Teacher professional learning under audit: reconfiguring practice in an age of standards
Abstract
One of the key tenets of the global education reform movement, professional standards for teachers have reshaped different aspects of teachers’ work and learning in many contexts internationally over the past two decades. This paper explores the consequences of neoliberalism for teacher professional learning in contemporary times. The policies and processes built up around teacher professional development and learning as a consequence of contemporary regimes of standards and their dominant conceptualisation of teacher professionalism, constitute particular cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements that frame the practice of teacher professional learning. These in turn give rise to some possibilities of practice while limiting others, effectively creating the space within which what counts as 'authentic professional learning' can be enacted. A case study of the interplay between professional standards and professional learning in the jurisdiction of New South Wales, Australia, is presented, via an analysis of publicly available texts generated by the NSW Education Standards Authority explicitly related to teacher professional learning and development. The paper argues that the practice architectures of professional learning in an age of standards work to support instrumental forms of professional learning while constraining the possibility of more authentic or generative forms of professional learning and consequently, teacher professionalism.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
PL quantified in hours to match standards diverges from authentic learning stemming from contextualised issues and practices.
“This type of PL, quantified in hours to match standards, diverges from authentic learning stemming from contextualised issues and practices (Mockler 2020).”
From Unveiling teachers’ professional agency and decision-making in professional learning: the illusion of choice (2025) · cites this paper as Mockler 2020
Regimes of teacher professional standards can reshape teacher professional learning by promoting a specific version of teacher professionalism.
“Our findings resonate with the insights of Mockler (2020), who highlighted that regimes of teacher professional standards can reshape teacher professional learning by promoting a specific version of teacher professionalism.”
From Unveiling teachers’ professional agency and decision-making in professional learning: the illusion of choice (2025) · cites this paper as Mockler (2020)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 44 · Cited by 131
- Authors
- Mockler, N.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Mockler, Nicole
- ORCID
- Mockler, Nicole
- Venue
- Professional Development in Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-01-30
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 166-180
- ISSN
- 1941-5257 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-5265
- OpenAlex
- W3003565943
- Cited by
- 131
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 21.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Professional Development in Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Global Educational Policies and Reforms
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Assessments
- Keywords
- teacher learning, teacher professional standards, neoliberalism, teacher professionalism, teacher professional development, educational reform, practice architectures, New South Wales
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review