The Review and Development of Professional Standards through the Lens of Democratic Anchorage Points
Saved in:
| Title: | The Review and Development of Professional Standards through the Lens of Democratic Anchorage Points |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Charlaine Simpson (ORCID |
| Source: | British Educational Research Journal. 2025 51(2):572-591. |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 20 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Descriptors: | Foreign Countries, Standards, Professionalism, Democracy, Governance, Consultation Programs, Teachers, Educational Policy, Policy Formation, Participative Decision Making |
| Geographic Terms: | United Kingdom (Scotland) |
| DOI: | 10.1002/berj.4090 |
| ISSN: | 0141-1926 1469-3518 |
| Abstract: | The recent review of the Scottish professional standards for teachers, led by the General Teaching Council for Scotland, offered a unique perspective to interrogate participative approaches in policy-making in the Scottish education context and to provide insights and implications for future policy-making. Using one of the authors' experiences as a General Teaching Council Scotland Officer during the review of the professional standards, this paper conceptualises the consultation process as a form of democratic governance, using Sørensen and Torfing's framing of the four anchorage points that enable democratic legitimacy in governance networks. This perspective places policy-making within a governance structure that is created by networks that interact, overlap and are entangled with each other, implying a decentralised form of governance. An analysis of the stages of the review process demonstrated that it was participatory. However, there was an over-reliance on the established policy-making community. In addition, authentic participation was restricted as choices were limited by the metagovernor. We argue that Sørensen and Torfing's anchorage points for democratic legitimacy allow an interrogation of the extent to which policy-making in Scottish education is authentically democratic and conclude by offering a framework of critical questions for more transparent democratic participation in future iterations of similar professional standards reviews. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1466165 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The recent review of the Scottish professional standards for teachers, led by the General Teaching Council for Scotland, offered a unique perspective to interrogate participative approaches in policy-making in the Scottish education context and to provide insights and implications for future policy-making. Using one of the authors' experiences as a General Teaching Council Scotland Officer during the review of the professional standards, this paper conceptualises the consultation process as a form of democratic governance, using Sørensen and Torfing's framing of the four anchorage points that enable democratic legitimacy in governance networks. This perspective places policy-making within a governance structure that is created by networks that interact, overlap and are entangled with each other, implying a decentralised form of governance. An analysis of the stages of the review process demonstrated that it was participatory. However, there was an over-reliance on the established policy-making community. In addition, authentic participation was restricted as choices were limited by the metagovernor. We argue that Sørensen and Torfing's anchorage points for democratic legitimacy allow an interrogation of the extent to which policy-making in Scottish education is authentically democratic and conclude by offering a framework of critical questions for more transparent democratic participation in future iterations of similar professional standards reviews. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0141-1926 1469-3518 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/berj.4090 |
