Shifting conceptions of teacher development in Hong Kong: Rethinking quality

Abstract

Objectives: This paper examines shifting conceptions of quality teacher development in Hong Kong (HK) by analyzing the newly launched T-Standard. HK “presents a sustained exercise in education reform that was launched in 1999” (Cheng, 2017, p. 15), and offers a timely opportunity to study how a high-performing system, engaged in continuous improvement, now (re)-defines teacher quality. Perspectives: Questions about teacher quality remain central in global conversations about teaching and learning (Akiba & LeTendre, 2018; OECD, 2019). This is unsurprising given evidence of benefits to learners taught by well-prepared teachers (European Commission, 2018; Carter & Darling-Hammond, 2016), juxtaposed against the detrimental impact weak teachers can have on learners’ achievement and economic futures (Chetty, Friedman, & Rockoff, 2014; Goldhaber & Walch, 2014). Moreover, international rankings on benchmarking assessments such as PISA, have fueled competition and the desire to tap high-performers, to learn their secret to quality schooling (cf. Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Edge et al., 2017). HK is one jurisdiction that has achieved notable success post-colonial control. It has engaged in “dramatic changes of the curriculum,” moving away from a “selective British tradition” (Cheng, 2017, p. 16), to provide free primary and secondary schooling, achieve a 99% literacy rate, and routinely top PISA league tables (OECD, 2017). Its success notwithstanding, HK is currently undergoing another ‘dramatic change’ towards student- and values-centered education, teachers as caring, ethical professionals, and a focus on learning over teaching. As a high-performing jurisdiction, HK seems well positioned to risk change and to take the lead in re-conceptualizing quality teaching/teachers. Modes of Inquiry and Data Sources: Data—the HK T-Standard, relevant documents, and interviews of system insiders with first-hand knowledge of the reform process—were inductively analyzed to determine emerging conceptions of teacher quality. We used OECD’s Learning Framework 2030 to assess how these standards address student learning, and speak to “a vision and some underpinning principles for the future of education systems” (OECD, 2018, p. 3), in light of HK’s “forward looking expectations” for teachers and students (COTAP, 2018). Conclusions and Significance: Preliminary findings indicate that HK sees good teachers leading from behind, as “cultivators” or “enablers.” The move is away from quality correlated with students’ test scores on traditional assessments, to “student-centredness as [a] core belief of the T-standard” and a focus on “whole-person wellness, key competences for adulthood, change agility for tomorrow” (COTAP, 2018). Good “teachers” includes principals under “the tripartite structural model of ‘Initial, Professional Leadership’” (Wong, 2015, p. 77). This model undergirds teacher and principal quality with the same values outlined above, and articulates professional development as an iterative process for educators, beginning with/at initial preparation. This unique feature of HK’s reform suggests an intention to redefine notions of leadership, and to highlight the “enhanced role of teachers as drivers of change and innovation” (interview). These conclusions suggest that for countries seeking to improve educational outcomes, understanding how HK now defines teacher quality can point the way to climbing up the ranks, not via test scores, but teaching that is focused on learning.