13 December 2025: Professional development with and for professional integrity

Professional development with and for professional integrity

Professional growth is not something that can be imposed; it must be fostered through trust, dialogue and respect for teachers’ expertise and their need for autonomy: analysis and some ways forward.

By Simon Coffey, Kings College London and Karen Hanrahan, UCL Institute of Education, who are members of the ALL ITET* Forum

*ITET: Initial Teacher Education and Training

There is broad consensus that professional development, by enhancing the quality of teaching, has a positive impact on pupil outcomes (Sims et al., 2023). What constitutes effective professional development (PD) in the ‘post-professional’ age (Ball, 2009) is perhaps less straightforward. PD does not always imply professional learning (Murray and Christison, 2023). The Education Endowment Foundation’s systematic review defines teachers’ PD as ‘structured, facilitated activity for teachers intended to increase their teaching ability’ (Sims et al,, 2021, 7). Building on this work, Sims et al. (2023) theorise that effective PD design needs to take into account four elements: insight (deepening teachers’ understanding of teaching and learning), motivation (motivating teachers to change their practice), techniques (providing teachers with the necessary skills to apply new understanding in their practice), and practice (embedding the technique as part of teachers’ repertoires). For example, activity relating to school policy, curriculum updates or technological training does not count as PD.

Whilst pupil outcomes lie at the heart of professional development, there are other factors to consider in order to sustain teachers’ commitment over a career spanning numerous professional life phases (Day and Gu, 2010) and multiple reforms. How teachers are thought of and how they think of themselves – questions of professionalism and identity – are key to attracting new entrants to the profession and retaining those who are wavering, as well as improving effectiveness in the classroom. As MFL is now the subject with the highest number of ‘vacancy rates for secondary classroom teachers’ (Maisuria et al., 2023, 8) we need to take stock urgently of how we value our profession. Debates around de-professionalism, re-professionalism and post-professionalism involve what Stephen Ball (2003, 217) refers to as ‘the struggle over the teacher’s soul’ and are reflected in shifting conceptualisations of PD.

‘Baker Days’

The late 1980s saw some longstanding changes in education led by Kenneth Baker who was the Education Secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s government from 1986-1989, a tenure which feels almost perennial compared with the more recent appointment turnovers (seven Education Secretaries in just the last five years!). The 1988 Education Reform Act, according to Fisher (2008, 255) ‘represented a paradigm shift in British educational politics … Baker destroyed the previous national political consensus based on a non-interventionist approach, embodied in the 1944 Education Act’. The Act ushered in the National Curriculum ‘without any meaningful teacher involvement …, a sign of the disdain in which the Government held teachers’ (Rieser, 2016, 272) in an act of interventionist centralisation that has only gathered pace ever since. (In passing one can note that the same year saw the shameful passing of Section 28 of the Local Government Act). From this point, teaching changed radically as the political and psychological pressures of OFSTED and marketisation took hold, pressures directly linked to professional attrition and the persistent teacher shortages that successive governments have continued to grapple with. Nevertheless, one positive outcome of the 1988 Act was Baker’s introduction of ‘in-service training’ (INSET) days, popularly known as ‘Baker Days’. The idea was straightforward: to provide teachers with dedicated time for professional development outside of the immediate pressures of classroom teaching. Five such days were built into the school year, carved out of pupil contact time, so that staff could reflect, learn, and grow together.

In their early conception, Baker Days represented a recognition of teaching as a profession that required ongoing renewal. At their best, these days created space for teachers to step back from the daily grind, to engage in horizontal dialogue with colleagues, and to think more freely about pedagogy, curriculum, and practice. This was more than just ‘training’ in the narrow sense; it was an opportunity to explore ideas, challenge assumptions, and shape professional identity within a community of peers. The integrity of professional development was embedded in that freedom: teachers learning with and from one another, exercising agency over their craft.

Over the years, however, the nature of Baker Days has shifted. Even in 1999 the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) report (Harland et al.) reported a tension between the desired objectives of non-contact days (INSET or CPD days) as perceived, on one hand, by senior management – focussing on improved performance and whole school cohesiveness – and those of classroom teachers who wished to engage horizontally with their practice through shadowing, support networks, meeting colleagues from other schools and across the sector, distance learning and vacation courses. The report also highlighted differences between primary and secondary sectors, with primary sector PD being more practice-based. Since the early 2000s, and increasingly under the accountability-driven culture of the 2010s, INSET days have become increasingly managed, with agendas set from above. Instead of being spaces for open discussion and collaborative inquiry, they have frequently become vehicles for policy implementation, compliance training, or delivery of centrally prescribed initiatives. Current research shows that benefits of INSET days are variable, being ‘much better at meeting Head Teachers’ and Senior Leaders’ needs than those of classroom teachers and middle leaders’ (Allen et al., 2024, 11). The same report found that ‘the most commonly referenced areas were safeguarding and behaviour’ (8). As the report concludes, ‘teachers want autonomy over CPD’ (26). The timing of the days has also moved. They are now generally tagged on to the beginning or end of the year to minimise disruption rather than spread out over the year. This speaks volumes about the place – and erasure – of professional development.

Horizontal PD, a conversation

From an MFL perspective, it is regrettable – as the 2024 report confirms – that in ‘secondary schools there is a particularly marked absence of subject specific professional development’ (7). At the risk of golden age-ism, we can recall infrastructural support for MFL through structures such as CILT (dismantled in England in 2011), the QCDA (dissolved after 2010), opportunities for funded courses through the pre-Brexit Erasmus+ programme (including summer language courses) and the European Centre for Modern Languages (the UK withdrew in 2011). Thankfully, there are continued mechanisms for support through the Association for Language Learning and the National Association of Language Advisers, though the culture of horizontally associative PD seems to be lost from school-based provision. The National Consortium for Languages Education (NCLE) is attempting to foster dialogue and promote practitioner inquiry through schools-led Strategic Learning Networks and National Priority Projects. NCLE’s CPD platform, Language Educators Online, offers professional learning in areas such as languages leadership, where there is a lack of subject specific research and training relating to secondary schools in the UK context.

There is a strong feeling in the profession that professional trust has diminished, replaced by a top-down model that leaves little room for genuine dialogue. The erosion of teachers’ collective space for free thinking has consequences not only for morale but also for the integrity of professional development, whereby CPD is reduced to transmission rather than conversation. Professional growth is not something that can be imposed; it must be fostered through trust, dialogue and respect for teachers’ expertise and their need for autonomy. The Chartered College of Teaching’s working paper on professionalism (Müller and Cook, 2024) recognises the cognitive, ethical, legal and social domains of teacher professionalism which in turn enhance the authority, prestige, esteem and status of the profession. In an era where education faces immense challenges, spaces for reflection and genuine professional exchange are more vital than ever.

References

Allen, B., Menzies, L., & Ford, I. (2024). The current state of professional development for teachers. Teacher Tapp & Gatsby Foundation Report.

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.

Ball, S. J. (2009). Education reform, teacher professionalism and the end of authenticity. In M. Simons, M. Olssen, & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Re-reading education policies: A handbook studying the policy agenda of the 21st century (pp. 667–682). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2010). The new lives of teachers. London: Routledge.

Fisher, T. (2008). The era of centralisation: The 1988 Education Reform Act and its consequences. Forum, 50(2), 255–264.

Harland, J., Ashworth, M., Atkinson, M., Halsey, K., Haynes, J., Moor, H., & Wilkin, A. (1999). Thank you for the days? How schools use their non-contact days. Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research.

Maisuria, A., Roberts, N., Long, R., & Danechi, S. (2023, December 12). Teacher recruitment and retention in England (Research Briefing CBP-7222). House of Commons Library.

Murray, D. E., & Christison, M. (2023). Peer mentoring and coaching as tools for leadership development and learning. In H. Reinders (Ed.), Language teacher leadership (pp. 153–179). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.

Müller, L. M., & Cook, V. (2024). Revisiting the notion of teacher professionalism: A working paper. London: Chartered College of Teaching.

Rieser, R. (2016). The teachers’ action, 1984–1986: Learning lessons from history. Forum, 58(2), 267–285.

Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O’Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Van Herwegen, J., & Anders, J. (2021). What are the characteristics of teacher professional development that increase pupil achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis. London: Education Endowment Foundation. https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/evidence-reviews/teacherprofessional-development-characteristics

Sims, S., Fletcher-Wood, H., O’Mara-Eves, A., Cottingham, S., Stansfield, C., Goodrich, J., Van Herwegen, J., & Anders, J. (2023). Effective teacher professional development: New theory and a meta-analytic test. Review of Educational Research, 95(2), 213–254. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231217480