We have been able to discuss here only some of the consequences of test-based accountability for the professional ethics of teachers and to reveal how it might still be possible in the current climate to teach ethically. How do teachers perceive their responsibility in the current climate? What are the real effects of accountability, as compared to its rhetoric and norma- tive assumptions? How does the external accounta- bility model affect the relationships of literacy teachers with their students and their professional decision- making? These have been main questions that we have attempted to address by presenting the accounts of teachers, narrating about their work and their expe- riences of accountability measures. We have focused on only two schools to illustrate the experiences of teachers in contrastive settings. These schools, charac- terised by significantly different institutional cultures and practices, have provided a small window on how some teachers encounter, perform or resist the demands of national accountability measures. Social relation- ships with students and colleagues in a small public school are arguably not mediated by managerial struc- tures to quite the same degree as those of teachers in a large secondary school, with the result that the contra- dictions that these primary school teachers experience with the introduction of mandated literacy testing can be identified and described more starkly. At the same time, we feel these experiences provide a perspective on
the struggles experienced by teachers in other settings. The validity of our representation of their experiences, however, does not depend on the possibility of gener- alising those experiences, but on the extent to which it provides insights into each specific situation as these teachers experience it (cf. Smith, 2005; Bakhtin, 1993).
Understanding the effects of test-based accountability on the professional ethics of literacy teachers is impor- tant particularly today when standards-based reforms have become a global phenomenon. In this process, teaching as a social professional practice has been re-conceptualised in terms of economic discourses. Outcomes, performance standards, service delivery to clients, customer satisfaction and accountability are just a few words that capture these discourses. These business-like discourses are largely incompatible with the historical mission and idea of education (as opposed to training) and professional ethics (as opposed to service provision). The managerial practices of intro- ducing and implementing these reforms have consist- ently ignored their detrimental effects on the ethical practice of teaching, calling to intensify its ‘rational’, measurable aspects. Repeatedly in their conversations with us, teachers have described pedagogical events in which they attempt to reclaim the space and time for responsive practice that is orientated towards the public good. We can build on these forms of resistance. If test- based accountability attempts to interrupt the project of democratic education, ethics holds out the prospect of professional agency that can continue this project.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported under Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (project DP0986449). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Australian Research Council.
References
Armein, A. & Berliner, D. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Educational Policy Analysis, 10(18). Retrieved from http://eppa.asu.edu./eppa/ v10n18/
Au, W. (2008). An analysis of some unintended and negative consequences of high-stakes testing. Report. Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University. Australian Government Productivity Commission (2012).
Impact of COAG Reforms: Business Regulation and VET. Research Report. Retrieved from http://www.pc.gov.au/ projects/study/coag-reporting/report
Bakhtin, M. (1993). Towards a philosophy of the act. V. Lapunov (ed. and trans.) and M. Holquist (ed.) Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Ball, S. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performa- tivity. Journal of Educational Policy, 18(2), pp. 215–228.
The ethical practice of teaching literacy: Accountability or responsibility? • Kostogriz & DoecKe
Comber, B. (2011). Making space for place-making pedago- gies: Stretching normative mandated literacy curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 12(4), 343–348. Comber, B. & Cormack, P. (2011) Education policy media- tion: principals’ work with mandated literacy assessment. English in Australia, 46(2), 77–86.
Critchley, S. (1999). Ethics – politics – subjectivity. London: Verso.
Cuttance, P. (2001). The impact of teaching on student learning. In K. Kennedy (ed), Beyond the rhetoric: Building a teaching profession to support quality teaching (pp. 35–55). Canberra, Australian College of Education. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). The effects of initial teacher
education on teacher quality. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) Research Conference 2003 (Building Teacher Quality: What does the research tell us?), Melbourne.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher educa- tion: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., J. LaFors, et al. (2001). Educating teachers for California’s future. Teacher Education Quar- terly, 28(1), 9–55.
Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (2012). Language, Literacy and Numeracy Program (LLNP). Discusssion Paper. Retrieved from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Skills/ Programs/LitandNum/LLNP/Documents/LLNP_Discus- sion2013_16.pdf
Derrida, J. (2000). Of hospitality. R. Bowlby (trans.) Stan- ford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Doecke, B., Kostogriz, A. & Illesca, B. (2010) Seeing ‘things’ differently: recognition, ethics, praxis, English teaching: Practice and critique, 9(2), 81–98.
Gillard, J. (2008). Politics and integrity – Deliv- ering an Education Revolution. The John Button Memorial Lecture. Melbourne, 18 July, 2008. Retrieved from http://ministers.deewr.gov.au/gillard/ politics-and-integrity-delivering-education-revolution Hargreaves, A. & Goodson, I. (Eds., 1996). Teachers’ profes-
sional lives. London: Falmer Press.
Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Building Teacher Quality Research Conference, Melbourne.
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Milton Park, OX: Routledge.
Hattie, J. (2011). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Milton Park, OX: Routledge.
Koretz, D. (2008). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Univer- sity Press.
Kostogriz, A. (2011). The future of diversity and difference: Can the national curriculum for English be hospitable?, in B. Doecke, G. Parr and W. Sawyer (eds), Creating an Australian curriculum for English, (pp. 201–214). Putney, N.S. W; Phoenix Education.
Kostogriz, A. (2012). Accountability and the affective labour of teachers: A Marxist-Vygotskian perspective, Australian Educational Researcher, 39(4), 397–412.
Kostogriz, A. & Doecke, B. (2011). Standards-based account- ability: Reification, responsibility and the ethical subject, Teaching Education, 22(4), 397–412.
Leithwood, K. (2005). Educational accountability. Research report. Regina: Saskatchewan School Boards Association. Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteri-
ority. (A. Lingis, trans.). Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
Levinas, E. (1987) Time and the Other. R.A. Cohen (trans.) Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.
Levinas, E. (1990). Difficult freedom. S. Hand (Trans.). Balti- more, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
McDermont, K. (2011). High-stakes reforms: The politics of educational accountability. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Oplatka, I. (2009). Emotion Management and Display in Teaching: Some Ethical and Moral Considerations in the Era of Marketization and Commercialization. In P. Schutz and M. Zembylas, Advances in teacher emotion research (pp. 55–71). New York, NY: Springer.
Perryman, J. (2007). Inspection and emotion. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(2), 173 – 190.
Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Raffoul, F. (2010). The origins of responsibility. Bloom- ington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Rowe, K. (2003). The importance of Teacher Quality as a key determinant of students’ experiences and outcomes of schooling. Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) Research Conference 2003 (Building Teacher Quality: What does the research tell us?), Melbourne. Rowe, K.J., Turner, R. & Lane, K. (2002). Performance
feedback to schools of students’ Year 12 assessments: The VCE Data Project. In R. Coe & A. Visscher (Eds.), School improvement through performance feedback. Nether- lands: Swetz & Zeitlinger
Shomos, A. 2010, Links between literacy and numeracy skills and labour market outcomes, Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper, Melbourne, August.
Smith, D.E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Smith, D.E. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology
for people. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Taubman, P. (2009). Teaching by numbers. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kostogriz & DoecKe • The ethical practice of teaching literacy: Accountability or responsibility?
Alex Kostogriz is Associate Professor in TESOL and literacy education at Deakin University. He has published widely on issues of diversity, ethics and professional practice of teachers and teacher educators. Addressing these issues, he has argued the case for Thirdspace pedagogy, development of transcultural literacy, and education that is more hospitable and responsive to the other. He has co-edited Dimensions of Professional Learning (2007) and
Linguistically and Culturally Diverse Classrooms (2009), as well as special issues of numerous journals on teaching
and learning in multicultural conditions. His current research focuses on the preparation of teachers for work in socially and culturally diverse schools and on the effects of standards-based reforms in education on the profes-
sional practice and ethics of teachers.
Brenton Doecke is a Professor of Education in the Faculty of Arts and Education at Deakin University. He is a life member of both the Australian Association for the Teaching of English (AATE) and the Victorian Association for the Teaching of English (VATE). Brenton has written extensively on English curriculum and pedagogy, and is a former editor of English in Australia, the journal of the Australian Association for the Teaching of English (AATE). He played a major role in the development of the Standards for Teachers of English Language and Literacy in Australia (STELLA) and has since engaged in research on the impact of standards-based reforms on the profes-