The “application of a rigorous and transparent … process by a provider is crucial to the acceptance of the market” (Gillett, 2011, pp. 202-203). Transparent
processes for teachers are integral to the successful functioning and management of educational change (Hayes, 2014). Communication is what facilitates and creates different perspectives of transparency (Humada-Ludeke, 2013). This research argues that teachers need effective communication and transparency to
feel assured of the expectations that they need to facilitate the knowledge required for practice. Teachers also need inclusivity and acknowledgement of their
professional capacity. Weigel and Jones (2015) argue that superordinate stakeholders or school leadership find the demands of mandate difficult to manage in regards to finding time for instructional leadership and collegial interaction to facilitate mandate. While Cooper and colleagues (2016) suggest that “school structures that promote and support effective teacher leadership
include time for collaboration, shared leadership, and embedded professional development” (p. 88), in practice, this is problematic and dependent on structures
such as funding to include time release as part of the teacher workload (Williamson & Gardner, 2015).
This research argues that regular and open dialogue is more effective in schools where internal or site-specific collegial relationships are more transparent, inclusive and productive. Group dynamics in schools are impacted by collegial relationships, where teaching cohorts rely on internal behaviour and inclusivity in which “group cohesion influences members’ behaviours in important ways: high
levels of group cohesion have been associated with greater commitment to group goals, participation, communication, and self-confidence” (Greenlee & Karanxha, 2010, p. 361). Greenlee and Karanxha (2010) suggest that an inclusive approach for teachers supports and strengthens knowledge and participation, resulting in a burgeoning knowledge-bank and increased confidence. Professional relationships and cohesion affect the frequency and type of collegial collaboration for teachers. Bridwell-Mitchell and Cooc (2016) found, in their two year study examining social capital, that organisations such as schools must be aware of cohesiveness in their workplace. They concluded that whilst strong cohesiveness is key to
facilitating formal processes such as mandated reform, it recognised the importance of providing “mutually reinforcing relationships among the
afforded equal opportunity to add to education reform or discussion. This indicates the high importance of transparency and inclusivity for teachers during reform (Rowan & Bigum, 2012).
Professional modelling or leadership through effective communication via senior staff encourages, creates and sustains a positive and collegially supportive culture (Rogers 2002). In order for change to occur, collegial communication should therefore be inclusive of all teachers. Williamson and Gardner (2015) emphasise this, saying that “when principals foster openness and social trust with teachers as colleagues, teacher capacity to implement change and act proactively is strengthened” (p. 74). This is challenged by Hargreaves (2016),
who suggests that such relationships can be difficult. A top-down culture can impede transparency and teacher trust of colleagues and leadership.
An open culture of transparency is integral to creating positive school culture of reform, where inclusive and “focused conversations and inquiries … lead to improvements” (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012, p. 163). This is a sustainable
approach if it is supported by superordinate stakeholders. Gökmenoglu and Clark (2015) suggest that it is from such transparency and communication that teachers gain a sense of professional value or teacher agency and a level of certainty that their feedback and opinions regarding larger issues found in reform are
considered and conveyed by their school leadership to external superordinate stakeholders. This is problematic however, since if collegial relationships are not conducive to a transparent culture, then uncertainty, stress, tension, and lowered teacher and professional identity prevails. However, Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) note that while smaller or isolated sites can provide autonomy, “it also cuts
teachers off from the valuable feedback that would help those judgements be wise and effective” (2012, p. 106). In this, whilst autonomy is viewed as crucial to
teacher growth, greater involvement, including through transparent direction, allows professional growth and confidence in practice. Rogers (2002a) supports
transparent, effective communication between stakeholders as crucial in all circumstances, that a progressive collegial culture must be encouraged and supported to build professional trust. Rogers (2002a) states that:
[t]eachers need to feel that they can engage in professional discussions both informally and more formally with high trust. In this way their ongoing learning is occasioned from supportive feedback and sharing …
teaching and management practice can always be improved by shared professional reflection. (p. 44)
From this, through equitable communication a culture of trust is built. An
environment of trust establishes professional freedom for teachers, that encourages purposeful professional learning, sharing and development. Consequently, this culture empowers stakeholders as it encourages and improves capacity for
developing understanding to effectively implement reform (Timperley, 2011) with mutual influence (Greenlee & Karanxha, 2010). Van Aalst and Chan (2012) views transparent, shared “knowledge-building” [… as] future-proofing” (p. 85)
for the benefit of education stakeholders. In contrast, without transparency or effective communication, perceptions of professional distrust may emerge.
The effect of a lack of communication for teachers, is teacher disengagement or increased resistance to processes such as reform (Björk & Blase, 2009), making the task of implementation problematic for compliant teachers who are willing to conform and address reform changes. However, a lack of communication causes a sense of professional disregard or devaluing of teacher agency and distances teachers from the reform process. Timperley (2011) says that “teachers cannot readily engage in cycles of inquiry and knowledge- building when they feel criticized or put down for not being good enough” (p.
41), when they feel disregarded and excluded from practice. Thus, if communication or transparency is limited and inflexible, then a culture of disconnect and resistance will persist, which is a barrier to engaging in effective
change processes (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2013). The professional culture within a school is entrenched and inevitably self-replicating, particularly if effective measures such as transparent communication are not taken (Mangez, 2010). Transparency facilitates an inclusive culture, which McMaster states is an “element makes up a vital part of school members’ efforts to create sustainable inclusive change” (McMaster, 2014, p. 44). Without transparency, reform may
become exclusive or difficult with resistance from teachers and older or stagnating approaches to curriculum in education. While authorities such as AITSL set teacher standards, transparency is essential between stakeholders for meeting these teaching standards, accountabilities and processes.
This research argues that transparency among stakeholders for effective process must be established through a reciprocal relationship. A reciprocal relationship supports understanding of context and capability or facilitative capacity of, between, and by stakeholders. Successful reform involves the support of “a shared vision, increasing the academic press for learning,
emphasizing teacher professional development, facilitating a collaborative working culture, and involving stakeholders in decision making” (Heck & Hallinger, 2010, pp. 229-230). A reciprocal approach to accountability sees that each level of stakeholders within a system such as education “should be held accountable for the contributions it must make to produce an effective system. A comprehensive system must attend to the inputs, processes, and outcomes that produce student learning” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014, p. 6). King (2014) and
Opfer and Pedder (2011) suggest that mandates such as curriculum reform should be comprehensively and systemically supported by superordinate stakeholders for teachers through access to relevant resources in order to facilitate the
implementation of an overhauled curriculum. Through this, teachers are therefore supported in meeting their accountabilities including addressing the AITSL standards of teaching. This is where “intelligently allocated resources and
professional expertise” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014) are essential to sustaining
professional growth of teachers and understanding of and alignment for reform. Intelligent allocation of assistance refers to differentiated and appropriately utilised, meaningful professional learning including through professional mentoring (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014). Experience is essential for quality teaching (Pylman, 2016), so it follows that teaching experience through professional support such as mentoring, is advantageous. Teachers are instrumental in the implementation of education reform so must be supported through effective resources including mentoring, via their superordinate counterparts (Gökmenoglu & Clark, 2015).
Reciprocal accountability allows for professional inclusivity or positive perspectives of teacher agency by encouraging teachers to access or request focused professional learning or assistance for their practice and pedagogical content knowledge, fostering “a cultural value of teachers; integrating formative
and summative accountability; organizing peer collaboration that develops the work of teachers and the learning of students” (Jamal, Tilchin, & Essaw, 2015, p.
59), through stakeholder interaction. This approach also encourages professional capacity and strengthens superordinate trust in teacher agency through extended or continued professional development (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014) for teacher currency. Accordingly, it is through the transparency of reciprocal accountability that local or contextualised measures are developed for meaningful and tangible facilitation.
Contextualised discussion and strategies for addressing curriculum implementation for teachers, further allow consideration of relevant and differentiated resourcing for teacher subject knowledge and professional development. Through inclusion of teacher feedback, contextualising and differentiating professional learning enables equitable and relevant access to curriculum resources. This literature review supports that, in allowing for
localised reciprocity of stakeholder inclusivity and resourcing, including teacher mentoring, teaching cohorts are capable of feeding relevant professional
knowledge back into their communities and establish a comprehensive mentoring framework (Crow, 2015). This enables intelligent and prudent resource
management (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014) to effect broader and inclusive access to professional learning. Hopkins, Rulli, Schiff, and Fradera (2015) suggest that teacher mentoring encourages a meaningful, transformative and “professionally empowering tool for teacher self-efficacy and school capacity building” (p. 2) for a dynamic professional culture at the local level, serving as an
essential reciprocal and inclusive approach, which alleviates uncertainty about and resistance to educational change, for teachers.