning do not happen in a vacuum but are processes intertwined within the social–cultural environment; the success of teaching and learning is supported by an approach of context-consciousness that acknowledges and respects the contextual factors at play in a specific learning environment. What happens inside out-of-field classrooms affects teachers, and out-of-field teachers admit that they often feel vulnerable and exposed. Their vulnerability is linked to perceptions of the quality of the teaching they offer and the impact their restricted knowledge has on student outcomes. Out-of-field teachers describe that they feel anxious about the scrutiny that accompanies their teaching and that enlivened by published effectiveness outcomes; these teachers fear that they will be exposed and compared to their suitably qualified colleagues through standardised tests (such as NAPLAN in Australia) that are made public.

336

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

In addition to results and achievements, the classroom climate reflects a teachers’ confidence and effectiveness to develop and construct trust and respect relationships with students and parents and demonstrates an image of the teacher that reaches other interpersonal relationships within the school community. Dysfunctional and disruptive learning and teaching spaces not only impact the image of the school as successful but also influence the image of teachers and school leaders as effective practitioners. Gillies and Boyle (2008) have noted that a classroom should represent an inclusive space in which effective meaning-making can freely occur and where new knowledge is collaboratively constructed through students’ social actions and understanding. School leaders need to step in and provide intense support for out-offield teachers until they are confident to take ownership of the unfamiliar subject and the teaching and learning environment. Emphasis needs to be placed on having policies in place to offer proactive support for teachers and give them strategies to stop the development of potential problems before they start to impact the classroom culture and the teacher’s professional image. Well-developed policies and frameworks to effectively manage incidences in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms can prevent the development of community perceptions that reflect dissatisfaction and distrust with schools.

11.5.2.6

Action and Support Frameworks for Beginning Teachers

Policy frameworks need to confront early attrition and turnover rates by protecting beginning teachers from being assigned to challenging out-of-field positions without suitable support while they are still inexperienced. Empirical evidence about the effects of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on beginning teachers points to the need for specific strategies and frameworks need to be developed to assist beginning teachers to effectively manage the implications of the phenomenon on their confidence, their teaching and their students. Where micro-education policies reflect leaders’ understanding and awareness of the challenges beginning teachers deal with (in general and while out-of-field), the phenomenon can be managed so that it becomes a positive challenge for teachers developing their professional identities. Attention needs to be paid to a. the size of student cohorts beginning teachers in out-of-field teaching positions have to manage; b. the number of out-of-field subjects a beginning teacher has to manage; c. the stability of the assignment, or ensuring the teacher has the same subject for at least 3 years to give them the opportunity to genuinely develop expertise and knowledge in that area; d. the size of beginning teachers’ loads (cognitive, emotional, social and teaching work) when they are assigned to out-of-field positions; e. negotiating out-of-field positions with beginning teachers to direct teachers with an existing area of interest to the required position and f. structured access to induction and mentoring opportunities.

11.5 Recommendations

337

This kind of teacher utilisation depends on policy frameworks being established in schools that both match teachers to teaching opportunities and allow teachers to stay in the position for at least 3 or more years to develop their expertise and solidify a successful professional identity.

11.5.2.7

Systemic and School Policies for Professional Support

Research has shown that out-of-field teachers’ success in managing and coping in their out-of-field positions is strongly linked to the professional support they receive (Du Plessis, 2014; Du Plessis et al., 2018). Alongside frameworks that acknowledge a minimum 3-year development process for out-of-field positions, policies which give teachers opportunities to engage in well-designed professional learning and development programmes that focus on retraining and upskilling have the potential to develop out-of-field teachers into specialists in these fields. These policies need to offer a structured, integrated and consistent framework for professional support, however, since inconsistent support efforts demotivate teachers rather than encourage them. I recommend that decisions involving professional development processes and material require context-conscious research to ensure tailored support. Micro-education policy frameworks and an action commitment to implement them consistently can have a significant impact on how out-of-field teachers cope with the challenges in out-of-field classrooms. Well-thought through and consistently implemented school policies can support these teachers to confidently take ownership and effectively manage their classroom situations. When difficulty in taking control of the teaching and learning environment undermines out-of-field teachers’ confidence, self-esteem and image of being the knowledgeable/informed other, policies to assist them need to be targeted to assist teachers’ confidence. It is recommended that teachers assigned to out-of-field teaching positions receive a higher level of walk-in support visits from school leaders, or classroom observations from colleagues with timely feedback provided, and that they are also given the opportunity to visit and observe specialist teachers’ classrooms. The main focus should be on providing support and timely feedback so that out-of-field teachers have the means to rectify issues before they develop into unmanageable teaching and learning challenges. DarlingHammond (2010) found that students “…are very observant” (p. 65) and know when their teachers are inexperienced or unsuitably qualified, and that this affects how they respond to their teachers. This finding underlines the value of effectively developing out-of-field teachers’ skills as quickly as possible through strategies that include focused, one-on-one interactions and mentoring. The empirical evidence presented in this book informs these recommendations, and truths from the field underline the importance of constructing structures and frameworks for out-of-field teachers as a safety and support net to effectively manage inevitably challenging and complex teaching positions. The purpose of microeducation policy frameworks is to ensure that teachers and their students are valued in the teaching and learning community that develops students as citizens of the future. Positive and well-supported teaching and learning environments improve student

338

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

progress (Hattie, 2009) and offer an environment where teachers and students can conduct their learning activities with confidence.

11.6 Conclusions The book supports and challenges educational and school leaders to review existing policies and to develop new policies so that frameworks recognise and acknowledge the out-of-field phenomenon and prioritise support for its management. Welldesigned policy frameworks to effectively manage the phenomenon will not only improve the quality of teaching in these classrooms but will also address concerns in the teaching workforce about teacher attrition, retention and turnover. The careful and deliberate transformation of out-of-field teachers’ outlooks is apparent in environments that value these teachers’ experiences, understanding, awareness and communication needs and display supportive strategies and structures that sustain their dispositions. A critical reflection is urgently required on the absence of policies that acknowledge or are connected to the specific implications of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon for teaching and learning. The out-of-field experience impacts the effectiveness of schools as comprehensive learning environments. Yet, denial of the realities of the phenomenon means that the effects it has on education for those in classrooms, across the scope of teaching and learning, and for systemic issues of social justice and fair labour practices for teachers in out-of-field positions, are being ignored. Misunderstandings and misconceptions about the lived experiences of out-of-field teachers mean that there is currently no agreement in policies and structures to place out-of-field teachers in equitable comparison with their suitably qualified colleagues. In addition, the well-being of teachers and students needs policy support from their health and safety in certain classroom contexts to the stress-related issues research has identified that develop in out-of-field classrooms—particularly when it is clear that a link can be drawn between these complex teaching situations and teacher stress, absenteeism, turnover and attrition (Du Plessis, 2014; Du Plessis et al., 2018). Arnold (2005) has emphasised that teacher skills and competence influence student enthusiasm and engagement, and that effective learning and teaching happen in a space where education role-players demonstrate alignment with each other’s needs. Concerns about the influence of the out-of-field teaching phenomenon on teacher and student performance and behaviour uncover an urgent need for further research about the significant influence of out-of-field teachers on students’ responses to learning and the development of behaviour challenges, particularly when at-risk students’ lived experiences in out-of-field teachers’ classrooms can have crushing outcomes for these vulnerable learners. Governments and education departments make provision for extensive physical and financial resources to support at-risk students and those with specific learning needs. Even so, it appears as if school improvement policies do not ensure that these students are not exposed to teaching and learning environments that exacerbate their

11.6 Conclusions

339

difficulties and challenges, even though these situations have the potential make the additional efforts to support these students come undone. Slabbert and Hattingh (2006) have shared that there is “…little that is more fundamental than caring in education” (p. 706), and I emphasise the need to reflect on and transform the discourse of micro-education policies into a model of support and resource (see Fig. 11.1). The skills and styles of school leadership in connecting to and managing the implications and lived experiences of out-of-field teaching situations can have a significant effect on the success of these complex classrooms, stimulating critical reflection on how suitable policy frameworks can be created to undergird leaders for both awareness and support. Critical reflection on leaders’ decisions and the impact these have on teachers’ career decisions (Du Plessis et al., 2018) must also involve a careful reassessment of existing policies and how these policies can be transformed to reflect and encourage context-conscious understanding and action. I emphasise again the danger of policies that reflect the approach identified by Bates (2013) as “improvement strategies [which] objectify teachers as workforce and children as statistics” (p. 51). Education improvement efforts and strategies cannot afford to lose focus and connectedness to the ontological as well as the specific pedagogical needs of its valuable human capital. If education systems and educational leaders want to develop a stable, satisfied and quality teaching workforce and improve teacher retention, attention is due to the development of tailored micro-education policies for schools to effectively manage the epidemic out-of-field teaching phenomenon. A well-placed teacher opens a child’s vision to the future. A. E. Du Plessis

References Arnold, R. (2005). Empathic intelligence: Teaching, learning, relating. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press. Australian Institute for Teachers and School Leadership. (2016a). Guidelines for the accreditation of initial teacher education programs in Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Author. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/ guidance-for-the-accreditation-of-initial-teacher-education-in-australia.pdf?sfvrsn=caf1ec3c_0. Australian Institute for Teachers and School Leadership. (2016b). Spotlight: What do we know about early career teachers attrition rates in Australia? Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/ default-source/research-evidence/spotlight/spotlight_ite_online__.pdf?sfvrsn=22a8f73c_2. Bates, A. (2013). Transcending systems thinking in education reform: Implications for policymakers and school leaders. Journal of Education Policy, 28(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02680939.2012.684249. Bauer, N. (2011, September 21). South Africa desperate for skilled teachers. Mail & Guardian. Retrieved from https://mg.co.za/article/2011-09-21-south-africa-desperate-for-skilled-teachers. Bell, L. (1991). Approaches to the professional development of teachers. In L. Bell & C. Day (Eds.), Managing the professional development of teachers (pp. 3–22). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1994). Introduction: Language and relationship to language in the teaching situation. In P. Bourdieu, J. C. Passeron, & M. S. Martin (Eds.) and R. Teese (Trans.), Academic discourse: Linguistic misunderstanding and professorial power (pp. 1–34). Cambridge, UK: Policy Press.

340

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

Buchanan, J. (2010). May I be excused? Why teachers leave the profession. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30(2), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791003721952. Buckingham, J. (2014). Snapshot: School funding on a budget (Target 30 Papers). Sydney, Australia: The Centre for Independent Studies. Retrieved from https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2015/ 07/t30.09-snapshot.pdf. Carroll, A., Houghton, S., Taylor, M., West, J., & List-Kerz, M. (2006). Responses to interpersonal and physically provoking situations: The utility and application of an observation schedule for school-aged students with and without deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 26(4), 483–498. Cleaver, D., & Ballantyne, J. (2014). Teachers’ views of constructivist theory: A qualitative study illuminating relationships between epistemological understand and music teaching practice. International Journal of Music Education, 32(2), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0255761413508066. Clifton, R., & Burnett, A. (2018, February 22). Teachers education must rise above political correctness. The World University Rankings. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ opinion/teacher-education-must-rise-above-political-correctness. Cooper, P., & McIntyre, D. (1994). Teachers’ and pupils’ perceptions of effective classroom learning: Conflicts and commonalities. In M. Hughes (Ed.), Perceptions of teaching and learning (pp. 66– 79). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. den Brok, P., Wubbels, T., & van Tartwijk, J. (2017). Exploring beginning teachers’ attrition in the Netherlands. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23(8), 881–895. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13540602.2017.1360859. Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (2005). Educational leadership: Culture and diversity. London, UK: SAGE. Du Plessis, A. (2014). Understanding the out-of-field teaching experience (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:330372. Du Plessis, A. (2017). Out-of-field teaching: What educational leaders need to know. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers. Du Plessis, A. (2019). Professional support beyond initial teacher education: Pedagogical Discernment and the influence of out-of-field teaching practices. Singapore: Springer. Du Plessis, A. E., Carroll, A., & Gillies, R. M. (2015). Understanding the lived experiences of novice out-of-field teachers in relation to school leadership practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(1), 4–21. Du Plessis, A. E., Hoang, N., Wang, J., Schmidt, A., Mertens, L., Cullinan, M., & Cameron, V. (2018). Invest in the future of education: Building a stable and quality beginning teacher workforce. Critical factors for reform: Evidence from the field (Research report). Australian Catholic University. Brisbane, QLD: Australia. Earl, L. (2005). From accounting to accountability: Harnessing data for school improvement. Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from ACEReSearch http://research.acer. edu.au/research_conference>2005/8. Ekstedt, M., & Fagerberg, I. (2005). Lived experiences of the time preceding burnout. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 49(1), 59–67. Ewing, R., & Manuel, J. (2005). Retaining quality early career teachers in the profession: New teacher narratives. Change: Transformations in Education, 8(1), 1–16. Gadamer, H. (1975). Truth and method (2nd ed., J. C. B. Mohr, Trans.). New York, NY: The Seabury Press. Gadamer, H. (1976/2008). Philosophical hermeneutics (D. Linge, Ed. & Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gallant, A., & Riley, P. (2014). Early career teacher attrition: New thoughts on an intractable problem. Teacher Development, 18(4), 562–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2014.945129.

References

341

Gillies, R., & Boyle, M. (2008). Teachers’ discourse during cooperative learning and their perceptions of this pedagogical practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1333–1348. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.10.003. Groundwater-Smith, S., & Campbell, A. (2010). Joining the dots: Connecting inquiry and professional learning. In A. Campbell & S. Groundwater-Smith (Eds.), Connecting inquiry and professional learning in education: International perspectives and practical solutions (pp. 200–206). London, UK: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Groundwater-Smith, S., Ewing, R. A., & Le Cornu, R. J. (2011). Teaching: Challenges & dilemmas. Melbourne, Australia: Cengage Learning Australia. Hallam, S., & Ireson, J. (1999). Pedagogy in the secondary school. In P. Mortimore (Ed.), Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning (pp. 68–97). London, UK: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. Hardy, I. (2012). The politics of teacher professional development: Policy, research and practice. London, UK: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Retrieved from ACEReSearch website: https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context= research_conference_2003. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge. Hattingh, A., & Lillejord, S. (2005). Productive learning cultures: An African-Norwegian collaboration balancing academic quality with substantial support. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 8(1), 99–110. Hattingh, A., Aldous, C., & Rogan, J. (2007). Some factors influencing the quality of practical work in science classrooms. African Journal of Research in SMT Education, 11(1), 75–90. Hobbs, L. (2013). Teaching “out-of-field” as a boundary-crossing event: Factors shaping teacher identity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 271–297. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9333-4. Hong, J. (2012). Why do some beginning teachers leave the school, and others stay? Understanding teacher resilience through psychological lenses. Teachers and Teaching, 18(4), 417–440. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.696044. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training. (2007). Top of the class: Report on the inquiry into teacher education. Canberra, Australia: House of Representatives Publishing Unit. Howes, M., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2015). Teachers’ career decisions: Perspectives on choosing teaching careers, and on staying or leaving. Issues in Educational Research, 25(1), 18–35. Ireson, J., Mortimore, P., & Hallam, S. (1999). The common strands of pedagogy and their implications. In P. Mortimore (Ed.), Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning (pp. 212–232). London, UK: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. Johnson, L. (2011). Teaching outside the box: How to grab your students by their brains. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Klieme, E. (2018). Teacher quality: Theoretical foundations, effectiveness studies, and crossnational compassion. Paper presented at the World Education Research Association (WERA), Cape Town, South Africa. Lingard, B., Hayes, D., Mills, M., & Christie, P. (2003). Leading learning: Making hope practical in schools. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Leaman, L. (2006). The naked teacher: How to survive your first five years in teaching. London, UK: Continuum International Publishing Group. Loughran, J. (2010). What expert teachers do: Enhancing professional knowledge for classroom practice. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Mason, S., & Poyatos Matas, C. (2015). Teacher attrition and retention research in Australia: Towards a new theoretical framework. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(11). https:// doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n11.3.

342

11 Policy Development: A Process of Reflection …

Mayer, D., Mitchell, J., Macdonald, D., & Bell, R. (2005). Professional standards for teachers: A case study of professional learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 159–179. McKenzie, P., Weldon, P., Rowley, G., Murphy, M., & McMillan, J. (2014). Staff in Australia’s schools 2013: Main report on the survey 2014. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/ system/files/doc/other/sias_2013_main_report.pdf. Milburn, C. (2011). More teachers, but fewer staying the course. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from https://www.smh.com.au/education/more-teachers-but-fewer-staying-thecourse-20110304-1bhuv.html. Niel, P., & Morgan, C. (2003). Continuing professional development for teachers: From induction to senior management. London, UK: Kogan Page Limited. Office of the Chief Scientist. (2014). Science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Australia’s future. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. Queensland College of Teachers. (2013). Attrition of recent Queensland graduate teachers: Report. Retrieved from https://www.qct.edu.au/pdf/Retention_Research_Report_RP01.pdf. Rogers, B. (2011). Classroom behaviour: A practical guide to effective teaching, behaviour management and colleague support. London, UK: SAGE Publications. Santiago, R., Garbacz, A., Beattie, T., & Moore, C. (2016). Parent-teacher relationships in elementary school: An examination of parent-teacher trust. Psychology in the Schools, 53(10), 1003–1017. Sieberer-Nagler, K. (2016). Effective classroom-management and positive teaching. English Language Teaching, 9(1), 163–172. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n1p163. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2014). What makes for powerful classrooms, and how can we support teachers in creating them? A story of research and practice, productively intertwined. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 404–412. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x14554450. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411. Slabbert, J., & Hattingh, A. (2006). “Where is the post-modern truth we have lost in reductionist knowledge?” A curriculum’s epitaph. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(6), 701–718. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00220270600608023. Sullivan, P. (2008). Knowledge for teaching mathematics: An introduction. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.), Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development (pp. 1–9). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Tamir, E. (2010). The retention question in context-specific education: Do beginning teachers and their program leaders see teachers’ future career eye to eye. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 665–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.002. Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013. (2014). Main findings from the survey and implications for education and training policies in Europe. European Commission: Education and Training. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration [BES]. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/48727127.pdf. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weale, S. (2018, October 5). Teacher crisis hits London as nearly half quit within five years. Conservatives criticised as retention rates drop and pupil numbers increase. The Guardian, UK. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/04/teacher-crisis-hits-londonas-nearly-half-quit-within-five-years. Wienk, M. (2016). Discipline profile of the mathematical sciences. Victoria, Australia: Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute. Willet, M., Segal., Walford, W., & Ernest & Young. (2014). National teaching workforce dataset data analysis report. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gover.au/system/files/doc/ other/ntwd_project_report.pdf. Zepeda, S. (2006). High stakes supervision: We must do more. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120500448154.

Afterword

Finally Listening is not understanding the words of the question asked, listening is understanding why the question was asked in the first place. Simon Sinek

The question, What is out-of-field teaching? is long overdue for recognition by education systems in developing and developed countries worldwide. Out-of-field teaching has been intertwined with the workforce planning and management strategies of education systems globally for decades, and this policy-elusive, dependable education workforce structure that assigns teachers to teaching positions outside their qualifications and expertise is likely to remain part of education in the future. Critical reflection is urgently required on the absence of policies that acknowledge the phenomenon, particularly when research makes it clear that a link can be drawn between these complex teaching situations and teacher stress, turnover and attrition (Du Plessis, 2014; Du Plessis et al., 2018). Denial and misapprehension of the realities of the phenomenon by policy and decision-making means that the effects it has on quality teaching and learning are being ignored. This is where the existential and epistemic question of out-of-field teaching opens the problematic between the discourse of policy matters, as debordered, one-sizefits-all imaginaries, and the classroom as a space where education happens. The complexities of the phenomenon are entangled in all of the real matter of education, how to effectively improve students’ learning. Education policies become lived experiences in school and classroom environments where the valorisation of teachers hands them the burden of student achievements increasingly measured by national and international standards. What is out-of-field teaching in the lifeworlds of teachers and education stakeholders such as students and their parents? Out-of-field teaching is a third-year beginning teacher ITE-trained in senior mathematics and physics with a developing professional identity and passion in applied mathematics assigned to teach junior secondary marine biology while he concurrently develops the curriculum in his first term at a new school; it is a veteran primary level music teacher teaching mathematics to Years 5–7 in her second language; it is a line of expectant © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. E. Du Plessis, Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1948-2

343

344

Afterword

parental faces outside a kindergarten classroom window where the teacher is trained for senior primary level and has teaching experience in Year 6. The question of outof-field teaching reminds readers that all the matters of education matter, and shifts focus to the imperative enquiry, Does policy really display an in-depth understanding of the matters that need to be addressed? In pursuit of these matters, this book has invited the reader inside the realities of the teaching and learning environment where more than fifteen years of research evidence in schools and classrooms has allowed them to listen into and observe challenging out-of-field classroom situations from the points of view of multiple education stakeholders (teachers, school leaders, education leaders, and parents), with the intention of developing their deeper understanding of all the parts that create the whole of education. In this space, Du Plessis has investigated what the phenomenon means for the intersection of policy development with the ideological value of quality education for a national economy, with the value of education’s human capital as its pivotal delivery system, and ultimately, with the value of knowledge itself. Scientifically positioned on a unique combination of education theories, Du Plessis has argued that the true job of policy is as a tool to support and resource school leaders and teachers, especially those in complex and challenging situations. The value of the book in the international education arena lies in the bridge it builds between the theory of policy and the practice of policy via the author’s own contextconscious development strategy, which advocates the concept of policy enactment via top-down frameworks that enliven bottom-up strategies for schools to create their own, tailored micro-education policies through a process of knowing and noticing the lived-experiences of teachers and students. In this sense, the evidence of the book and its theoretical position combine into a micro-education policy think tank with the capacity to deliver contemporary differentiated education with policy provision that transforms the bureaucratic standardisation of every (student, teacher, parent, principal) back into each. The book offers information that is applicable for a range of stakeholders, from educational leaders, school leaders, employers, teacher educators (especially those who are responsible for school leadership programs), to professional developers and policy-makers alike. Even if you know the way, ask one more time—Korean proverb Kylee McDonagh, Editor

References Du Plessis, A. (2014). Understanding the out-of-field teaching experience (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:330372. Du Plessis, A. E., Hoang, N., Wang, J., Schmidt, A., Mertens, L., Cullinan, M., Cameron, V. (2018). Invest in the future of education: Building a stable and quality beginning teacher workforce. Critical factors for reform: Evidence from the field (Research report). Brisbane, QLD: Australia: Australian Catholic University.

Index

A Absence leadership, 23, 25, 37, 85, 113, 124, 146, 177, 208, 221, 230, 282, 283, 288, 307, 323, 327, 338 policy, 5, 23, 36–38, 53, 56, 70, 85, 107, 112, 113, 119, 124, 146, 208, 215, 230, 282, 283, 288, 306, 307 targeted support, 37, 38, 94, 215 Accountability action, 95, 118, 146, 229, 242, 289, 329 colleagues, 72, 118, 129, 135, 156, 214, 241, 315, 316 decision-makers, 49, 50 parents, 9, 95, 118, 135, 136, 166, 193, 226, 241, 247, 267, 320, 321 policy-makers, 4, 50, 95, 106, 147, 175, 234, 289, 320 school leaders, 4, 9, 32, 100, 102, 129, 134, 138, 141, 153, 156, 175, 193, 214, 226, 241, 242, 247, 302, 320, 326 support, 9, 32, 73, 81, 100, 102, 105, 106, 118, 129, 133–136, 141, 142, 153, 154, 156, 166, 175, 193, 221, 229, 242, 247, 288, 290, 292, 315, 316, 320, 321, 326–328 teachers, 4 Achievements leaders, 6, 18, 21, 25, 27, 49, 51, 55, 70, 76, 78, 79, 102, 105, 113, 128, 134, 139, 140, 161, 165, 166, 185, 187, 188, 207, 213, 215, 243, 251, 255, 268–271, 274, 277, 281, 283, 288, 289, 297, 298, 326, 329, 331, 335 school improvement, 75, 76, 139, 185, 268, 297, 321, 326, 329

students, 1–3, 6, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 49, 50, 55, 62, 70, 76, 78, 86, 99, 112, 113, 128, 129, 150, 153, 154, 165, 166, 173, 177, 208, 216, 229, 234, 239, 245, 249, 251, 255, 261, 267–269, 283, 288, 292, 295, 298, 308, 326, 329, 331, 335, 343 teachers, 6, 104, 331 Appreciation need, 7, 8, 48, 59, 78, 96, 114, 124, 177, 185, 201, 218, 222, 248, 282, 331 unique contexts, 177 Approaches leadership, 11, 37, 82, 85, 119, 123, 124, 126–128, 132, 133, 157, 161, 192, 193, 217, 226–228, 230, 242, 248, 253, 282, 287, 305, 314, 315, 322, 324 policy, 35, 85, 126–128, 248, 274, 278, 290 teachers, 2, 5, 122, 249, 274 teaching, 135, 163, 245, 269, 271, 272, 282 Aspects challenging, 81 classroom requirements, 17 culture, 17, 112, 123, 175, 210, 245 different, 18, 175, 210, 217, 218, 253 embodied, 50 governing, 112 lived experiences, 18, 28, 29, 50, 63, 70, 93, 112, 113, 117, 173, 179, 186, 298 operational, 15 out-of-field teaching, 51, 55, 123, 182, 292 social, 17, 259 teaching placements, 127, 155, 231 teaching space, 36, 155, 187, 250

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 A. E. Du Plessis, Out-of-Field Teaching and Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1948-2

345

346 transformation, 244 Assessment concerns, 13, 323, 330 Attitudes, 11, 18, 22, 27, 54, 59, 81, 96, 98, 101, 103, 115, 122–125, 142, 150, 151, 157, 159, 164, 173, 174, 177, 180, 184, 220, 226, 239, 246, 254, 279, 290, 317, 318, 322 Attrition, 5, 33, 35, 50, 56, 69, 70, 72, 76, 78– 80, 112, 128–130, 142, 145, 148, 177, 178, 201, 215, 227, 231, 232, 234, 235, 258, 277, 288, 296, 305–307, 322, 331, 336, 338 Awareness noticing, 23, 55, 63, 96, 98, 183, 198, 200, 241, 324, 329, 330 pedagogical, 7, 15, 17, 31, 53, 54, 99, 100, 116, 117, 120, 127, 131, 143, 157, 189, 193, 220, 221, 234, 241, 242, 252, 272, 288, 315, 326, 327, 339

B Ball, S., 11, 18, 23, 54, 73, 81, 84, 267 Bandura, A., 72, 137, 143, 175 Bates, A., 11, 23, 287, 297, 339 Beginning teacher workforce action, 232 management, 29 retention, 35 support, 35, 76, 232 Behaviour challenges, 189, 191, 338 issues, 83, 119, 151, 198, 199, 277 processes, 6, 36, 79, 130, 135, 141, 161, 234, 278, 324, 325 Being everydayness, 60 influence of policy habitus, 62 Beliefs teachers, 17, 18, 75, 85, 86, 119, 120, 122, 176, 212 teaching, 18, 25, 75, 79, 119, 155, 293, 294 Belonging, 84, 115, 117, 142, 176, 213, 223, 260, 319 Berkhout, S., 244 Bernstein, B., 16, 83, 239 Bourdieu, P., 61, 62, 114, 140, 183, 295, 314 Bruner, J., 116, 143, 154, 180, 183, 184 Buchanan, J., 24, 72, 306 Budgets educational, 288, 289 school, 14, 221, 234, 280, 282, 291, 315

Index Bush, T., 51, 112, 208, 212, 221, 226, 234, 235 C Caldwell, B., 14, 225, 240, 243 Call, K., 247 CANNAS-leadership model, 315 Career, 24, 26, 27, 30, 35, 69, 75, 95, 119, 128, 129, 153, 156, 174, 188, 215, 216, 225, 227, 229, 234, 262, 268, 277, 295, 305–307, 322, 324, 325, 339 C-CUD learning theory, 29, 30, 64 Challenges behaviour, 189, 191, 338 content, 275, 276 pedagogies, 79, 117, 118, 120, 124, 134, 145, 149, 151, 184, 223, 242, 248, 271–274 relationships, 76, 79, 80, 82, 84, 96, 98, 116, 127, 133, 151, 174, 192, 197–200, 210, 223, 224, 228, 234, 240, 242–244, 248–250, 255, 260, 262, 275, 276, 279, 316, 332, 333 self-efficacy, 139, 141, 166, 297, 307 Cochran-Smith, M., 141, 289 Cohen, J., 96–98, 275 Collaboration, 8, 10, 15, 18, 98, 99, 114, 118, 129, 135, 149, 164, 182, 192, 193, 198, 210, 214, 222–224, 227, 228, 240, 241, 244, 248, 262, 270, 271, 276, 279, 283, 284, 288, 314–316, 319, 322, 334 Communication, 20, 23, 26, 37, 58, 62, 71, 83, 99, 114–116, 118, 139, 140, 149, 164, 175–177, 193, 210, 217, 218, 220, 224, 231, 232, 244, 256, 270, 276–279, 288, 292, 294, 302, 321, 324, 325, 332, 335, 338 Community influence, 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 11, 16, 17, 23–26, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 49, 50, 52–54, 61–64, 69, 70, 72–75, 77, 78, 80, 82–85, 95– 97, 99, 101, 103, 106, 111, 113, 115, 116, 118–122, 125, 127, 129, 131–133, 136, 139, 142, 152–155, 161–164, 166, 167, 175, 176, 181, 186, 193–195, 198, 209, 210, 213–219, 221, 223, 225–228, 235, 240, 241, 244, 246, 249, 252, 259– 262, 267–270, 279, 282–284, 290, 295, 296, 301, 306, 311, 313, 315, 317, 318, 323, 325–327, 336, 338 understanding, 332

Index Complexity, 6, 9, 18, 20, 21, 49, 52, 55–57, 60, 63, 78, 97, 99, 100, 112, 113, 120, 124, 144, 155, 166, 174, 199–201, 209, 218, 239, 242, 256, 273, 282, 287, 290, 296, 299, 305–308, 316, 320, 323, 324, 327–329, 331, 332 Complex situations behaviour, 151 control, 151 expertise, 151 Concepts leadership, 49 policy, 344 teaching, 71 Consciousness define, 8, 35, 118, 243, 293 re-assess, 62, 95, 301 reflecting, 49, 51, 186 Considerations careful, 16, 97, 267 clear, 201 Constrained resources, xi Constructivism, 33 Content connectedness, 5, 20, 23, 52, 63, 96, 113, 119, 136, 146, 162, 226, 243, 256, 281, 282, 289, 295, 312, 332, 334, 335, 339 Context-consciousness, 2, 8, 18, 23, 30, 33, 47, 49, 51, 57, 59, 62, 94, 95, 101, 118, 133, 137, 175, 179, 184–186, 200, 211, 213, 217, 227, 229, 233, 243, 248, 278, 280, 283, 293, 305, 316, 317, 320–322, 325, 327–329, 333, 335 Contexts, 1–4, 6–8, 11, 13–16, 20, 21, 23–25, 29–31, 33, 36, 47–56, 59, 61–64, 69, 71, 72, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84–86, 93–96, 98, 101, 104, 111, 112, 114–116, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 127, 130, 132, 133, 140, 142, 145, 149, 151, 153– 156, 159, 161–164, 166, 174, 178– 180, 184–186, 189, 191, 201, 210, 212, 215, 219–221, 226, 230, 231, 240, 242, 244–246, 248, 249, 251, 253, 255, 258, 262, 268, 270, 271, 278, 281, 288, 289, 291, 305, 306, 316, 320, 321, 325, 329, 331, 333, 338 Contextualisation, 3, 4, 8, 10, 23, 27, 29, 33, 36, 47–50, 53, 54, 72, 78, 79, 82, 93, 97, 112, 114–116, 120, 121, 128, 140, 142, 144, 152, 155, 156, 162, 165, 178, 185, 186, 188, 196, 209,

347 215, 225, 241, 243, 247–249, 252, 254, 256, 257, 269, 273, 278, 280– 282, 291, 292, 294, 297, 300, 317, 323, 324, 325, 330, 333–335 Conversations, 57, 60–62, 81, 93, 98, 132, 139, 143, 151, 152, 191, 217, 224, 270, 278, 319, 325 Cuban, L. classroom, 5, 11 diversity, 3 policy implementation, 5 school, 4, 11 Curriculum confidence, 271, 273, 313, 318, 320 development, 185, 187 enacted, 187, 299, 301 out-of-field, 16, 17, 34, 36, 54, 102, 105, 120, 185, 187, 195, 196, 228, 251, 256, 258, 273, 277, 280, 293, 299, 300, 309, 318, 327 ownership, 257

D Darling-Hammond, L., 6, 8, 37, 95, 137, 139, 144, 149, 153, 163, 179, 192, 194, 197, 208, 211, 217, 224, 226, 230, 243, 244, 251, 253, 254, 262, 273, 283, 296, 316, 337 Data empirical, 13, 62, 71, 73, 86, 97, 133, 189, 226, 229, 323 results analyses, 14, 137 Decisions bottom-up, 114 educational leaders, 128, 132, 225, 323 quick-fix, 177 top-down, 114 Development frameworks, 77, 223, 255, 287, 320 policy, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 23, 27–30, 33, 35, 49, 52, 57–61, 64, 73, 86, 93–100, 106, 111, 114, 116–118, 124, 133, 153, 154, 156, 157, 160, 166, 173, 178, 179, 180, 182–186, 188, 200, 201, 208, 216, 218, 226, 235, 241, 262, 283, 284, 290, 292, 297, 302, 321, 322, 328, 329, 331, 344 strategies, 50, 73, 78, 96, 133, 175, 185, 218, 327, 344 understanding, 29, 51 Dialogue, 3, 5, 16, 25, 55, 126, 140, 166 Discourse

348 leadership, 102, 166, 175 negative, 98 positive, 114 policy, 1, 2, 6, 7, 15, 49, 52, 53, 56, 59, 98, 99, 102, 111, 126, 179, 181, 245, 247 support, 34, 56, 98, 114, 126, 156, 179, 252, 330, 339 Dispositions, 3, 5, 6, 11, 20–22, 24, 30, 33, 37, 53, 57, 61, 62, 94, 98, 99, 115, 119, 121, 122, 124, 137, 150, 151, 154–159, 161–163, 165, 166, 173, 175–177, 180, 184, 186, 188, 189, 191, 193, 194, 197–199, 209–216, 220, 221, 223, 224, 227, 228, 240, 241, 244, 246, 252, 256, 258, 259, 261, 270, 273–278, 290, 294, 295, 297–299, 309, 312–314, 317–319, 322, 323, 326, 327, 329, 338 Dissatisfaction, 72, 144, 180, 187, 198, 209, 212, 332, 336 Diversity classroom, 55, 117, 119, 123, 194, 246, 249, 251, 281, 294, 299, 325, 329 inclusive classrooms, 249 management, 117, 119, 239, 249, 281, 294 school, 3, 55, 117, 119, 123, 175, 188, 189, 194, 239, 246, 249, 250, 251, 272, 281, 294, 299, 325, 329 Duty of care, 38, 99–106, 128, 179, 188, 216, 220, 229, 279, 327 E Educational leaders, 13, 20, 25, 27, 30, 34, 36, 38, 39, 49, 55, 59, 84, 95, 97, 99, 100, 103, 106, 118, 119, 128, 132, 135, 136, 162, 178, 224, 225, 230, 232, 241, 281, 290, 297, 305, 310, 322, 325, 330, 339 Effect change, 15, 82, 154 out-of-field teaching, 19, 21, 33, 35, 36, 101, 111, 113, 127, 134, 140, 144, 163, 186, 199, 267, 296, 328, 336 policies, 35 Effective schools decision-making, 208, 244 management, 210, 225, 243, 329 Effective teaching, 17, 21, 29, 50, 86, 144, 182, 193, 232, 240, 241, 256, 268, 270, 272, 273, 276, 293, 297, 301, 312, 317

Index Empathy, 60, 224, 232, 241, 261, 276, 281, 282, 319 Empirical evidence hermeneutic, 94–96 lived experiences, 7, 288, 338 ontological, 96 Employment attrition, 306 recruitment, 14, 30 retention, 4, 28, 306 turnover, 305 Empowerment leaders, 18, 126, 175, 192, 222, 290 out-of-field teachers, 18, 83, 164, 192, 222, 291 parents, 18, 83, 226, 259 students, 18, 83, 192, 230, 259, 290 Engagement Leaders, 23, 37, 39, 118, 124, 129, 175, 208, 214, 216, 217, 222, 226, 229, 241, 278, 287, 290, 302, 314, 326 parents, 123, 163, 216, 217, 278, 279, 281, 325 teachers, 27, 37, 38, 51, 112, 119, 122– 124, 137, 142, 155, 176, 208, 216, 229, 241, 243, 245, 249, 250, 255, 260, 261, 272, 290, 295, 302, 314, 319, 326, 338 Engestrom, Y., 117 Environments healthy teaching, 8, 17, 19, 38, 49, 54, 63, 83, 84, 86, 94, 119, 121, 136, 142, 144, 149, 155, 181, 182, 190–192, 195, 223, 227, 234, 246, 248, 249, 253, 259, 306, 323, 324, 331 learning, 2, 8, 10, 11, 13–16, 18, 19, 21– 24, 26, 27, 29, 33, 37, 38, 50–52, 54–56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 69, 70, 73, 81, 83–86, 94, 98, 100, 102, 104, 111, 113–115, 119, 121–125, 128, 129, 136, 137, 141–144, 149, 150, 154, 164, 166, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179–184, 188–194, 196–198, 200, 211–214, 216, 218, 221, 223, 224, 228, 240, 241, 243, 245, 246, 248–251, 253– 257, 259, 260, 268, 270, 275, 277, 279, 283, 288, 289, 292, 296, 297, 306–309, 312–315, 317, 318, 321, 322, 325, 326, 328, 330, 332, 333, 335–338 Epistemology, 29, 31, 48, 55, 57, 59, 64, 96, 99, 111, 128, 134, 137 Evidence data, 159, 281

Index empirical, 4, 7, 15, 19, 94, 96, 182, 185, 190, 210, 211, 214, 218, 226, 268, 288, 308, 313, 319, 336, 337 Expectations, 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 19, 20, 22– 25, 27–29, 31, 35, 38, 50, 51, 53, 60, 63, 73, 75–77, 79, 80, 83–86, 93, 95– 97, 100, 102–105, 111, 112, 115, 117, 118, 124–130, 132, 134–136, 139– 142, 144, 146–149, 152–157, 166, 174, 176–181, 183, 187, 196, 198, 199, 208, 209, 211, 212, 214–217, 223, 225–230, 242, 243, 248, 253– 255, 258, 261, 268, 270, 272, 273, 277, 278, 280, 281, 283, 288, 291, 292, 294–301, 307, 314, 316–318, 320, 322, 325, 327, 335 Experience challenging, 192, 228 complex, 16, 26, 29, 49, 60, 82, 120, 125, 166, 180, 183, 184, 201, 224, 228, 280, 291, 309, 324, 328, 329, 331, 339 lived, 2, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16, 18, 19, 23–30, 33, 38, 39, 48, 50, 53–55, 57, 59–63, 76, 79, 81, 82, 93, 96, 98, 103, 106, 112, 113, 115, 118, 119, 122–125, 128, 129, 132, 134, 137–139, 144–147, 151, 155, 156, 158, 161, 166, 173, 174, 177, 179, 181, 183, 185, 188, 191, 192, 194, 200, 201, 210, 211, 214, 215, 221, 228, 232, 242, 243, 245, 248, 259, 262, 269, 276, 279, 283, 288–290, 294–296, 298, 309, 317, 318, 320, 321, 324, 325, 329–331, 338, 339 Expertise, 6, 10, 13, 19, 22–27, 37, 39, 47, 60, 72, 76, 77, 80, 104, 106, 117, 120, 121, 130, 135, 140, 143, 146, 148– 153, 160, 161, 176, 180, 187, 193, 208, 210, 219, 225, 228, 229, 232, 240, 257, 270, 273, 279–281, 283, 289, 294, 296, 299, 309, 310, 313, 315–317, 324, 331, 336 F Feelings, 10, 11, 19, 28, 33, 61, 62, 70, 82, 83, 94, 97, 98, 100, 112, 113, 115– 117, 119, 122, 123, 125, 135, 137, 139–144, 147, 148, 151, 153–162, 164, 165, 174–178, 180, 182, 187, 188, 197, 198, 208–212, 214, 215, 218, 221, 223, 227, 228, 231, 240, 242, 244–247, 256, 259, 268, 270, 281, 283, 288, 294, 296, 299, 307, 309, 312, 313, 323, 330, 331, 333

349 Fit-for-purpose policies, 51, 57, 74, 132, 133, 136, 252, 269, 308, 309, 314, 326 Focus, 3–7, 11, 15, 20, 21, 23, 29, 30, 35, 37, 38, 51, 56, 57, 59, 60, 62, 64, 69, 70, 74, 77, 78, 83, 93, 96, 106, 107, 113, 114, 118, 119, 129, 131, 132, 135, 140, 143, 144, 146, 152, 158, 162, 165, 173, 185, 187, 189, 196, 199, 201, 213, 215, 217, 222, 223, 225, 227, 232–235, 240–243, 245, 246, 248, 251, 252, 255, 257, 259, 262, 268, 270, 272–279, 284, 288, 290, 297, 305–307, 309, 310, 316, 317, 320, 323, 327–331, 337, 339 Foucault, M., 18, 50 Freebody, P., 30, 96 Fulfillment, 3, 4, 8, 200 Fusion of horizons, 28, 29, 56–58, 64, 93 G Gadamer, H, 7, 8, 23, 25, 28, 29, 33, 48, 49, 54–64, 93–98, 115, 137, 145, 152, 166, 177, 178, 186, 241, 296, 316, 320, 321, 323, 324 Gap frameworks, 23, 70 policies, 7, 8, 30, 58–61, 64, 70, 80, 86, 97, 251 strategies, 251, 292 understanding, 30, 105, 230, 328 Global arena, 7, 72 commodity, 6 community, 320 concerns, 7, 13, 71, 306 culture, 10 education, 3, 27, 70, 287, 288 focus, 327 influence, 30 out-of-field issues, 2 pedagogies, 30, 33, 72, 76, 212, 274, 288, 301, 321, 327 policy, 7 H Habitus culture, 142 policy, 7, 60, 62, 63 structures, 62, 241 social capital, 241 tradition, 61, 64

350 Hardy, I., 316 Hargreaves, A., 296 Hattie, J., 8, 51, 60, 102, 121, 129, 132, 139, 143, 145, 154, 182, 184, 186, 192, 196, 213, 218, 223, 225, 226, 229– 231, 247, 248, 250, 254, 259, 276, 283, 296, 299, 311, 317, 319, 335, 338 Heidegger, M., 48, 58, 61, 62, 152 Hermeneutics conceptualisation, 28 History out-of-field culture, 59, 323 policy, 32, 53, 59, 210 tradition, 59, 61, 83, 95, 210, 323 Holistic analysis, 288 knowledge, 242 learning, 183, 190 manner, 190 policy, 11, 48, 242, 306 support, 183 Hong, J., 20, 261, 308 Horizons fusion, 28, 29, 56–58, 64, 93, 137 I Ideal, 81, 183, 242, 243, 246–249, 255 Identify, 4, 13, 15, 81, 83, 85, 104, 117, 129, 133, 154, 155, 179, 226, 274, 308 Identity professional, 11, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 34–36, 60, 62, 72, 75, 77, 80, 85, 101, 104, 105, 121, 127, 129–131, 139, 141– 143, 145, 148, 153, 159, 176, 178, 179, 182, 186, 187, 193, 196, 201, 211, 213, 214, 220, 227, 234, 244, 259, 262, 276, 290, 292, 293, 295, 296, 299, 309, 313, 314, 322, 324, 331, 336 teacher, 35 Impact expertise, 22, 24, 27, 294, 299, 324 identity, 16, 187, 212, 262 leaders, 101 policy, 76, 174 qualifications, 13, 14, 23, 76, 176, 283, 327 teachers, 149, 287, 307, 308, 324, 330 Implementation classroom management, 184 curriculum, 187 policy, 8, 32, 37, 51–53, 81, 126, 136, 158, 239

Index Improvement organisations, 54, 139, 175, 197, 210 systemic, 32, 78, 125, 129, 186, 230, 267, 279, 301 Incidents classroom, 50, 51, 57, 189, 197, 230, 254, 290 learning, 189–191, 197, 198, 214, 254, 290, 315, 319 teaching, 8, 57, 189–191, 213, 293, 315, 319 Industry partners awareness, 218, 220, 234 capacity building, 225 collaboration, 10 needs, 277 partnerships, 222 protect communities, 277 stakeholders, 18 Influence manage, 26, 31, 34, 70, 74, 83, 84, 101, 113, 119, 120, 137, 139, 146, 175, 194, 259, 335 noticing, 50, 175, 241, 244, 279 perceive, 25, 30, 53, 62, 72, 75, 101, 113, 120, 129, 153, 176, 193, 194, 226, 261, 268, 283, 295, 325 Ingersoll, R., 2, 4, 7, 13, 14, 17, 23–25, 27, 34, 38, 61, 76, 78, 79, 112, 140, 142–145, 175, 179, 180, 185, 212 Initial teacher education capacity, 17 out-of-field awareness, 5, 6 skills, 5 Institution structure, 322, 329 Integration, 22, 31, 50, 75, 115, 143, 144, 154, 194, 228 Intentions, 8, 50, 118, 126, 193, 242, 247 Interaction, 7, 18, 22, 34, 61, 70, 72, 73, 76, 83, 84, 95, 98, 115, 116, 118, 121, 123, 143, 144, 149, 176, 177, 181, 183, 190, 198, 207, 213, 227, 240, 241, 249, 254, 260, 262, 271, 272, 275–277, 279, 293, 314, 316, 321, 322, 324, 332, 337 Internalise, 16, 22, 56, 115, 119, 249, 311, 326 Interpersonal relationships, 26, 32, 96, 132, 260, 318, 322, 332, 336 Interpretation, 25, 26, 28, 31, 48, 54, 57–59, 64, 95, 96, 98, 318 lifeworld, 48

Index lived experiences, 25, 26, 54, 64, 166 policies, 25, 28, 31, 59, 64, 95–98, 162, 166 situation, 25, 28, 95–97

J Judgement pre-judgement, 58, 59 prejudice, 58–60, 64, 95, 113, 152, 324

K Knowledge content, 5, 16, 17, 22, 26, 75, 78, 116, 121, 122, 129, 131, 132, 134, 137, 140, 141, 143, 145, 154, 159, 166, 194–196, 207, 216, 220, 228, 230, 249, 252, 256, 258, 269, 271, 272, 276, 281, 283, 288– 295, 299, 300, 302, 309–314, 316, 318, 319, 326, 327, 330, 334 pedagogical content, 5, 292 Knowledgeable other, 30, 53, 60, 81, 83, 117–119, 122, 125, 136, 137, 151, 155, 165, 181, 183, 184, 195, 196, 198, 214, 219, 255, 271, 289, 308, 310, 313, 318, 321, 326

L Language leadership, 21, 191, 230, 324 nonverbal, 55, 94, 99, 324 policy, 3, 321 verbal, 55, 99, 324 Lave, J., 2, 29, 33, 35, 113, 232, 289 Laverty, S., 57, 59, 61, 94, 98 Leadership accountability, 11, 102, 105, 153 CANNAS model, 315 expectations, 31, 105, 124, 126, 127, 141, 198, 217, 225, 226, 248 goals, 11, 14, 20, 31, 219, 225, 243, 314 improvement strategies, 21, 23, 82, 123, 127, 129, 132, 157, 175, 208 objectives, 14, 81, 185, 207, 234 perceptions, 25, 49, 85, 100, 124, 125, 136, 141, 157, 160, 181, 223, 244, 284 perspective, 126 responsibility, 102, 103, 222, 231, 245, 253, 327, 329 styles, 20–22, 31, 51, 82, 225–228, 230, 234, 235, 239, 243, 276, 332, 339 Learning environments

351 complex, 11, 13, 26, 27, 55, 81, 86, 102, 104, 113, 144, 150, 184, 193, 197, 200, 259 primary schools, 330 remote, 145, 149, 211 rural, 149, 178, 211, 335 secondary school, 69, 128, 135, 330 Lenses angles, 93 perspectives, 59, 94 views, 97 Levin, B., 122, 180 Lifeworld, 7, 16, 33, 54, 57, 60–62, 93, 97, 99, 102, 106, 137, 145, 223, 248, 249, 261, 291, 327 Limited impact, 159, 294 understanding, 17 Lingard, B., 1, 2, 7, 48, 49, 52, 57, 69, 73, 81, 84, 93, 97, 107, 111, 112, 116, 119, 123, 185, 248, 255–257, 287, 289, 311, 335 Lived experiences being out-of-field, 70, 106, 158, 180, 298 emotional journey, 158 in-depth, 2, 10, 23, 29, 57, 81, 132, 145, 185, 200, 221, 248, 279, 288, 325 Local context, 70 incidences, 23 leadership, 11, 100 policy-makers, viii, xiii school policies, 330 systemic policies, viii Loughran, J., 289, 291–295, 310, 311, 313, 315–319

M Marzano, R., 113, 114, 209, 210, 224, 226, 227 Mayer, D., 50, 51, 129, 153, 247, 249, 251, 267 Meaning leadership, 31, 235, 314 lived, 49, 64, 99, 146, 242, 296, 314 making, 33, 57, 96, 121, 123, 180, 336 policy, 18, 22, 24, 28, 34, 48–50, 53, 55, 62, 84, 93, 95, 96, 98, 127, 132, 166, 226, 278, 320, 321 noticing, 23, 50, 97, 144, 184 MEP model, 328–330 Merleau-Ponty, M., 48, 50, 58, 94

352 Micro-education policies, 2, 16, 18, 20–23, 27, 33, 35, 60, 80, 104, 112–115, 117–119, 122–124, 126, 127, 129– 132, 135–139, 142, 144–148, 150, 154, 165, 166, 175, 179, 181–183, 186, 188, 195, 196, 199, 207, 208, 212, 216, 218, 222, 233–235, 239– 243, 245–249, 251, 252, 255, 257, 261, 262, 268, 273, 283, 290, 291, 302, 305, 308, 310, 316, 318, 320, 327–332, 334–337, 339 Mindful, 35, 99, 115, 193, 201 Mind shift, 144, 146, 148 Misunderstanding, 57–59, 73, 77, 79, 82, 85, 86, 93, 101, 103, 104, 115, 128, 132, 140, 151, 174, 177, 181, 192, 200, 209, 214, 220, 232, 267, 268, 270, 288, 302, 322, 327, 338 Models policy, 329, 330 Multilayered implications, 2, 75, 130, 268, 310 N Need analyses, 330 Negotiation, 5, 52, 64, 97, 158, 231, 232, 315, 331, 333 Nias, J., 200, 245 Noddings, N., 271 Noticing challenges, 184, 243, 252, 316 difficulties, 98, 252 dilemmas, 96 needs, 97, 117, 128, 183, 198, 242, 256, 278, 279, 296 Numbers account, 73 as policy, 73, 78, 185 beyond, 71, 73, 78, 93, 106 occurrence, 69, 71, 80 out-of-field, 78, 336 validation, 71 O Ontology, 254 Open communication, 164, 218, 325, 332, 333, 335 Openness, 48, 49, 81, 97, 98, 124, 125, 135, 136, 147, 149, 182, 228, 231, 232, 240, 241, 259, 262, 276, 277, 319, 320 Organisational structures, 193, 195, 197, 229

Index Other knowledgeable, 30, 53, 60, 81, 83, 84, 117–119, 122, 123, 125, 136, 137, 151, 155, 165, 181, 183, 184, 195, 196, 198, 214, 219, 255, 271, 289, 308, 310, 313, 318, 321, 326, 337 Out-of-field teaching phenomenon impact, 2, 27, 75, 78, 103, 105, 155, 173, 181, 185, 188, 234, 268, 269, 276, 282, 288, 309, 335 implications, 2, 53, 75, 80, 86, 106, 240, 268, 309, 330, 338 performance, 178, 187 teaching, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 16, 20, 27, 29–31, 33, 34, 37, 38, 51, 53, 55, 56, 63, 71, 72, 75, 76, 78, 80, 84–86, 93–95, 97–99, 101–103, 105, 106, 115, 118, 131, 132, 135–137, 142, 146, 153, 155, 160, 162, 173, 175, 180, 182, 183, 185, 188, 200, 201, 207–209, 212, 215, 216, 218, 223, 225, 230, 233, 234, 239, 240, 258, 268, 270, 272, 273, 276, 282, 288–290, 307, 309, 310, 320, 322, 324, 325, 327, 329, 330, 335, 338, 339 assessment, 72, 139, 141, 153, 180, 186, 258, 268, 308, 326, 329, 330, 331 conceptualisation, 8, 34 culture, 1, 5, 8, 9, 15, 21, 22, 34, 70, 73, 75, 76, 103, 112, 122, 133, 208, 214, 218, 219, 234, 239, 267, 277, 283, 307, 310, 324, 325 defining, 27, 28, 246 dispositions, 319 initial teacher education, 5, 6, 17, 80, 322 practices, 4, 7, 10, 20, 26–31, 34–36, 50–52, 54–57, 59, 61, 64, 71, 72, 74– 76, 84, 96, 97, 99–101, 106, 107, 114, 117, 120, 121, 123, 124, 128, 130, 131, 134, 135, 139, 142, 143, 146, 147, 166, 175–177, 180, 181, 185, 187, 192–195, 209, 211, 213, 218, 223, 225, 229, 231, 232, 234, 247, 249, 250, 259, 268, 270, 274, 275, 283, 289, 290, 293, 298, 299, 301, 307, 309–311, 313, 317, 321, 322, 327, 328, 330, 331, 335 Owen, S., 31, 34, 222 Ownership classroom, 36, 123, 136, 184, 190, 259– 261, 334 curriculum, 257

Index P Passion, 17, 25, 26, 28, 37, 49, 72, 75, 77, 134, 135, 143, 149, 155, 160, 163, 174, 179, 181, 191, 192, 213, 215, 247, 261, 262, 276, 281, 290, 291, 294–296, 302, 309, 312, 321, 333 Pedagogical reasoning, 7, 63, 187, 194, 219, 221, 225, 249, 294, 315, 318 Pedagogical thoughtfulness, 16, 31, 80, 81, 99, 103, 106, 252–254 Perceptions, 2, 5, 11, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 30, 34, 48, 51, 55, 57, 58, 63, 64, 70, 75, 77–80, 94–100, 102, 104– 106, 112, 115, 118, 121, 127, 131, 132, 135–137, 139, 141, 145, 151– 155, 160–163, 165, 174–176, 180, 182, 185, 192–194, 196, 197, 208, 210, 212–215, 218, 219, 223, 231, 234, 243, 249, 253, 255, 259, 268, 270, 278, 279, 281, 283, 291, 293, 295–297, 308, 310, 313, 321, 323, 326, 332, 335, 336 Personal experience, 10, 53, 57, 79, 115, 160, 184, 322 Perspectives, 10, 28, 48, 52, 57, 59, 94, 99, 126, 240, 253, 254, 319, 335 Planning strategically, 144 workforce, 27, 30, 85, 208, 276 Policies borrowing, 7, 30, 111 discourse, 1–3, 5–7, 15, 31, 49, 52–54, 56, 59, 93, 98, 99, 102, 106, 111, 114, 126, 179, 181, 245, 247, 252, 330 frameworks implementation, 52, 126, 257, 274, 302, 310, 330 location-specific, xi macro, 35, 56, 118, 119, 330 meso and micro, vii objectives, 36, 52 performance, 77, 113, 152, 153 practice, 54, 130, 220, 246, 283, 317 support instruments, 54, 55 MEP model, 328–330 targeted, 4, 8, 10, 13, 16, 23, 27–30, 37, 38, 50, 52, 55, 57, 59, 61–63, 81, 95, 96, 98, 106, 114, 117–119, 123, 126, 132, 151, 154, 156, 160, 163, 166, 174, 177, 178, 182, 185, 188, 194, 195, 199–201, 208, 218, 224, 229, 234, 248, 252, 255,

353 262, 277, 278, 280, 283, 288, 290, 292, 305, 317, 323, 337 Policy constructs policy development, 58 pre-judgements, 58 Policy development bottom-up, 114, 127 top-down, 11, 114, 127, 280 Policy-makers, 3, 4, 10, 13, 15, 21, 22, 50, 52, 55, 59, 60, 70, 73, 77, 95, 106, 112, 116, 117, 140, 147, 175, 178, 199, 215, 234, 239, 274, 287, 289, 291, 297, 301, 320, 325 Politics of education, 6, 31 Power knowledge, 50, 143, 153, 289 noticing, 50, 97, 117, 200 position, 84, 230 relationships, 84, 122, 308 understanding, 7, 30, 50, 57, 83, 102, 143, 215 Practice policies, 181, 212 Preparing classes, 294 micro-education policies, 310 teachers, 159, 227 Pre-service teachers, 17 Pre-understanding, 50, 56, 58, 59, 64, 95, 96, 106, 113, 152, 324 Principles leadership, 132 practice, 62 teaching, 62, 74, 79, 208 Problems behaviour, 118, 193 professional interrelationships, 163 understanding, 13, 23, 82, 116, 325 Professional growth, 3, 36, 139, 143, 216, 277, 289, 314, 316, 317 Professional relationships, 72, 102, 127, 198, 223, 228, 278, 279, 283 Professional support professional development, 37, 106, 130, 159, 186, 222, 227, 262, 291, 292, 301, 309, 337 professional learning, 37, 38, 106, 159, 186, 216, 222, 227, 262, 291, 292, 301, 309, 337 Purpose, 8, 11, 14, 29, 32, 33, 54, 84, 97, 112, 113, 135, 153, 173, 175, 193, 207, 223, 226, 239, 241, 247, 261, 276, 282, 290–292, 296, 297, 305, 307, 321, 337

354

Index

Q Qualifications, 4, 6, 10, 13, 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, 47, 71, 72, 82, 85, 99, 100, 104, 112, 113, 120, 121, 128, 130, 140, 145, 150, 152, 155, 158, 178, 182, 184, 185, 192, 195, 208, 225, 229, 232, 242, 257, 300, 309, 315, 317, 318, 324 Quality approaches, 186, 274, 278 teachers, 20, 152, 153, 178, 211, 234, 267, 305 teaching, 15–22, 25, 98, 112, 150, 152, 222, 252, 255, 258, 267, 288, 317 Quick-fix solutions, 146, 148, 315, 323

154, 158, 163, 165, 177–179, 181, 184, 185, 188, 189, 195, 199–201, 212, 214–216, 219, 221–223, 225, 229, 239, 240, 245, 247, 248, 251, 252, 258, 259, 271, 279–283, 289– 291, 295, 297, 299, 302, 305, 307, 313, 316, 317, 319, 320, 326–331, 333, 334, 338, 339 Restricted policies, 36, 95, 107, 189, 230, 327 understanding, 2, 105, 177 Retention, 20, 25, 35, 72, 124, 129, 142, 232, 235, 258, 296, 299, 305–307, 338, 339 Rogers, B., 119, 122, 175, 176, 190–195, 197, 242, 249, 333

R Reasoning challenging, 319 critical, 249 deeper, 311 pedagogical, 7, 63, 187, 194, 219, 221, 225, 249, 294, 315, 318 theoretical, 47 Recruitment conditions, 30 expectations, 20 Reflection, 3, 21, 29, 34, 37, 48, 51, 52, 55, 57, 59, 61, 74, 75, 80, 86, 95, 98, 103, 106, 114, 118, 130, 134, 135, 137, 139, 142, 155, 180, 187, 188, 200, 208, 211, 227, 229, 243, 245, 246, 248, 250, 268, 270, 271, 305, 307, 321, 325, 338, 339 Reflective, 63, 242 Reform development, 33 school, 49 support, 8, 10 Relationships colleagues, 218 interpersonal relationships, 26, 32, 96, 132, 260, 318, 322, 332, 336 parents, 223, 278 professional, 72, 102, 127, 198, 223, 228, 278, 279, 283 teacher/student, 19, 99, 114, 176, 196, 255, 273, 275, 317, 318 Resources, 2–4, 7, 8, 11, 15–18, 20–22, 25, 32, 37, 52, 53, 60, 61, 63, 64, 72, 83, 85, 86, 94, 99–101, 103, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123, 124, 130, 141,

S Satisfaction job, 72, 156, 161, 296 profession, 26 teach, 25, 72, 155 workplace, 161 Scaffolding concepts, 253, 258, 298, 308, 310, 311, 316 knowledge, 57, 105, 143, 196, 253, 290, 293, 295, 308, 310, 311 lived experience, 98, 139, 160, 295 perceptions, 121, 296 policy decisions, 95 Schoenfeld, A. H., 319 School leaders leadership styles, 22, 31, 51, 227, 228, 230, 243 scaffolded lived experiences, 220, 290, 298 Schools culture, 9, 15, 17, 21, 26, 31, 52, 59, 81, 82, 102, 103, 111, 112, 115, 119, 126, 138, 149, 153, 154, 157, 161, 175, 188, 193, 197, 200, 210, 211, 219, 224, 227, 239, 244, 245, 270, 277, 279, 314, 319, 321, 325, 329 tradition, 8, 10, 21, 59, 60, 64, 76, 111, 175, 178, 210, 218, 227, 230, 277, 321, 323, 326 atmosphere, 9, 21, 48, 59, 80, 83, 84, 115, 120, 267, 275 climate, 150 primary, 4, 19, 26, 71, 77, 102–105, 132– 134, 136, 157–159, 189, 192, 217, 244, 245, 260, 274, 309, 310, 321, 330, 331

Index secondary, 14, 19, 24, 55, 69, 74, 102, 105, 128, 132–137, 157, 233, 280, 302, 310, 321, 324, 330–332 Schutz, A., 48, 62, 273, 277, 279 Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) challenges, 274, 275 content, 75, 135, 275, 326, 327 improvement, 74, 268, 274, 275, 326, 327 pedagogies, 247, 274, 326 strategies, 85, 135, 247, 274, 275, 320, 327 Self-concept, 61, 72, 188, 191 Sensitive engagement, 142 noticing, 63, 144 noting, 144, 198 Sergiovanni, T., 213, 270, 282 Shulman, L. S., 17, 134, 141, 312 Situated social experience, xii Situations circumstances, 29, 60, 61, 188, 199, 210 context-conscious, 118 situational analysis, 95 Social accountability, 84, 106 aspects, 17, 308 awareness, 6, 213, 217, 248 backgrounds, 18, 210, 267 capital, 15, 210, 213, 217, 225, 227, 240–242, 276, 277, 306 context, 11, 52, 54, 56, 62, 81, 98, 116, 152, 155, 156, 174, 176, 177, 184, 240, 242, 250, 256, 260 development, 73, 122, 210, 218, 227, 239–241, 246, 277, 311 encounters, 7, 26, 53 experience, 8, 11, 26, 58, 113, 137, 144, 174, 177, 210, 248, 251 implications, 81, 218, 240, 250 interaction, 73, 123, 181, 241, 262 justice, 30, 35, 81–84, 145, 251, 308, 338 practices, 2, 62, 175–177, 250, 289 Society, 18, 34, 56, 63, 77, 80–82, 113, 116, 118, 122, 136, 150, 164, 167, 177, 178, 183, 210, 213, 262, 267, 292, 297, 305, 326 Sociocultural interdependence, 54 Sociocultural learning, 80, 112, 132, 143 Sociocultural learning theories, 26, 29 Space

355 learning, 2, 6, 7, 9, 20, 29, 33, 47, 56, 60, 80, 112, 115–118, 120–123, 136, 139, 140, 145, 146, 155, 162, 166, 176, 181, 190, 191, 193–197, 209, 210, 221, 224, 240, 242, 243, 245, 253, 254, 258–261, 273, 275, 278, 279, 289, 290, 293, 309, 314–317, 321, 332 policy, 330 teaching, 36, 155, 187, 250, 336 Specialist, 10, 20, 23, 25, 30, 37, 47, 53, 55, 77, 78, 102, 106, 117–119, 121, 125, 126, 129, 130, 134, 137, 140, 143, 148, 150, 153, 156, 158, 160, 161, 163, 183, 185, 187, 190, 194, 196, 209, 214, 228, 229, 242, 245, 247, 250, 252, 253, 255, 258, 261, 262, 268–270, 276, 291, 293–295, 297, 298, 300, 302, 307, 309, 310, 312, 313, 315, 319, 323, 334, 337 Stability classroom, 15, 56, 112, 126, 133, 162, 163, 166, 174, 181, 208, 210, 215, 216, 225, 245, 250, 277, 281, 316, 326 workforce, 15, 24, 25, 174, 178, 208, 215, 216, 225, 228, 229, 231, 235, 326 workplace, 163 Stakeholders, 1, 4, 18, 19, 21, 23, 29, 38, 50, 51, 55, 57–60, 64, 77, 78, 80, 84, 93– 100, 103, 106, 114, 124, 127, 136, 137, 149, 163, 166, 175, 180, 183, 200, 209, 210, 213–215, 218, 222– 226, 240, 241, 243–245, 247, 249, 254, 259, 261, 269, 271, 278, 279, 282–284, 287, 288, 291, 296, 297, 301, 308, 315, 324, 325, 335 Standards performance, 102, 153, 209, 323, 335 teacher quality, 174, 334, 335 Student achievement, 1–3, 15, 16, 21, 25, 27, 49, 50, 55, 62, 70, 76, 78, 86, 94, 99, 112, 113, 128, 129, 150, 153, 154, 165, 166, 177, 208, 212, 216, 226, 229, 234, 245, 249, 251, 255, 256, 261, 267–269, 278, 283, 288, 292, 295, 298, 300, 308, 326, 331, 335 Staffing issues, 103, 178 planning, 228 recruitment, 9, 20, 35, 101, 133, 144, 177, 178, 219, 307 understanding, 7, 10, 13, 55, 226, 243, 276, 322 Statistics

356 out-of-field numbers, 78, 79 Support leaders, 305 professional, 8, 9, 25, 37, 39, 126, 153, 178, 179, 186, 221, 262, 280, 298, 299, 315, 316, 337 students, 16, 56, 86, 102, 120, 136, 193, 211, 246, 253, 256, 269, 317 targeted, 4, 22, 37, 38, 94, 157, 215, 292, 297, 299 tailored, 317, 329, 332, 337 teachers, 83, 165, 219, 311, 320 Strategies improvement, 7, 9, 11, 30, 51, 54, 55, 129, 133, 175, 188, 208, 210, 224, 245, 274, 339 policy, 23, 29, 31, 50, 53, 55, 76, 78, 80, 82, 94, 98, 99, 136, 148, 297 workplace, 79, 163, 287, 292 Systemic, 9–12, 24, 29, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 54, 70, 78, 79, 81, 84, 100, 101, 113, 114, 124, 125, 129, 135, 140, 158, 165, 166, 174, 178, 182, 186, 219, 230, 232, 235, 239, 247, 261, 267, 279– 283, 297, 301, 302, 310, 322, 323, 329, 330, 337, 338

T Taken-for-granted attitude, 59, 177, 220, 239, 290 culture, 323 disposition, 186, 326 imbalances, 325 perspective, 10 understanding, 96, 239 views, 302 Tamir, E., 325 Targeted, 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 16, 22, 23, 27–30, 37–39, 50, 52, 55, 57, 59, 61–64, 81, 94–96, 98, 106, 111, 114, 117–119, 121, 123, 126, 132, 151, 154, 156, 157, 160, 163, 166, 174, 177, 178, 185, 186, 188, 194, 195, 197, 199– 201, 208, 215, 218, 224, 226, 229, 234, 239, 248, 252, 255, 262, 267, 275, 277, 278, 280, 283, 288, 290, 292, 297, 299, 305, 308, 316, 317, 319, 323, 334, 337 Teachers assessment, 187 assignments, 84, 128, 133, 148, 154, 208, 219, 290, 305, 332, 333

Index attrition, 178, 232, 258, 277, 305, 306, 307, 338 burnout, 288 commitment, 143, 258 development, 20, 32, 129, 195, 291 evaluation, 323, 331 image, 131, 153, 158 life-world, 7, 33, 62, 97, 102, 249, 327 out-of-field, 1, 5, 6, 10, 13, 16–21, 23, 24, 26, 28–31, 34–39, 47, 51, 54, 55, 59–63, 73, 75–77, 79–83, 85, 86, 95, 98, 99, 101–106, 111, 113, 115–133, 134–141, 144–146, 148–162, 164– 166, 174, 177, 179–187, 189–201, 207–217, 219, 221–225, 227–232, 234, 240–242, 244–262, 268–283, 290– 295, 297–302, 305, 307–320, 322–327, 330–338 ownership, 35, 153 performance, 3, 13, 76, 101, 103, 146, 153, 209, 308, 323, 325, 329–331 placements, 17, 35, 36, 61, 79, 130, 133, 152, 154, 157, 215, 219, 308, 326 professional identity, 16, 34, 35, 77, 80, 104, 121, 139, 179, 182, 196, 201, 296, 308, 313, 324 recruitment, 9, 35, 133, 144, 177, 178, 307 retention, 20, 25, 35, 207, 296, 299, 306, 307 self-efficacy, 16, 143 status, 113, 329 stress, 142, 194, 242, 258, 288, 338, 343 turnover, 112 well-being, 55, 76, 133, 329, 330 Teaching art, 99, 106, 117, 180, 240, 281, 293 beliefs, 18, 25, 155, 293, 294 challenges, 103 characteristics, 11, 12, 19, 121, 252, 261, 296 competences, 121 confidence, 63, 181, 319 improvement, 1, 17, 78, 104, 274, 329 quality, 1–3, 8, 9, 12, 17, 18, 20, 27, 34, 50, 64, 70, 73, 78, 79, 112, 113, 115, 117, 123, 124, 129, 132, 136, 139, 140, 145, 148, 149, 152, 153, 160, 174, 175, 178, 181, 207, 208, 216, 223, 240, 243, 247, 248, 261, 262, 267, 274, 281, 290, 291, 297, 310, 315, 316, 330, 331, 339 support, 278 tact, 9, 36

Index tone, 116 Team work, 123, 228 Theory, 26, 28, 30, 49, 53, 58, 60, 95, 130, 155, 289, 322, 344 Think tank policy, 48, 97, 107, 190, 200, 274, 308, 320 Thoughtfulness, 16, 31, 61, 80, 81, 99, 103, 106, 113, 136, 253, 254, 276 Turnover, 5, 20, 35, 70, 79, 80, 112, 126, 128, 148, 177, 227, 231, 232, 234, 251, 277, 280, 288, 296, 305, 336, 338 Transformation change, 14, 15, 18, 24, 49, 61, 79, 124, 287, 329 context, 14, 15, 21, 52, 111, 244 situation, 24, 61 strategies, 21, 24, 37, 82, 225 Trust building, 81 consequences, 83 parents, 83, 135, 165, 217, 220, 223, 244, 261, 276, 282, 321, 325, 336 professional, 80, 143, 198, 207, 212, 217, 275, 288, 316, 318, 321, 322 relationships, 54, 79, 80, 83, 98, 122, 123, 135, 143, 146, 182, 190, 197, 198, 199, 217, 218, 228, 242, 244, 248, 250, 261, 262, 275, 276, 277, 279, 282, 285, 318, 332, 333 restricted, 150, 282 Truths empirical evidence, 15, 96, 288, 337 validity, 97 U Understanding C-CUD, 29, 30, 64 context-conscious, 29, 51 in-depth, 2, 10, 23, 29, 55–57, 60, 81, 82, 117, 148, 153, 166, 185, 218, 239, 248, 275, 279, 288, 307, 323 leadership accountability, 258, 288 Usher, R., 80, 96 V Validity policy, 97, 99 decisions, 97, 99 Values beliefs, 1, 17, 18, 50, 57, 121, 181, 213, 228, 234, 252, 321

357 impact on policies, 113 norms, 113, 213 Van Manen, M., 6, 11, 15–17, 19, 22, 24, 28, 29, 31, 34, 36, 48–51, 53, 54, 57, 60, 62, 63, 72, 76, 77, 83–85, 96, 97, 99, 102, 105–107, 113, 116, 118, 121, 123, 129, 130, 136, 146–149, 151, 156, 159, 182, 209, 211, 212, 214, 244, 247, 253, 257, 273, 275, 295, 301 Verbal and nonverbal communication, 99, 114 prompt, 98 Vygotsky, L.S., 11, 26, 29, 53, 55, 60, 62, 113, 117, 132, 155, 174, 181, 214, 218, 278, 289, 293, 322

W Well-being leaders, 179, 191, 232 students, 31, 173, 175, 177, 181, 182, 194–196, 199, 201 teachers, 31, 38, 55, 76, 330 Well-designed, 6, 8, 15, 18, 32, 33, 39, 64, 73, 76, 83, 84, 86, 97, 115, 159, 163, 180–182, 192, 199, 209, 213, 218, 220, 227, 230, 234, 240, 242, 243, 245, 246, 252, 257, 269, 272, 277, 290, 297, 301, 307, 308, 315, 316, 321, 324, 337, 338 Wenger, E., 2, 29, 33, 35, 53, 98, 232, 289 Whole being, 57 construct, 59 school, 49, 51, 162, 223, 225, 228, 230, 239, 251 significant, 7 truths, 25, 30 understanding, 35 values, 29, 51 Workforce implications, 8, 48, 207, 215, 227, 228, 235, 262, 323 planning, 30, 208, 276 stable, 28, 209, 262, 295, 297, 307, 326, 339 strong, 28, 35, 48, 72, 209, 234, 262, 326 utilisation, 331, 333 Workload, 5, 98, 130, 142, 174, 178, 221, 228, 258, 295, 298, 301, 302, 306, 313, 331, 334