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.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFwk-4WStrvyDimpJPrOOOFAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDE2FQTYQhDPP5jqWuAIBEICBm_aTyRZGEvqNcYXb1FHAzmwBhAMTV6Ww2v1SIEbH7Vrnk8KEyJHj90FMgBKsxLTA0CRkQ5EZVig6iMfR4myijS2F5eYSdGI-lGOFOh5fs_Vw0svxo_4_P5qBu00nDt4-SjC-iRaAAh8bhiejsgOXFZzfLwGk-E4vGB8E9qVthSYNwj2cnizGJpPVp4eE4aW7meFmMF0gJCksvSjO Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0184273876;bed01apr.25;2025Apr08.06:09;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184273876-1">The review and development of professional standards through the lens of Democratic Anchorage points </title> <p>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.</p> <p>Keywords: democratic anchors; democratic legitimacy; participatory policy‐making; policy networks</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-2">Key insights</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184273876-3">What is the main issue that the paper addresses?</hd> <p>This paper explores a significant consultative event in Scottish education, the review of Scotland's professional standards for teachers (General Teaching Council for Scotland, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref1">24</reflink>]), by drawing on Sørensen and Torfing's ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref2">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref3">52</reflink>]) four anchorage points for democratic network governance. This allows consideration of the extent to which stakeholder engagement was meaningful to this process.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-4">What are the main insights that the paper provides?</hd> <p>Through surfacing the hidden dimensions of policy review, this paper demonstrates the complexity of reaching consensus through a multiplicity of voices, while highlighting the vulnerability of stakeholder voice. The paper presents a series of questions to support policymakers in upholding democratic principles during the design and enactment of collaborative policymaking.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-5">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>In Scotland, governance of the education system is devolved from the central UK Government to Scotland's Parliament and the responsibility for the development of standards for the teaching profession lies with the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTC Scotland), an independent regulatory body funded by teachers, whose role is guided by a legal statute (The Public Service Reform, General Teaching Council for Scotland, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref4">62</reflink>]). The core functions of GTC Scotland are three‐fold: registration, regulation and accreditation. The registration function involves maintaining the Register of Teachers as it is a legal requirement for all teachers employed in any school in Scotland to be registered. Secondly, GTC Scotland also has a role in regulation to maintain the standards for entry and remaining on the Register of Teachers, including a Fitness to Teach process to investigate any serious concerns regarding conduct and professionalism. Finally, GTC Scotland also has a key function in accrediting Initial Teacher Education programmes and sets the minimum entry to these programmes. The Council, which has oversight of all aspects of GTC Scotland's work, comprises a combination of serving teachers, lay members and leaders within the wider education system.</p> <p>Review of the professional standards takes place periodically to ensure standards are responsive to socio‐cultural change and the needs of the people whose working practice they touch. This review is regarded within GTC Scotland as a participatory process that engages the education community in order to gather insights and remain connected with the profession as suggested in the literature review commissioned by GTC Scotland (McMahon, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref5">44</reflink>]). The objective of the study reported here was to evaluate the extent to which participation by stakeholders in the most recent review of professional standards was meaningful and whether participation was authentically representative of the wider education community. The larger purpose was to identify the lessons that could be learned to inform future reviews both in Scotland and in international contexts where engagement with the teaching profession is regarded as a valuable dimension of developing professional standards.</p> <p>The paper discusses the consultative process of reviewing professional standards as a form of democratic governance, drawing on Sørensen and Torfing's ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref6">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref7">52</reflink>]) concept of the four anchorage points for democratic legitimacy in governance networks. It introduces the work of GTC Scotland and examines professional standards as a policy for system improvement and a self‐evaluation framework for professional learning. The paper then applies the concept of network governance as a framework for participatory deliberative policy‐making to demonstrate democratic participation in the review process.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-6">PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AS POLICY AND PRACTICE</hd> <p>Increasingly, governments are using professional standards as a mechanism to respond to the globalisation of education, based on the understanding that they can be used to improve teacher quality through enhancing teacher learning (Sahlberg, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref8">55</reflink>]). This is then linked to improved outcomes for children and young people. However, while this view appears to be accepted by policymakers (Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref9">33</reflink>]; Sahlberg, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref10">55</reflink>]), it is disputed. For example, Kennedy ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref11">33</reflink>]) argues there is insufficient evidence to confirm a direct correlation between professional standards and the outcomes experienced by pupils in terms of their academic attainment or other measures of success in school. Further, Adams and McLennan ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref12">1</reflink>]) point out that the simplistic assumption that enhancing teachers' skills and knowledge leads to educational improvement in policymakers' view of education is misplaced. The role of professional standards is, rather, more complex and nuanced in nature than these views imply.</p> <p>Professional standards can provide a powerful example of a framework that can serve multiple purposes (Simpson, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref13">58</reflink>]). For example, they may be used by governments to support different models of professionalism. Professional standards can be framed as regulatory documents or policies, as well as professional learning frameworks (Leonard, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref14">37</reflink>]; Mahony &amp; Hextall, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref15">41</reflink>]; Sachs, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref16">54</reflink>]). They can be used as a way of increasing regulation by illustrating the desired knowledge, skills and behaviours of teachers (Whitty, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref17">65</reflink>]) or they can be used to measure competence and support professional growth (Kennedy, Carver &amp; Adams, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref18">34</reflink>]) suggesting the complex nature of professional standards as sites of policy enactment.</p> <p>In some jurisdictions, such as Australia and England, policymakers have promoted professional standards as an enabling form of policy that focuses on improvement, consistency, teacher quality and accountability. The suggestion is that the use of professional standards for teachers in practice raises teacher quality by defining the attributes and practice of effective teaching (AITSL, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]). This ties closely with systems of performativity and an audit culture and is a response to the globalisation of education. It can be considered to be a reductionist approach, that codifies teachers' practice and can be viewed as a means to control teachers' work (Ball, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>]; Biesta, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref21">9</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]; Hargreaves, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref23">26</reflink>]; Sachs, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref24">53</reflink>]), as it espouses a conception of professionalism that is allied with conformity rather than transformational practice. Professional standards are, therefore, identifiable as highly politicised sites in which competing views of the purposes of teaching and the role of education are at stake.</p> <p>In other contexts, including Scotland, professional standards aim to improve the quality of teachers by providing a framework for self‐evaluation (Reeves et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref25">48</reflink>]) and creating a system‐wide strategy for professional learning (Kleinhenz &amp; Ingvarson, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref26">35</reflink>]; Mahony &amp; Hextall, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref27">41</reflink>]). This affords teachers the opportunity to include self‐reflection and professional judgement in their practice and creates space for professional autonomy. These are ideas that have become integral to conceptions of professional standards for the teaching profession in Scotland.</p> <p>Professional standards for teachers have a long history in Scotland, having first been developed as part of a review of the guidelines for initial teacher training, now known as initial teacher education, in 1993 (Holroyd, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]). As professional standards are of their time, they are imbued with historical as well as current discourses, and position statements that require regular critique to ensure development in line with the realities of social and cultural context (Sachs, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref29">53</reflink>]). In Scotland, this happens as part of a 5 year review cycle overseen by GTC Scotland, who are the guardians of the professional standards for the profession. This planned review process is important, as it enables the standards to remain current and responsive to the conditions that influence thinking and practice in and around schools.</p> <p>In Scotland, the development of professional standards for the teaching profession has sought to be driven by consensus within the education community. This self‐regulatory approach is different to some other education systems, such as England and Australia where professional standards are developed by government agencies (see for example Mayer &amp; Mills [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref30">43</reflink>]). The Scottish approach, as we will explore, takes a view that the outcome is an agreed interpretation of professional standards through the lens of those involved in both their development and enactment. Thus, they may not offer precise statements about teachers and teaching, but instead offer statements, interpretations and activities (Forde et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>]) relating to how professional standards can be used in practice. This has been described as a combination of 'comprehensiveness' and 'looseness' (Forde et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref32">20</reflink>], p. 23) that makes GTC Scotland's suite of professional standards unique.</p> <p>Humes and Bryce ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref33">30</reflink>]) once suggested that policy‐making in Scotland is premised on deeply held beliefs that the education system is socially just and democratic and is fundamental to the Scottish identity. However, this is discussed by Macpherson and Rabb ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref34">40</reflink>]) as a myth, as the Scottish style of policy‐making (Hulme &amp; Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref35">28</reflink>]) tends to engage prominent insider actors, who are personally and professionally known to each other (Humes, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref36">29</reflink>]), and as such, it can be difficult for those outwith this tight‐knit policy community to influence policy development. Although there is an illusion of order where Scottish education policy is developed through a participative approach, employing consultations and working groups, this conceals the politically fuelled power struggles within the education community.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-7">PARTICIPATORY POLICY‐MAKING</hd> <p>Deliberative democracy has been defined as 'representative public deliberation to improve collective decision‐making and strengthen democracy' (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref37">45</reflink>], p. 5). It is seen as a method by which public participation is harnessed to influence and shape governance directions and policy development (Bua &amp; Escobar, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref38">14</reflink>]; Smith, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref39">60</reflink>]). It is increasingly being offered as a counterbalance to a rising distrust in authoritarian and centralised governance (Butzlaff &amp; Messinger‐Zimmer, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref40">15</reflink>]). In Scotland, the transparency and consensuality of governance and policy‐making processes are priorities (Britton et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref41">13</reflink>]). While GTC Scotland is not a government body, it is closely tied with the aspirations of national education policy and seeks to reflect and represent the teaching profession's priorities actively, openly and in the best interests of the profession (and the public).</p> <p>Consulting with and gathering the perspectives of a range of stakeholders and community‐wide voices <emph>en route</emph> to shaping policy has been argued to be a means of ensuring that centralised policy‐making remains accountable to the people whose lives or work it touches (Fischer, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref42">19</reflink>]). It is also presented as a means of ensuring that policy‐making engages with ethical concerns related to meaningful democratic representation and human flourishing (Lees‐Marshment et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref43">36</reflink>]). It is directly opposed to the more passive form of stakeholder engagement with policy development that consists of approving or critiquing an already developed policy outcome.</p> <p>The processes that describe this kind of policy development work have been designated as 'participatory–deliberative processes' (Bua &amp; Escobar, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref44">14</reflink>], p. 126) in recognition of their dual function of public engagement and multi‐perspectival thinking. In the broadest sense, deliberative democracy of this kind focuses on the development of shared perspectives, through communitarian ideas of discursive practice and consensus building (Stark et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref45">61</reflink>]) that create emergent forms of knowledge. As a process, it has the capacity to confer or support the legitimacy of policy directions (Parkinson, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref46">47</reflink>]), for example by ensuring that policy remains grounded in relevant experience and practice, and by generating and maintaining the confidence of those who are required or expected to implement it (Wang &amp; Wart, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref47">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development (OECD), whose role is intergovernmental, promotes the opportunities offered by participatory–deliberative processes on the grounds that they offer a number of benefits, including independence from lobbies or parties with private interests, the contribution and inclusion of diverse perspectives, and a focus on the common good. However, 'these processes only work if they are designed well' (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref48">45</reflink>], p. 8). The design parameters of these processes are closely linked with their integrity, trustworthiness and usefulness. This connects with a key rationale in the present paper, which seeks to surface the processes at work in GTC Scotland's most recent review of Scotland's professional standards for teachers with a view to better understanding the effectiveness of its design and, as a consequence, to raising suggestions for enhancing future review processes.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-8">DESIGNING A PARTICIPATORY–DELIBERATIVE PROCESS</hd> <p>It is argued that in order to meet the definition of a participatory–deliberative process, the design must be rooted in an epistemological stance that is philosophically congruent with democratic principles. It must have, as a minimum, the potential or capacity to be genuinely deliberative (Johnson &amp; Gastil, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref49">32</reflink>]), recognising that it is difficult to legislate for the realities in practice whatever the planned process structure. There is also a requirement that participants appreciate their role as a form of empowerment that will have a meaningful consequence for the outcome (Levine et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref50">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>In organising participation and deliberation processes, five areas have been articulated as requiring attention during the design phase, namely; (i) the principles and purposes of the work should be set out, (ii) the position of the work within the matrix of other relevant policy should be identified, (iii) the participants need to be consciously selected to be representative and appropriately resourced to participate, (iv) the structure and organisation of the approach needs to be clarified and (v) the tools for implementation of the process should be appropriate to the task (Blomkamp, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref51">12</reflink>]). It has also been argued that wider contextual awareness is key, since any participatory–deliberative process takes place in a particular time and place and should be focused on the needs and specificities of that context (Johnson &amp; Gastil, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref52">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-9">NETWORK GOVERNANCE</hd> <p>Network governance can be another useful frame for conceptualising participatory–deliberative policy‐making. It encapsulates the move from centralised to decentralised education systems, and the role that public and private actors increasingly play in shaping policy. Sørensen and Torfing ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref53">52</reflink>], p. 236) describe network governance as 'pluricentric negotiations among relevant and affected actors interacting on the basis of <emph>interdependency, trust,</emph> and jointly developed <emph>rules, norms and discourses</emph>' while Borzel ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref54">3</reflink>]) highlights the role of power dependency, suggesting that network governance occurs through a process of resource exchange.</p> <p>Policy networks can be understood as 'sets of formal and informal linkages between governmental and other actors structured around shared if endlessly negotiated beliefs and interests' (Rhodes, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref55">49</reflink>], p. 423). Rhodes' ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref56">49</reflink>]) policy network continuum can be useful for understanding that networks can have different forms. Policy communities have a restrictive membership at one end of the typology, while issue networks, at the other end, can be seen as unstable with a fluctuating membership. While policy networks in Scottish education tend to bring in members of the policy community, the policy community itself has 'internal relationships of trust and deference' (McPherson and Raab, 1988, p. 405). This results in participants of the policy community having unequal significance, where some people or institutes occupy multiple positions becoming what Ball and Junemann ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref57">5</reflink>], p. 10) call 'boundary spanners', who are adept at networking and thus have more power of influence.</p> <p>Ball and Junemann's ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref58">5</reflink>]) work on policy networks highlights the potential for network governance to provide opportunities to a wider variety of actors than would normally be the case, thereby creating more effective and legitimate policies. Although much of Ball's work focuses on the action of edu‐business, third sector and philanthropic actors within networks, it can be useful in pointing out the fragility of networks as it supports an examination of power relations.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-10">THE 2017–2021 PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REVIEW PROCESS</hd> <p>The first author of the present paper was, at the time of the review, working with GTC Scotland. An outline of the review process, gathered via the first author's recollections and publicly available materials, informs the outline of the review process shared here.</p> <p>The discussion to review the professional standards began in January 2017. The plan was to complete the process within 2 years and issue a new suite of professional standards for use by August 2019. However, there was a 2 year delay owing to a major review of Scottish education, which brought forward fundamental questions about the legitimacy of GTC Scotland as an independent body, and suggested a change to an Education Workforce Council, which would be similar to the independent professional regulator in Wales, the role of which is to maintain professionalism and enhance standards within the education workforce, in the public interest. This change would have expanded the remit of GTC Scotland from teachers to all educators, for example, instrumental music instructors, classroom assistants and community development workers, and may have had major implications for registration and fitness to practice. Consequently, the review process spanned almost 5 years from the initial discussion to the enactment of the refreshed professional standards in 2021. The process can be divided into four phases, as shown in Figure 1.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BED/01apr25/berj4090-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="berj4090-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Phases for the process of refreshing the professional standards for teachers in Scotland. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184273876-12">PHASE 1: INTERROGATION</hd> <p>A literature review was commissioned to provide evidence of thinking and practice in relation to professional standards. This ran alongside the strategic group, operational groups, and invited groups, an indicative composition of which can be seen in Figure 2. The strategic groups were tasked with governance of the review and ensuring focus on the key deliverables, and the operational and invited groups engaged in discussions to create a draft for consultation.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BED/01apr25/berj4090-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="berj4090-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Indicative composition of strategic, operational and invited groups. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]" /> </p> <p></p> <p>The operational groups interrogated the previous set of professional standards to ascertain which elements should be subject to change and which should remain. Following on from these sessions, selected individuals were brought together for more in‐depth discussions about professional values and to address the alignment across the suite of professional standards. These individuals were selected from the operational groups based on their contribution and availability. A few invited groups, for example, a parent group and an expert education group, also engaged in discussion to inform the review.</p> <p>The final data collection during phase one was dubbed the 'National Conversation', which set out to gather the voices of teachers from across Scotland and their views about professional standards. This was achieved through a professional discussion facilitated by GTC Scotland Officers with teachers, professional associations, partners and stakeholders structured around three questions about the outgoing professional standards:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What works?</item> <p></p> <item> What doesn't work?</item> <p></p> <item> What would you change and why?</item> </ulist> <p>These data were augmented by the research findings from the Children in Scotland commissioned report (Children in Scotland, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref59">17</reflink>]) which gathered the voices of the children of Scotland around the question, 'what makes a good teacher?'</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-14">PHASE 2: DRAFTING AND CONSULTING</hd> <p>The data collected from phase 1 of engagement were used to inform phase 2. During this phase, writing groups were convened to produce the next iteration of the professional standards for consultation. The writing groups had either five or six members from a diverse range of teachers, academics, GTC Scotland Council members and representatives of Scotland's national education quality and improvement body, Education Scotland. However, the invitees to these writing groups were different to the original operational groups, owing to the 2 year hiatus caused by the consultation on the draft Education (Scotland) Bill (Scottish Government, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref60">57</reflink>]). As a result, some original group members had changed positions or were no longer available, which introduced some variability into the process.</p> <p>Drafts of the new professional standards were shared for public consultation, which ran for 12 weeks from 30 September 2019. Several organisations conducted group sessions to create their consultation response. A total of 246 responses were collected along with 19 direct responses from organisational stakeholders. An analysis report was prepared that presented 28 recommendations to the GTC Scotland Council for review in March 2020. The recommendations centred around three key areas; content, engagement, and enactment.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-15">PHASE 3: CONFERENCING AND REFINING</hd> <p>During a 2 day conference, the analysis report was discussed in detail by a large group of GTC Scotland Council members and officers, academics, local authority officers and Education Scotland representatives. Although the invitees were not consistent with the original operational or writing groups in phase 2, this group worked together on the Standard for Registration (GTC Scotland, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref61">24</reflink>]) to set a benchmark for entry into the profession. This set the tone for the other professional standards documents (which related to other stages of a teacher's career) creating alignment across the suite of professional standards.</p> <p>However, as a result of the Covid‐19 pandemic, the review of professional standards required adaptation. The smaller writing groups met solely online as physical distancing was introduced to reduce the spread of Covid‐19 (Galea et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref62">21</reflink>]; WHO, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref63">66</reflink>]), creating draft professional standards, which were shared with the profession in August 2020. However, since this second draft contained a significant change in the structure and tone, a further final consultation took place to ensure that teachers and stakeholders were given an opportunity to voice their opinions.</p> <p>All registrants and stakeholder groups were directly contacted via email. In addition, there was a call to action in GTC Scotland's magazine (GTC Scotland, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref64">23</reflink>]) asking for registered teachers to offer final feedback. This resulted in 118 individual responses and several group responses. From this, online meetings were arranged to address issues that were yet to be resolved. This included ensuring coherence of tone, language and presentation across the suite of professional standards, making sure the use as a benchmark or a professional learning framework was clearly defined, and checking that the refreshed professional standards were perceived as opportunities to reflect on current practice and barriers to enactment were minimised.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-16">PHASE 4: APPROVAL AND ENACTMENT</hd> <p>The review of the suite of professional standards was completed by December 2020. The new documents were approved by the GTC Scotland Council and launched at the GTC Scotland Annual Lecture in January 2021. These documents were published on the GTC Scotland website, and the enactment of these standards began on 2 August 2021.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-17">CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK</hd> <p>As an organisation, GTC Scotland is independent of government and comprises a Council of elected members, who must be registered teachers, nominated members from the wider education system and appointed lay members (Order, 2011, Schedule 2). It is a requirement for GTC Scotland to consult with the profession about any proposed changes to its policies or practices, and there is a requirement for Council members to have oversight of all aspects of the organisation's work (Order, 2011, Schedule 3). Looking at GTC Scotland in this light, a picture of GTC Scotland as a governance network emerges.</p> <p>The review of the professional standards can be understood as occurring through a series of interconnected and entangled networks of activity. At each point in the process, a network of actors was drawn on to review, inform, shape or develop various elements of the professional standards. These networks took different forms including review groups and writing groups, while others were more focussed, for example in the production of literature reviews, and another was more widespread in the form of a 'National Conversation'. There was structural variety across these participatory forms, but all afforded opportunities for deliberative engagement. Taking this perspective, we view the review process as being enacted through one extensive network made up of smaller, overlapping networks of focussed activity.</p> <p>In order to enable critical reflection on the stages of the professional standards review process, we utilise Sørensen and Torfing's ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref65">52</reflink>]) framing of the four anchorage points that enable democratic legitimacy in governance networks. This frame is suited to the purposes of the present analysis, as it situates policy‐making within a conception of governance that is formed by networks that engage interactively with one another (Sørensen &amp; Torfing, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref66">52</reflink>]); in other words, it applies a dispersed notion of governance for policy‐making rather than a centralised or authoritarian one.</p> <p>In using this conceptual frame, we seek to question the extent to which policy‐making in Scottish education is authentically democratic, by which we mean that it takes into meaningful account the perspectives and experiences of all relevant stakeholders. We know that it is participatory, as the outline of the stages of the review process above has shown, but in applying analysis through the lens of Sørensen and Torfing's ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref67">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref68">52</reflink>]) anchorage points for democratic legitimacy, we aim to delve below the surface to evaluate the extent to which this process genuinely reflected the needs of the education community that is impacted by professional standards for the teaching profession in Scotland.</p> <p>Governance network theory points to the democratic potential of networks; however, Sørensen and Torfing ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref69">51</reflink>]) suggest that the extent to which a network can be considered democratic is determined by its form and the way in which it functions, which in turn is shaped by its unique historical and political context. As discussed above, in Scotland there is a tradition of building consensus through policy‐making, but this does not mean that the democratic function of networks cannot be improved. Through the present analysis, we are seeking to understand the lessons to be learned, to enhance the authenticity of democratic representation made possible in future reviews.</p> <p>Sørensen and Torfing ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref70">50</reflink>]) measure the quality of democratic performance in network governance in terms of four anchorage points, which can be understood as overlapping. These are:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Metagovernance – the network must be governed by democratically elected leaders, and governed in such a way that allows for self‐regulation through network design, framing and participation.</item> <p></p> <item> Membership – this must represent a selection of directly affected people and reflect the interests, preferences and opinions of affected groups and organisations.</item> <p></p> <item> Accountability – processes must allow for the network to be held accountable by those who are directly and indirectly affected by network decisions.</item> <p></p> <item> Democratic rules and norms – the network must encourage internal processes and interactions to meet democratic standards.</item> </ulist> <p>In the next section, we explore each of the anchorage points more fully and consider the extent to which each is reflected within GTC Scotland's review of professional standards (2017–2021), highlighting key issues ripe for further exploration. This section aims to demonstrate how the democratic anchorage points can be applied as a framework to critically analyse the development of education policy through a network governance process, in order to determine its democratic legitimacy. We have therefore used questions to structure the discussion below, presenting these as potential points of entry to the analysis, and demonstrating their use within our initial analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-18">DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY IN THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS REVIEW</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184273876-19">Anchorage point 1: Metagovernance</hd> <p>This first anchorage point considers the control of the network process and distribution of power across the networks. A straightforward understanding of metagovernance is the governance of governance networks. Metagoverners are actors who govern the governance process and shape the conditions under which networks operate, as well as the nature of this operation.</p> <p>Sørensen and Torfing ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref71">50</reflink>]) point to three mechanisms of metagovernance. The first is network design, which is defined as deliberate attempts to shape and structure governance networks, through the selection of individual actors and the allocation of roles and resources within the network. The second is network framing, which is the formulation of goals and objectives, where the ambitions are set out and objectives agreed. The third is network participation, which relates to the direct participation of metagoverners within networks to steer network activity.</p> <p>There is an assumption that at the highest level, metagovernance should be controlled by 'democratically elected politicians' (Sørensen &amp; Torfing, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref72">50</reflink>], p. 201) as this allows synergy between policy produced by the network and the political will of the elected majority. While GTC Scotland is an independent body and not a political entity, it utilises democratic representation through its processes to make a considerable contribution to the policy community, as it recognises government policy and direction of travel as a longstanding member of the education policy community (Humes, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref73">31</reflink>]). GTC Scotland operates in partnership with the Scottish Government and the wider education policy community, working towards shared educational goals (Hamilton, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref74">25</reflink>]), thereby ensuring a degree of alignment between their emergent policy and government vision. Here, we conceptualise GTC Scotland as the metagoverner, in that they control the overarching review, but also play various additional roles throughout the network.</p> <p>It is important to bear in mind that even in self‐regulating networks, metagovernance takes place in the 'shadow of hierarchy' (Scharpf, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref75">56</reflink>], p. 37). If a network does not perform as expected, there is always a risk that freedom will be taken away. GTC Scotland's independence was granted through the Order 2011. The Order (2011) stated two aims for GTC Scotland, which are to contribute to improving the quality of learning and teaching and to maintain and improve teachers' professional standards. The independent status of GTC Scotland took effect on 2 April 2012, with the first meeting of the newly independent council on 13 June 2012 (Matheson, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref76">42</reflink>]). Notwithstanding, the Scottish Government holds the ultimate metagovernance role, through control of the legislation that governs all education in Scotland.</p> <p>Metagovernance influences governance without reverting to hierarchal traditions of command and control (Torfing, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref77">63</reflink>]), namely through design, framing and participation (Sørensen &amp; Torfing, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref78">51</reflink>]). In the section below we discuss how GTC Scotland as the metagoverner governs through design, framing and participation in the process, considering the extent to which they afforded democratic legitimacy, and highlight issues for further exploration.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-20">Network design</hd> <p>Network design can be understood as a deliberate attempt to shape and structure governance networks, through the selection of individual actors and the allocation of roles and resources within the network. When considering the design of the network, it is important to determine who was responsible for selecting members and on what basis decisions around selection were made. It is important to acknowledge that certain roles within formal meetings hold significant influence over the policy‐making process, key roles include chairs of sub‐groups, authors of reports, minute‐takers and agenda‐makers. While these roles are commonly present in most formal meetings, their impact must not be underestimated in 'shaping the policy process' (Beck, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref79">7</reflink>], p. 31). Deciding who or what is represented in these roles is an act of metagovernance.</p> <p>The network design of operational groups, strategic groups and writing groups, as convened, chaired, noted and reported by GTC Scotland Council members and officers, aligns with the assertion from Humes ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref80">29</reflink>]) of a tight‐knit policy community, where those invited are known to each other professionally. In a more inclusive positioning, this could be considered as a method of purposive sampling, accessing knowledgeable people by virtue of their role, expertise or experiences (Ball, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref81">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Within the strategic group, democratic legitimacy could be conceived to have been achieved as this created a space for independent actors to work together, bringing forward views and opinions from personal experiences in education but also as representatives of teachers, to negotiate and problem solve within the messiness process of policy forming (Colebatch, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref82">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-21">Network framing</hd> <p>Network framing is conceived as the formulation of goals and objectives, where the ambitions of the review are set out and objectives agreed. Therefore, in the case of the review of the GTC Scotland professional standards, it is important to understand who had responsibility for deciding on the brief of the literature review, who created the meeting agendas, and who was involved in deciding the questions and discussion points for the National Conversation.</p> <p>The literature review brief was developed by a GTC Scotland officer. Its purpose was to provide an appraisal of literature and research, identify key messages and issues to stimulate thinking, offer reflections and critical considerations, and through this inform the review process.</p> <p>All meeting agendas were created by GTC Scotland officers, who were present in all meetings to capture the discussions as a note rather than a minute. Therefore, these were subject to the knowledge and views of the individual officer but also the expectations of being a GTC Scotland representative.</p> <p>GTC Scotland officers working with the GTC Scotland digital marketing team decided on the structure, dissemination, data collection and data analysis of the National Conversation.</p> <p>In each of these cases, the decision‐makers were GTC Scotland officers. Thus, it can be argued that the metagoverners tightly controlled the framing of the process.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-22">Network participation</hd> <p>According to Sørensen and Torfing ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref83">50</reflink>]), 'elected politicians', i.e. those in metagovernance roles, cannot rely solely on the participation of their representatives, and must participate in network processes themselves in order to exert authority and obtain information about network ideas, plans and activities. Such information is required to critically evaluate and politically intervene in network processes. They suggest that direct participation can be used to counteract or prevent the dominance of particular interests. While participation can be used by metagoverners to support an inclusive process, ensuring opportunities for marginalised interests to be shared, there is a possibility that it could be used to retain control over the agenda. Participation can also be used to ensure that activity and outputs align with wider government objectives.</p> <p>GTC Scotland officers and GTC Scotland Council members were heavily involved in all groups within the wider network as chairs of sub‐groups, agenda‐makers and note‐takers. The extent to which they participated and steered groups appeared to be dependent on the officer and their level of confidence, understanding and experience, with the implications of this being a fluctuation in the level of control exerted. Although they were not given the task of 'representation', as metagoverners in the process, it can be assumed that organisational interests, knowledge and expertise will have shaped how they carried out these roles. During this phase a Scottish Government reform was being consulted on that was suggested to significantly change the purpose of GTC Scotland. This may have heightened a protectionist stance from GTC Scotland as metagovener.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-23">Anchorage point 2: Membership</hd> <p>As discussed earlier, the Scottish style of policy‐making (Hulme &amp; Kennedy, 2016) and representation within the policy‐making process is becoming increasingly problematic (Humes, 2020; Beck, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref84">8</reflink>]). Sørensen and Torfing ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref85">50</reflink>]) suggest that representation as a faithful reproduction of views is debatable, which leads us to question the participation and influence of members and the extent to which representatives authentically represent the affected groups and organisations.</p> <p>It is challenging to understand this with any fidelity, as it would require conversations with representatives and those they represent, which is beyond the scope of the current paper. However, what can be elucidated is the complexity of representation. For example, all GTC Scotland Council members represent themselves both as individual professionals and as representatives of their organisation. This can be further complicated, as some Council members may be in‐service teachers, who represent themselves, their school and their local authority, but may also be a professional association representative. As Gee ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref86">22</reflink>]) suggests, we are all composed of 'a great many whos' (p. 102), and thus which perspective and whose interests are being represented are very difficult to determine.</p> <p>In addition, those being represented may not be aware they are being represented, as they should be able to select and instruct representatives, develop an informed opinion about representatives' performance, express diverse views and critique representatives' performance. The legitimacy of representation would have to be considered in light of how individuals come to be representatives and the accountability mechanisms that are bound with the role. This would mean an interrogation of the processes of election to representative roles. Again, this is beyond the scope of the current research but is an important consideration for future reviews.</p> <p>As mentioned in Anchorage Point 1: Network Design, purposive sampling may have been used to engage knowledgeable people, and this may provide legitimacy to the constitution of the various groups. It could be hypothesised that these knowledgeable people understood the expectations of participation and representation. However, the actuality of this could only be determined through further inquiry with the individuals involved.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-24">Anchorage point 3: Accountability</hd> <p>Anchorage Point 3 provides the space for public contestation of 'policy output', as governance networks should enable accountability of decision‐making to those directly and indirectly affected, in this case, teachers, teacher leaders, wider education stakeholders, their partners and the public. Here we are considering accountability through how activities are recorded and whether they are transparent and visible directly or indirectly to actors affected by network decisions.</p> <p>At each data collection point, the process of agenda setting and note taking was conducted by GTC Scotland officers. This was followed by internal discussions and recommendations to the Strategic Group, which then made recommendations to GTC Scotland's Education Committee. From these discussions, GTC Scotland officers were instructed on the next stage of the process. GTC Scotland Council was informed at each Council meeting and approved the next steps, as shown in Figure 3. This iterative cycle of decision‐making, although seemingly linear, is complex, messy and overlapping in practice, as the schedules of the Strategic group, Education Committee and GTC Scotland Council are not agile enough for a dynamic iterative process of policy development. Perhaps had this process been more agile this would have allowed for additional engagement and data collection, and more meaningful interactions between GTC Scotland officers and representatives of the education system and more importantly teachers themselves.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BED/01apr25/berj4090-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="berj4090-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Iterative decision‐making processes. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]" /> </p> <p></p> <p>Transparency of the activities undertaken during the review process can be traced via GTC Scotland Council minutes from September 2018 (GTC Scotland website, Council minutes, September 2018), either through the Education Committee report or as an agenda item. In addition, Teaching Scotland, the GTC Scotland magazine for registrants (GTC Scotland Teaching Scotland, November 2018) also carried articles at each stage of the process. Therefore, it could be stated that the complexity of the process was shared with network actors, who were kept informed throughout.</p> <p>In this iterative interpretation process and synthesis of the recorded notes and responses to consultations, it could be argued that consensus was achieved by a process of deliberative democracy through discursive practice (Stark et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref87">61</reflink>]), aligning with the traditional practice of policy‐making in Scotland outlined above.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-26">Anchorage point 4: Democratic rules and norms</hd> <p>Networks should perform in ways that meet democratic standards by adhering to widely accepted rules and norms that govern democratic participation and interaction. These democratic standards apply to the metagoverners and all of those participating in the groups, and across every phase of activity. This would include commonly accepted democratic standards, such as:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> inclusion of all relevant and affected actors and construction of open‐ended policy discourse;</item> <p></p> <item> democratic deliberation, respect for other people's opinions, commitment to reach a 'rough consensus' and transparent decision making; and</item> <p></p> <item> a demand for a democratic improvement of society and the future system of governance, obtained through the production of policy outcomes met through the process's aims.</item> </ulist> <p>As previously stated, the networks, and thus the network actors, were changing throughout the review period. Very few actors were part of the process from the initial meeting to final approval. Therefore, it is questionable if democratic legitimacy can be claimed as this perhaps would not satisfy 'norms about democratic inclusion' (Sørensen &amp; Torfing, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref88">52</reflink>], p. 307) as democratic inclusion, deliberation, fairness and self‐reflection were not established in the ever‐changing member networks.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-27">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Engaging with the teaching profession and the wider education system as part of a deliberative democratic policy‐making stance entails meaningful and authentic participation with the policy community, stakeholders and teachers. This research considered whether using democratic anchors as suggested by Sørensen and Torfing ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref89">51</reflink>]) to interrogate the recent development of professional standards for teachers in Scotland would support the development of a framework for participation in future iterations, as the voices of teachers were less well represented than might have been expected in the process.</p> <p>Participation takes place in the public sphere, which is a social dimension that represents the interests of the public. It is based on the values of citizenship, equity and service, and serves as a space where consensus can be reached on what is in the public interest, and where collective values are emphasised. Skerritt ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref90">59</reflink>]) suggests the key characteristics of 'good policy‐making advice' (p. 757) include that there is a trusting relationship between policy‐ makers and advisers, and transparent non‐biased advice is given, which is independent of political interference, and there is diversity in the views heard. Young ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref91">67</reflink>]) suggests normative legitimacy of democratic decision‐making depends on the extent of influence participation has on decision‐making. Although there was representation from various parts of the education system and stakeholder groups, there were very few in‐service teachers involved thus the actors who are expected to operationalise the 'policy' that was created did not appear to be democratically or meaningfully represented in the process. The demise of the public sphere, due to the increasing neoliberal positioning in education, has reduced the options for democratic participation. Oelker ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref92">46</reflink>]) suggests that democratic participation is premised on exchanges through discursive acts and involves learning; however, the prevalent neoliberal agenda reduces democratic learning, through governance becoming focused on regulation and quality control. This results in participation becoming increasingly individualistic and particularised (focusing on special interests) rather than being based on collective interests.</p> <p>Although networks can have a democratising effect on governance, those invited to be involved may not necessarily be democratic. This fragmentation may prevent the achievement of the 'greater good' and provides fewer opportunities for participants' democratic right to have their worldview represented in decision‐making. This may be a useful area in which to develop practice in future reviews.</p> <p>Biesta (2010) suggests that 'democracy is a continuous quest for inclusion' (p. 111) where authentic participation should take place in a non‐coercive manner (Dryzek, 2000), thus mitigating against the exercise of positional or political power and expressions of self‐interest. In most policy‐making consultations, this is expressed through the actions of the metagovernors providing participants with a limited range of options. However, participants are limited in their authentic participation by not having input on the available options. This raises the question as to whether those who can participate have the 'entry conditions for participation' (Biesta, 2010, p. 114) or are the limited choices presented to regulate responses to those who align with the policy makers' worldview, as 'some are already inside the "sphere" of democracy' (Biesta, 2010, p, 124)? This can be seen in the above, where a democratic process supported the capturing of voices from the profession and education system. This could support a commitment to the outcomes of democratic decision‐making where actors participate. However, the use of insider voices (Humes, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref93">29</reflink>]) created a power dynamic that privileged some voices over others.</p> <p>Deliberative democratic processes, like Scottish style (Hulme &amp; Kennedy, 2016) policy‐making, are premised on the notion of the development of shared perspectives built through discourse and discursive practices to achieve consensus, providing legitimacy to the policy‐making process and the policy outcomes. The question remains as to whether membership of the groups that contributed to policy‐making represents the full membership of network actors' views and interests (Sørensen &amp; Torfing, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref94">52</reflink>]). Where participation groups are constituted from the 'usual suspects' from the policy community and where metagoverners have a strong influence on the process, then it can be questioned whether this is deliberative democracy.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-28">IMPLICATIONS</hd> <p>As analysis here has shown, making space for representation by stakeholders in the education system was an integral aspect of GTC Scotland's 2017–2021 review of professional standards. Mapping these spaces for representation, as we have above, is core to understanding the pattern of engagement through which the review passed. What is less clear is the extent to which these opportunities for deliberative–participatory engagement (Johnson &amp; Gastil, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref95">32</reflink>]) constituted a meaningful democratic process.</p> <p>While the scale of the endeavour in a national review or consultation, such as the one described here, makes reaching consensus through a multiplicity of voices a challenge (Campbell, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref96">16</reflink>]), the value of participation can only be measured (from participants' perspectives at least) in the impact it is seen to make. In considering the process of review through the lens of Sørensen and Torfing's ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref97">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref98">52</reflink>]) democratic anchorage points, numerous questions arise as to the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participation and the nature of the experience of participation for those involved in it. A qualitative inquiry into the experiences and perceptions of participants is an essential next step for understanding in greater depth how the process functions through the eyes of those who were not in a metagovernance role within the review network.</p> <p>Looking to future policy reviews, our analysis highlights the complexity of engaging with system‐wide stakeholders as a practical enterprise. In looking to build a pathway to iterative refreshment of professional standards for the future, attention to the critical questions guiding analysis here forms a useful starting point for strategising engagement that is transparently democratic through every phase of future processes. The utility of these questions is also valuable for other sites of policy review where increasing participant voice is desirable. In summary, these questions are:</p> <p>AP1: How is the network process controlled? How is power over the process distributed across actors?</p> <p>AP2: Who is invited to participate? What is the nature of their participation and their influence as a result?</p> <p>AP3: How are different layers of network activity recorded? To what extent is activity transparent and visible to directly and indirectly affected actors?</p> <p>AP4: How are the terms of reference established at each stage of the process? How are norms and expectations clarified?</p> <p>Where answers to these questions present responses that do not appreciate or enhance participant voice and influence, further thought relating to the process design is required.</p> <p>Developing strategies for deliberative–participatory engagement that explores these questions at each phase of the process has the capacity to enable a shift towards increasing the value placed on participants' voices within policy‐making. This is a crucial route to strengthening and sustaining democratic principles (OECD, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref99">45</reflink>]) and increasing trust in governance (Butzlaff &amp; Messinger‐Zimmer, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref100">15</reflink>]) through consultative policy‐making and review.</p> <p>The originality of the research presented here lies in its surfacing of hidden dimensions of the policy review process, through examination of the particular case of the GTC Scotland's review of professional standards. The development of questions associated with the principles of Sørensen and Torfing's ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref101">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref102">52</reflink>]) democratic anchorage points has enabled us to generate a framework for both analysing and strategising democratic engagement in policy review. The significance of this work lies in its potential for widespread use in contexts where networks of representative assemblages (Müller, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref103">39</reflink>]) are regarded as important to policy‐making.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-29">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>There are no funders to report for this submission.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-30">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-31">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>None.</p> <hd id="AN0184273876-32">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>None.</p> <ref id="AN0184273876-33"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref12" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adams, P., &amp; McLennan, C. (2021). Towards initial teacher education quality: Epistemological considerations. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–11, 644 – 654. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1807324</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref19" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2011). National professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.aitsl.edu.au/verve/resources/AITSL%5fNational%5fProfessional%5fStandardsforTeachers.pdf">http://www.aitsl.edu.au/verve/resources/AITSL%5fNational%5fProfessional%5fStandardsforTeachers.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref54" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Börzel, T. A. (2011). Networks: Reified metaphor or governance panacea? Public Administration, 89 (1), 49 – 63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref20" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18 (2), 215 – 288. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093022000043065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref57" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, S. J., &amp; Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Policy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref81" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref79" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, A. D. (2023). Translating teachers as leaders of educational change: Briefcases, biscuits, and teacher participation in policy‐making. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 56 (1), 22 – 38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2023.2275126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref84" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, A. D. (2016). Policy processes, professionalism and partnership: An exploration of the implementation of 'Teaching Scotland's Future'. <ulink href="http://theses.gla.ac.uk/8560/">http://theses.gla.ac.uk/8560/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref21" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Biesta, G. (2007). Why "what works" won't work: Evidence‐based practice and the democratic deficit in educational research. Educational Theory, 57 (1), 1 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741‐5446.2006.00241.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Biesta, G. (2009). Education between accountability and responsibility. In Re‐Reading education policies (pp. 650 – 666). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087908317_033</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Biesta, G. (2010). On the weakness of education/Biesta, Gert. Philosophy of Education Yearbook. https://hdl.handle.net/10993/7817</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blomkamp, E. (2022). Systemic design practice for participatory policy‐making. Policy Design and Practice, 5 (1), 12 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Britton, A., Schweisfurth, M., &amp; Slade, B. (2019). Of myths and monitoring: Learner‐centred education as a political project in Scotland. Comparative Education, 55 (1), 30 – 46. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2018.1541667</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bua, A., &amp; Escobar, O. (2018). Participatory‐deliberative processes and public policy agendas: Lessons for policy and practice. Policy Design and Practice, 1 (2), 126 – 140.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butzlaff, F., &amp; Messinger‐Zimmer, S. (2020). Undermining or defending democracy? The consequences of distrust for democratic attitudes and participation. Critical Policy Studies, 14 (3), 249 – 266.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, L. (2023). Agenda‐setting for education reform: The case of the vision statement for the future of Scottish education. Oxford Review of Education, 2023, 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2292638</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Children in Scotland. (2018). What makes a good teacher? https://childreninscotland.org.uk/wp‐content/uploads/2018/02/GTCS_ResourceOlder.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colebatch, H. K. (2002). Government and governmentality: Using multiple approaches to the analysis of government. Australian Journal of Political Science, 37 (4), 417 – 435.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fischer, H. W. (2016). Beyond participation and accountability: Theorizing representation in local democracy. World Development, 86, 111 – 122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forde, C., McMahon, M., Hamilton, G., &amp; Murray, R. (2016). Rethinking professional standards to promote professional learning. Professional Development in Education, 42 (1), 19 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.999288</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galea, S., Merchant, R. M., &amp; Lurie, N. (2020). The mental health consequences of COVID‐19 and physical distancing: The need for prevention and early intervention. JAMA Internal Medicine, 180, 817 – 818. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.1562</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gee, J. P. (2015). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourse (5th ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> General Teaching Council for Scotland. (2020). Draft professional standards 2021 unveiled: Read the standards and join our focus groups. Teaching Scotland, 85, 40 – 41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> General Teaching Council for Scotland. (2021). Professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.gtcs.org.uk/professional&amp;#8208;standards/">www.gtcs.org.uk/professional&amp;#8208;standards/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamilton, T. (2018). The general teaching council for Scotland as an independent professional body—But for how long? In T. G. K. Bryce, W. M. Humes, D. Gillies, &amp; A. Kennedy (Eds.), Scottish education (5th ed., pp. 873 – 883). Edinburgh University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching, 6 (2), 151 – 182. https://doi.org/10.1080/713698714</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holroyd, C. (1999). Teacher competence. In T. G. K. Bryce &amp; W. M. Humes (Eds.), Scottish education (pp. 926 – 936). Edinburgh University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hulme, M., &amp; Kennedy, A. (2015). Teacher education in Scotland: Consensus politics and 'the Scottish policy style'. In Teacher Education Group (Ed.), Teacher educationin times of change: Responding to challenges across the UK and Ireland (pp. 91 – 108). Policy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Humes, W. M. (1997). Analysing the policy process. Scottish Educational Review, 29 (1), 20 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Humes, W., &amp; Bryce, T. (2003). The distinctiveness of Scottish education. In T. G. Bryce (Ed.), Scottish Education (pp. 102 – 111). Edinburgh University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Humes, W. (2020). Re‐shaping the policy landscape in Scottish education, 2016–20: The limitations of structural reform. Scottish Educational Review, 52 (2), 89 – 111.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, C., &amp; Gastil, J. (2015). Variations of institutional design for empowered deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 11 (1), 2 Available at: <ulink href="http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol11/iss1/art2">http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol11/iss1/art2</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, A. (2015). What do professional learning policies say about the purposes of teacher education? Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (3), 183 – 194. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.940279</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, A., Carver, M., &amp; Adams, P. (2023). Measuring quality in initial teacher education. Scottish Council of Deans of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kleinhenz, E., &amp; Ingvarson, L. (2007). Standards for teaching: Theoretical underpinnings and applications. Teaching Standards and Teacher Evaluation, 1, 35.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lees‐Marshment, J., Huff, A. D., &amp; Bendle, N. (2020). A social commons ethos in public policy‐making. Journal of Business Ethics, 166, 761 – 778.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leonard, S. N. (2012). Professional conversations: Mentor teachers' theories‐in‐use using the Australian national professional standards for teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (12), 78 – 94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levine, P., Fung, A., &amp; Gastil, J. (2005). Future directions for public deliberation. In J. Gastil &amp; P. Levine (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty‐first century (pp. 271 – 288). Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Müller, M. (2015). Assemblages and actor‐networks: Rethinking socio‐material power, politics and space. Geography Compass, 9 (1), 27 – 41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacPherson, A., &amp; Raab, D. (1988). Governing education: A sociology of policy since 1945. Edinburgh University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahony, P., &amp; Hextall, I. (2000). Reconstructing teaching: Standards, performance and accountability. Routledge Falmer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matheson, I. (2015). Milestones and minefields. The General Teaching Council for Scotland.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, D., &amp; Mills, M. (2020). Professionalism and teacher education in Australia and England. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (1), 45 – 61. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1832987</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMahon, M. A. (2019). Literature review on professional standards for teaching. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.gtcs.org.uk/wp&amp;#8208;content/uploads/2021/09/literature&amp;#8208;review&amp;#8208;professional&amp;#8208;standards&amp;#8208;margery&amp;#8208;mcmahon.pdf">www.gtcs.org.uk/wp&amp;#8208;content/uploads/2021/09/literature&amp;#8208;review&amp;#8208;professional&amp;#8208;standards&amp;#8208;margery&amp;#8208;mcmahon.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> OECD. (2021). Eight ways to institutionalise deliberative democracy, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 12. OECD Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oelkers, J. (2000). Democracy and education: About the future of a problem. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 19 (1), 3 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeves, J., Forde, C., Casteel, V., &amp; Lynas, R. (1998). Developing a model of practice: Designing a framework for the professional development of school leaders and managers. School Leadership &amp; Management, 18 (2), 185 – 196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632439869637</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rhodes, R. A. (2006). The sour laws of network governance. In J. Fleming, J. Wood, &amp; J. D. Wood (Eds.), Fighting crime together: The challenges of policing and security networks (pp. 15 – 34). UNSW Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sørensen, E., &amp; Torfing, J. (2005a). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28 (3), 195 – 218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sørensen, E., &amp; Torfing, J. (2005b). Network governance and post‐liberal democracy. Administrative Theory &amp; Praxis, 27 (2), 197 – 237.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sørensen, E., &amp; Torfing, J. (2018). The democratizing impact of governance networks: From pluralization, via democratic anchorage, to interactive political leadership. Public Administration, 96 (2), 302 – 317.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sachs, J. (2003). Teacher professional standards: Controlling or developing teaching? Teachers and Teaching, 9 (2), 175 – 186. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600309373</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sachs, J. (2005). Professional standards: Quality teachers for the future. Keynote address presented at sharing experience: Ways forward on standards conference.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons. Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scharpf, F. (1994). Games real actors could play. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, 27 – 53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scottish Government. (2018). Draft Education (Scotland) Bill. Retrieved from https://www.gov.scot/publications/draft‐education‐scotland‐bill/#:~:text=Published%2026%20June%202018&amp;text=A%20draft%20Bill%20containing%20provisions,involvement%20and%20ensure%20pupil%20participation.&amp;text=Ensure%20that%20effective%20pupil%20participation%20is%20supported%20in%20all%20public%20schools</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpson, C. (2022). An exploration of how teachers in Scotland enact professional standards and the influence of teacher professionalism.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skerritt, C. (2023). Towards a mechanism for expert policy advice in education. British Educational Research Journal, 49 (4), 749 – 765.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stark, A., Thompson, N. K., &amp; Marston, G. (2021). Public deliberation and policy design. Policy Design and Practice, 4 (4), 452 – 464.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Public Service Reform, General Teaching Council for Scotland. (2011). The Public Services Reform (General Teaching Council for Scotland) Order 2011. Retrieved from legislation.gov.uk.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torfing, J. (2022). Metagovernance. In Handbook on theories of governance (pp. 567 – 579). Edward Elgar Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, X. H., &amp; Wart, M. W. (2007). When public participation in administration leads to trust: An empirical assessment of managers' perceptions. Public Administration Review, 67 (2), 265 – 278.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitty, G. (1996). Professional competences and professional characteristics: The Northern Ireland approach to the reform of teacher education. In D. Hustler &amp; D. McIntyre (Eds.), Developing competent teachers: Approaches to professional competence in teacher education. David Fulton.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Health Organization. (2020). COVID‐19: Physical distancing. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.who.int/westernpacific/emergencies/covid&amp;#8208;19/information/physicaldistancing">www.who.int/westernpacific/emergencies/covid&amp;#8208;19/information/physicaldistancing</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young, I. M. (2002). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Charlaine Simpson; Anna Beck and Louise Campbell</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref103"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1466165 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: The Review and Development of Professional Standards through the Lens of Democratic Anchorage Points – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Charlaine+Simpson%22">Charlaine Simpson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8915-7957">0000-0002-8915-7957</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Anna+Beck%22">Anna Beck</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6643-3755">0000-0001-6643-3755</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Louise+Campbell%22">Louise Campbell</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2924-5154">0000-0002-2924-5154</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Educational+Research+Journal%22"><i>British Educational Research Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 51(2):572-591. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: 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 – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 20 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standards%22">Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Professionalism%22">Professionalism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Democracy%22">Democracy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Governance%22">Governance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Consultation+Programs%22">Consultation Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teachers%22">Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Policy+Formation%22">Policy Formation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Participative+Decision+Making%22">Participative Decision Making</searchLink> – Name: Subject Label: Geographic Terms Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28Scotland%29%22">United Kingdom (Scotland)</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/berj.4090 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0141-1926<br />1469-3518 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: 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. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1466165 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1466165 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/berj.4090 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 20 StartPage: 572 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries Type: general – SubjectFull: Standards Type: general – SubjectFull: Professionalism Type: general – SubjectFull: Democracy Type: general – SubjectFull: Governance Type: general – SubjectFull: Consultation Programs Type: general – SubjectFull: Teachers Type: general – SubjectFull: Educational Policy Type: general – SubjectFull: Policy Formation Type: general – SubjectFull: Participative Decision Making Type: general – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (Scotland) Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: The Review and Development of Professional Standards through the Lens of Democratic Anchorage Points Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Charlaine Simpson – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Anna Beck – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Louise Campbell IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 04 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0141-1926 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1469-3518 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 51 – Type: issue Value: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: British Educational Research Journal Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
