Cultures of Didactics: teachers’ perceptions of their work and their
role as teachers in
England, France and Germany
Birgit Pepin
Centre for Research and Development in Teacher Education,
School of Education, The Open University,
Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Edinburgh, 20-23
September 2000
As part of the Symposium entitled
“Didaktik: an International Perspective”
Tel.: + 44 (0) 1908 652391
Fax: + 44 (0) 1908 652218
E-mail: b.e.pepin@open.ac.uk
2
Cultures of Didactics: teachers’ perceptions of their work and their role as teachers in
England, France and Germany
Birgit Pepin, The Open University, UK
Abstract
The intention of this paper is twofold. Firstly, and as a background to understand teachers’ work from
‘without’, the history and developments of the education systems and teacher education of the three
countries, and their cultural underpinnings in terms of educational traditions, are explored. Secondly,
teachers’ accounts on their education, work and norms of social interaction with people in school are used
to illuminate the view from ‘within’. It is argued that, although countries have their distinct traditions in
terms of history and school knowledge, there are many commonalties amongst teacher’s work in the three
countries. It is suggested that by comparing the two, the view from ‘without’ and from ‘within’, a more
complete understanding of teachers’ work can be developed which in turn provides a window into the
teaching and learning cultures of particular countries. By drawing on the literature of educational traditions
and developments, on classroom observations and semi-structured interviews with teachers in the three
countries, the paper offers insights into educational ‘cultures’ of teachers’ work in three European
countries.
Introduction
“… every society possesses with a greater or lesser degree of difference, meanings to be
learned. In short, every society has a culture to be learned though cultures are different.”
(Levitas, 1974, p.3)
England, France and Germany, for all their varying characteristics, are alike in that, in the post-war era, they
have seen changes in few sectors of their societies as great as those that have occurred in education. In
England, the 1988 education act has affected schools in terms of the imposition of a national curriculum,
greatly enhanced management powers for head teachers and governing bodies through the introduction of
Local Management of Schools (LMS) and the creation of a quasi-market for state schooling. In France, the
1989 Loi Jospin (or Loi d’orientation) was intended to promote greater flexibility in a system that was
considered to be too rigid in the context of rapid social and cultural change. In Germany, the greatest
challenge in education has been provided by the unification of the former East Germany (GDR) with the
former West Germany (GFR), and the opening of borders to so-called “ethnic Germans” from former
Russian republics, such as Ukraine, for example.
In all three societies, educational changes have represented responses to aspirations of a cumulative nature
and to historic events. There are now post-war educated generations of parents with children in school, who
have acquired high expectations and a keen sense of what value education may have for their children in an
increasingly developed and differentiated economy, society and international community. Educational
systems are obliged to expand and alter their functions to meet a new range of objectives. These objectives
include those which have long been agreed to be essential to a ‘just’ society, and others which were met by
social institutions such as the family or the church, or which represent quite new aspirations of society or of
particular groups in society.
The fact of change, its significance for young people and its implications for the future of society all compel
a study of education, understood as a process that is oriented by values to create and increase intellectual and
social awareness. The question of what the motive forces of education are may partially an internal one (in
that education creates a demand for itself), but looked at in relation to society, education can be seen to
respond in countless ways to the prerequisites of such systems as the political or the economic, that are
external to itself. It is the culture of the educational system, its internal organisation and the means that it
employs to seek to achieve its declared ends, that determine the quality of its response to society by
providing an important and particularly manifest link in the chain of causality in the development of
knowledge and values. This link is secured by the teachers in schools and by those who select and educate
them.
If it seems appropriate to begin a study of education by focusing on teachers and their work in schools, it is
sobering to reflect that, in the undertakings of educational systems of England, France and Germany, there is
no gap more glaring than the failure to equip the teaching profession for its altered contemporary functions.
The responsibility for changes and transformation in education devolves directly upon the teachers. From
2
3
them must come much of the vision, expertise and cultural sensitivity to interpret and respond to pressure for
change. This is likely to imply changes in attitudes, belief systems and social roles, in methods of work and
classroom practices, and in resources of knowledge.
The culture of each classroom is the product of what the teacher and pupils bring to it in terms of knowledge,
conceptions and beliefs, and how these affect the social interactions within the particular context. Nickson
(1992) views culture as ‘the invisible and apparently shared meanings that teachers and pupils bring to the
… classroom and that govern their interaction in it’ (p.102). However, the particular context of the
classroom is also part of the larger institutional (school) and societal context (with its embedded values,
beliefs and traditions) of a particular education system which may be manifested in adopted curricula,
educational practices, and systemic features (Pepin, 1999a), to name but a few. These institutional and
societal features represent a second source of influence on teaching and learning cultures and set the frame
for the social interaction in the classroom. Thus, teaching and learning cultures, cultures of didactics, may
vary according to the actors within them, and to the institutional and societal context in which lessons take
place.
A study of teachers’ work, their perceptions, beliefs and education falls into its proper perspective as a study
of the evolution (in its broader context) of an occupation with a key role in fulfilling society’s social,
economic and cultural aspirations. Any such study must have regard not only to the political and historical
background of any country, but also, and amongst other issues, to the ways in which social and intellectual,
education and cultural values are inherent in teachers’ perceptions and work. One way of investigating
teachers’ work is what Dreeben (1970) calls “the perspective of a somewhat cold-eyed sociological observer
looking in from the outside” (p.5). Increasingly, researchers have come to value the insider’s viewpoint and
to rely on teachers as informants. The importance of asking teachers to speak for themselves about the
meaning of their work is demonstrated in the literature (e.g. Nelson, 1983). However, the focus on culture
implies inferences about knowledge, values, and norms for action, none of which can be directly observed.
1 The context and structure of teacher education
However much at the level of the classroom the teacher may feel him/herself to be making the creative
responses to a unique situation, s/he lives in fact in a social environment in which the activities of other
individuals constrain and influence his/her own. It must be part of any exploration of teacher education to
attempt to understand the educational and cultural context of teaching. Whilst there is little space in a brief
study for a historical treatment of the English, French and German educational system, it would seem that
the conventions and assumptions that characterise them must have deep historical roots to account for the
persisting attitudes and practices with the respective countries.
A brief history of the English education system
According to the literature the history of the English education system can be divided into three periods: the
Victorian period up to the 1944 Education Act; the post-war period (including the 1944 Education Act) and
the educational reforms of the 60s; and the period around and after the 1988 Education Act. The period
between 1833 and 1944 was characterised by the development of state funding and organisation of schooling
and the control of the curriculum. The 1902 Education Act is regarded by many as one of the three major
Acts of Parliament which 'have shaped the development of secondary education in the 20th century'. The
Education Act abolished previously established School Boards and gave responsibility for education in
England to local government (Local Education Authorities- LEAs). The second major Education Act was
that of 1944 which required local education authorities to provide universal and free secondary education for
all pupils from the age of eleven to fifteen, with provision for raising the leaving age to sixteen at some
future date. The responsibility for the implementation of these major reforms was placed firmly with local
education authorities under the direction of central government. According to Levacic (1993) the 1944
Education Act was a response to 'the desire to promote equality of educational opportunity and to strengthen
the role of the Board of Education (later Ministry of Education) which had diminished in the inter-war
years'. It intended a diffusion of power between the three partners: the Ministry, the LEAs and schools. The
approximate division of responsibilities was that the Ministry directed overall education policy and the
supply of resources, the LEAs built, maintained and staffed schools, and enforced attendance, while head
teachers and teachers were largely responsible for what was taught and how the school ran on a day-to-day
basis. This network between central government, local education authorities and teachers was designed as a
'partnership' between its participants in order to run education together. The LEAs managed their teaching
force, and could appoint or re-deploy teachers to particular schools. Although technically responsible for the
3
4
curriculum of schools, LEAs left the control of the curriculum to governors who have left it to the head
teachers. The phrase 'the secret garden of the curriculum' was coined by David Eccles in 1960 to describe the
fact that it was influenced by the teaching profession to the exclusion of the government, for example. In the
1960s criticism was voiced by 'traditional' educationist and politicians, for example, about curricular practice
in schools. The 11-plus examinations were abandoned in most areas and comprehensive schools were
created to educate children through the entire ability range. In the mid-1970s the Department of Education
and Science (DES) began to increase its influence in curriculum matters and decided to assume its
responsibilities for promoting the education of the nation according to the 1944 Education Act. In 1976 the
then Labour Prime Minister, James Callaghan, made a speech at Ruskin College where he was critical of
educational standards. He questioned, amongst others, the variety and type of curricula to be found in
schools and he raised the issue of a 'core curriculum' in schools. The emphasis in ‘modernising’ the
curriculum had shifted from looking at subjects to looking at the whole curriculum. Furthermore, from 1976
onwards the partnership between government, the LEAs and the schools slowly broke down. In 1985 the
government issued a White Paper about the aims in education. The White Paper Better Schools stated and
elaborated the government's principles for the curriculum for all pupils: it should be broad, balanced,
relevant and differentiated. An example of the DES assuming power was that the Council for the
Accreditation of Teacher Education (CATE) was established to oversee all initial teacher education courses.
Another significant government intervention in the curriculum of secondary schools came through the
introduction of a common examination at 16, the GCSE, instead of the old GCE and CSE examinations. This
was generally welcomed because, although the examinations were being based on agreed National Criteria,
there were possibilities for new types of syllabus designs such as continuous assessment and the introduction
of course work, for example, within the new GCSE examinations.
The 1988 Education Reform Act could be seen as a continuation of the government's policy to enhance its
power in the sense of controlling local government influence (in terms of spending, for example) as well as
curriculum control. It encompassed other areas (such as higher education, for example), but the main
measures affecting schools were the imposition of a national curriculum, greatly enhanced management
powers for head teachers and government bodies through the introduction of Local Management of Schools
(LMS) and the creation of a quasi-market for state schooling. LMS meant effectively that the LEA control of
schools was dismantled by delegating to schools a budget to cover almost all their running expenses. The
school governing body was not only responsible for managing the budget, but their duties also included the
appointment of staff, for example. A quasi-market for schools was established by more open enrolment
procedures in the sense that pupils could no longer be refused by a school if it had not reached its maximum
capacity, and with every pupil bringing in a certain sum of money, a direct link was established between
parents' preferences and the size of the school budget. In addition Grant Maintained Schools (GMS) were
created which meant that, after a majority vote by parents, schools could opt out of the LEA system and,
with the approval of the Secretary of State, become grant maintained by the DFE.
In terms of the National Curriculum and testing, two bodies (appointed by the Secretary of State) were set up
to devise the National Curriculum (National Curriculum Council- NCC) and to advise on assessing and
testing the National Curriculum and the remaining examination systems (School Examination and
Assessment Council- SEAC). They were later combined to a single Schools Curriculum and Assessment
Authority (SCAA). National Curriculum tests (Standard Assessment Tasks- SATs) were introduced for all
pupils at the ages of 7, 11, 14 and 16. Schools were obliged to publish GCSE and SAT results. Furthermore,
since 1994 schools are obliged to follow a 4-yearly inspection cycle, whereby a team of inspectors enters the
schools for several days and inspects the whole school. In terms of teacher education, a national curriculum
was introduced which not only stipulated the content but also the ways that student teachers should be
encouraged to teach.
Historical developments in English teacher education
The history of teacher education can be divided into three periods: the period before the 1944 Education Act;
the period between 1944 and 1972; and the period between 1972 and 1995. According to Judge (1990),
teacher education in England is 'a product of history rather than of logic'. It is marked by inherited divisions,
which were created in the 19th century and rooted in patterns of schooling. The time before the 1944
Education Act was characterised by the distinction between the public elementary education on the one hand
and secondary education only for some selected few on the other hand. Teacher education, at the time, only
provided candidates for the public elementary schools. There were also pupil-teachers who trained on the job
with some more experienced practitioners and, in return for some payment, acted as teachers. The religious
organisations (who provided public elementary schooling) had established a few training colleges for their
own teachers, which offered one or two year post-school training courses, but only for a small minority of
4
5
pupil teachers (Judge 1990). After elementary public schools became secular, local education authorities
started building up their own teacher education colleges and, by 1914, the institution of 'pupil-teacher' was
about to disappear. In terms of secondary education, and until teacher education was made compulsory in the
1960s, half of all the graduates going into teaching received no kind of training. With secondary schools at
that time still being selective and grammar schools being academically orientated, the universities, as centres
for academic studies, gladly accepted the government's invitation to initiate secular teacher education
alternatives and became the homes for the education of such secondary school teachers. They insisted on the
'3 plus 1', i.e. three years academic study plus one year teacher education. The less prestigious business of
preparing elementary school teachers was left to the colleges, which offered a two-year course combining
academic and professional work. Management of the training colleges was exercised by the local education
and denominational authorities. The central government controlled the curriculum and examinations,
whereas the universities only depended on the central government for recognition of their diplomas. By
1944, a division between the voluntary teacher education for secondary teachers, within the universities, and
the quasi-compulsory one for elementary school teachers, in the colleges, had been established (Judge 1990).
This period between 1944 and 1972 became so important because universal secondary education was
established and, later in the 60s, the comprehensive secondary school was introduced, thus replacing in
many areas the existing tri-partite system. As a result, the dual system of teacher education could not be
upheld. At the same time, the 1944 Education Act stated that only Qualified Teachers, i.e. those with teacher
education, could enter the profession. Meanwhile, the minimum school leaving age was raised and smaller
classes demanded. All this contributed to an enormous increase in the number of teacher education places
(Judge 1990). In 1972, the report from the James Committee finalised a phase which was characterised by a
shift in content towards academic values and purposes. Higher education grew rapidly and opened up new
opportunities for the future, but the colleges were not integrated into the university sector.
In 1976, the then Labour Prime Minister, James Callaghan, made a speech at Ruskin College. It was made
clear that the government was to intervene much more directly in the design and delivery of the school
curriculum which, in turn, would have an influence on teacher education. The 1985 White Paper, Better
Schools, clearly stated the government's principles for a curriculum for all pupils and it was clear that the
issue of teacher education would also have to be addressed in this context. The state of the economy, caused
by the world-wide economic crisis due to the rise in oil prices, and the consistent fall in birth rate placed the
educational system under great strain. There was an unexpected and abrupt decline in the number of places
required for teacher education. This meant not only a loss of numbers, but resulted in the effective
disappearance of the College of Education system. Advocated by the James Committee, there was a shift
within the colleges from the BEd, which, since 1979, lasted for 4 years, to the one-year postgraduate PGCE
course, from concurrent to consecutive mode, which helped stabilise the university courses but
disadvantaged the colleges (Judge 1990). The government of 1979 was seeking actively to gain control over
the curriculum and, therefore, over courses provided at Higher Education Institutions. In 1984, the Council
for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (CATE) was set up to assess all initial teacher education courses
and, in 1994, was replaced by the then newly established Teacher Training Agency (TTA).
It was clear that the 1979 government had strong views about the nature of teacher education- or teacher
training, as they called it. Strong emphasis was put on academic subject studies and teaching practice.
Teacher education was to get a practical focus and the difference between universities and colleges was to
disappear, because university and college were basically engaged in similar work, and subject to the same
control. More recently, the Government has suggested a system where the whole responsibility for teacher
education could be taken by the schools. The emphasis is on practical competence and school-based training.
The tumult started in 1992 when Kenneth Clarke, then Education Secretary, announced that student teachers
were to spend significantly more time in the classroom. In September of that year he produced a circular
(9/92) saying that postgraduate students for secondary schools must be in class for at least 2/3 of their oneyear course, i.e. 24 out of 36 weeks. On the surface, this was not a major change. Most student teachers had
already been spending 50 to 55 per cent of their time in schools. The difference was that schools were
suddenly faced with a share of the formal responsibility that belonged to the education departments
previously. Schools were required, for example, to provide 'mentors' to oversee the student teachers. Already
hard-working, experienced staff were expected to ‘sideline’ their teaching commitments, and just add
another tasks to their already ‘heavy’ list of responsibilities. Even with the transfer of funding from
universities to schools, many head teachers did not feel properly compensated for the additional
responsibility. Furthermore, the school-centred teacher 'training' schemes entail that the entire training
budget is administered by groups of schools who then devise their own course and recruit their own students.
Schools are expected to do this with or without the help of Higher education. In addition, the Government's
5
6
Teacher Training Agency is principally responsible for funding any type of initial teacher education course,
whether in schools, colleges or universities, and for the funding of some practically-based research into
education. The controversy arises from fears on the part of Higher Education institutions and teachers unions
that Higher Education will no longer be involved in teacher education.
In the same ways that the government has imposed the National Curriculum in schools, there has been
increased government influence in teacher education, culminating in the introduction of a National
Curriculum for Teacher Training (in English, Mathematics and Science, at present) and inspections of
teacher education departments. This specifies what student teachers should, and should not, learn and what
they need to be able to do to be considered competent. Government specifying the nature of teacher
education courses, the National Curriculum, inspection of courses, and student competencies are indicators
of further and direct government involvement in teacher education.
A brief History of the French education system
The History of the French education system can be divided into four parts which refer to four historical
periods: the period before 1945; the period between 1945 and 1975; the period between 1975 and 1989; and
the time after 1989. Before the French Revolution of 1789, the Catholic church and the French state were
closely intertwined. The church had the duty and sole charge of education. This was taken away during the
Revolution, which had laid down the principle that it was the state's duty to provide national education. This
implied that France would become a secular state with secular education. Secondary education remained
under state monopoly until after the 1848 revolution. The Loi Falloux of 1850 established officially the
freedom of secondary education, both for secular and for ecclesiastic schools. Yet private schools were also
allowed to open, if they could prove that the teachers in the establishment were suitably qualified and of
good conduct and morality. On the one hand this opened the door for the state to establish schools, which
had been regarded as a prerogative of the Catholic church, on the other hand it also marked a departure from
the principle of state monopoly into the beginnings of dualism, with the co-existence of private and state
schools. The Third Republic inherited an education system, of which a large part was Catholic and which
was ideologically split by the effects of the Loi Falloux. The legislation undertaken by Jules Ferry in the
1880s made primary education secular ('la laïcité'), obligatory from age 6 to 13 ('l'obligation'), and free of
charge ('la gratuité'). These three principles of education- compulsory, free and secular- have remained
cornerstones to this day. The end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century were characterised by an
anti-clerical movement, likely to be a reaction to the domination, and later interference, of the Catholic
church into state affairs for hundreds of years (Lelièvre 1990). In 1882, all programmes of study for
elementary education were made secular (la laïcité) and religious education was replaced by moral and civil
education. If parents wanted their children to receive religious instruction, they had to arrange this out of
school hours. Between 1901 and 1904, all teaching orders were banned and in 1905, this found its climax in
a complete separation of state and church. The French state was now, arguably, neutral as between one
religion and another, its only duty being to ensure freedom of conscience. There seems to be little doubt that
the thinking behind the laws of laïcité, obligation and gratuité was essentially egalitarian, imbued with the
desire to remove social inequalities by education. Jules Ferry, the initiator of the reforms and one of the
disciples of the revolution legislators, put it in his own words, to 'faire disparaître la dernière, la plus
rédoutable des inégalites qui viennent de la naissance, l'inégalite d'éducation' (Jules Ferry, speech of 10 April
1870, quoted in Prost 1968). Ferry was very much aware of the political consequences of an education
system which maintained inequalities since, in his opinion, a genuine equality would never be attained
without the benefit of an adequate education for all. Elementary education was obligatory and free up to the
age of thirteen, but secondary education still remained fee paying, and therefore restricted to children of
wealthier families. The two areas of education remained distinct, each had its own version of the other:
elementary education had its own type of secondary level with the écoles primaires supérieures and the
cours complémentaires, whereas secondary education had its own elementary classes, the petites classes of
the lycées. By 1933, all classes in secondary education were non-fee paying. But the enormous increase in
numbers of children wishing to attend secondary schools at that time resulted in an entrance examination to
enter secondary education. In 1937 Jean Zay, education minister from 1936 to 39, was able to introduce a
common first year syllabus, the classe d'orientation (first year secondary).
In terms of relations of church and state, the Fifth Republic went further towards a dualist system with the
Loi Debré in 1959, which offered private schools the alternatives of either completely integrating into the
state system; or choosing the contrat simple, i.e. the state approves and pays the teachers; or embracing the
contrat d'association, whereby the state pays for the teachers and contributes to the running costs of the
school, but also gives directives on curricula, timetables, etc. and supervises teaching methods and finances;
or opting for total liberty. On the one hand, this gave the state the opportunity to take over private schools,
6
7
but on the other hand the private sector profited financially from state resources whilst staying separate. In
1971, Pompidou made the contrat simple obligatory for Catholic primary schools, the contrat d'association
for secondary schools. After the Second World War, plans were set up to renovate the French education
system. The report of the Langevin-Wallon commission proposed two main sections: second degré (higher
education) and premier degré (compulsory schooling from 6 to 18). The latter was to be divided into four
stages: nursery schooling (école maternelle); first cycle (école primaire) for children aged 6 to 11 (with a
common syllabus); second cycle (cycle d'orientation) for 11 to 15 year olds (partly the syllabus would be
common for all, partly specialised with some options in later years leading to different types of education in
the following cycle); and finally the cycle de détermination for the 15 to 18 year olds, divided into the
practical, professional and theoretical sections. According to Hanley et al (1984) the report reflected views
on the need for the democratisation of education, based on social justice. Against the prevailing prejudice in
favour of intellectual pursuits, it also emphasised the importance of more practical types of work, including
manual labour, in an endeavour to associate education and democracy. This report, although not
implemented, demonstrated the breadth of vision and idealism of the commission, and could account for the
lasting impression it had on later reforms. Indeed, later reforms could be regarded as attempts to implement
the Langevin-Wallon proposals.
In 1959, the early days of the Fifth Republic, Berthoin raised the school-leaving age to 16 (to come into
effect only in 1967) and the entrance exam to the lycée was suppressed. This meant that pupils could either
choose the traditional lycée or the newly established CEG (Collège d'Enseignement Général) at secondary
level, which regrouped, in fact, the upper primary classes. The greatest extension to the Berthoin reform was
put into effect under the auspices of Christian Fouchet. In 1963, a middle level of post-elementary education
was set up in the form of the Collèges d'Enseignement Secondaires (CES, not to be confused with the former
CEG), encompassing the first cycle of the secondaire (sixième to troisième, equivalent of years 7 to 10). In
response to a great increase in the number of students at the time and to a perceived need for more effective
selection mechanisms, a system of three tracks, 'filières', was introduced. The courses in the CES were to last
for 4 years, which meant that the first cycle of secondary education was to be taken away from the lycées.
The minister claimed that it was an important step towards democratisation of education, 'because for the
first time in the history of the French education system all pupils leaving elementary school are united in the
same school type' (Ministère de l'Éducation Nationale 1966, in Hanley et al 1984). Whilst the CES brought
comprehensive education from primary to secondary level, it subjected students to a more rigorous system of
tracking in the different streams. Guidance into the different sectors could not be seen merely as an academic
distinction, but one affecting the individual’s place in society, and thus potentially determining the salary
they would earn. The net result was seen by some as leaving the social stratification unchanged. A further
step to change secondary education came during Joseph Fontanet's term of office as education minister.
Fontanet's solution was to remove streaming and replace it by a mixed ability (comprehensive) system.
After the election in 1981, when the socialists came to power, Mitterand expressed the wish to bring about a
unification of the education system, but only through negotiation. The post of education minister went to
Alan Savary, regarded as a moderate. In 1984, all schools were obliged to abide by the contrat d'association,
the contrat simple was abandoned. Therefore, the dualist education system (in the sense that secular and
ecclesiastic education coexisted) in France was maintained.
After the death of Georges Pompidou, Fontanet was succeeded by Rene Haby who became identified with
what has probably been the most ambitious and comprehensive educational reform project of the Fifth
Republic. Haby spoke of the need to create genuine equality of opportunity and to ensure that late
development, often a result of cultural deprivation, was not penalised. At the same time the challenges of an
increasing modernisation and technology had to be faced. The objectives of the reform were, amongst
others, to allow youngsters to develop to the highest level of their individual capacities and compensation
should be made for handicaps due to social class background. With the abolition of streaming, certain
provisions were to be made for those either too slow or too fast from the norm. Remedial work was to be
provided for the pupils who found it hard to keep up, and activités d'approfondissement for the quicker
pupils. The key piece of the Haby reform was the collège unique with an essentially common core for lower
secondary education. The extension of a common education through the middle school years was, in fact, a
proposal harking back to the Langevin-Wallon plan. While the first two years of the collège were the same
for everybody, the next two years were to become an 'orientation cycle' that would combine vocational
training and continuation of the basic core. Further secondary education was taking place in the lycée
général, where the students would follow a largely common curriculum for the first two years and then
specialise in the last year, or go to the two-year Lycée d'Enseignement Professionel. This constituted an
attempt to upgrade the status of vocational training by conferring the same standing the lycée had enjoyed.
7
8
The spirit of the Haby reforms was, by delaying until well into the upper secondary cycle irreversible
'tracking' towards one ultimate career option, to give students more time and help in identifying and
developing their true talents and vocation. The Haby reforms took many years to bring into effect. The first
changes took place in 1977, with a common curriculum for the first year secondary, and successive changes
were introduced in subsequent years. The last year secondary only received its modifications in 1983.
The 1981 elections brought Francois Mitterand and a socialist government to power, and M. Alain Savary
became Minister of Education. Under Savary, a commission was appointed to assess the overall situation of
the country and one of the domains under review was education. They reported in 1981 (Schwartz report) on
the state of the educational system and stated quite clearly that the collège unique did not exist, in the sense
that the first cycle of the secondary was not of similar quality and was not made up of a reasonably
homogeneous student population. This did not come as a surprise to many, considering that the newly
appointed commission belonged to a government which defeated the proponents of the Haby reform and
taking into consideration the amount of time the reforms had to develop. Moreover, some of the old filières
had found their way back into the schools, under the guise of the options in the orientation cycle, "travaillez,
sinon vous serez orientés (work, otherwise you will be streamed)" (Prost 1992). The Schwartz report goes as
far as speaking of 'new tracks of exclusion'. Legrand, in his report on the collèges, even speaks about
'eviction into parallel tracks' and the 'segregation into tracks without hope' (Legrand 1983, in Weiler 1989).
During his time in office (1981-84), Savary made an unprecedented effort to analyse the state of the
educational system and the options for its further development. Finally, the idea of the collège unique was
abandoned for the collège démocratique. Savary broke with the tradition of grand reforms and introduced a
sense of pragmatism.
Savary was succeeded by Jean-Pierre Chevenement who held the office from 1984 to 86. After massive
demonstrations of strength of the private sector, the most sensible option seemed to show that the public
school was, after all, the better school. The overriding principle was to restore to the school its crucial
function of transmitting knowledge with as much competency as possible. He established a new prestigious
filière technologique in 1985, in order to bring about the best-trained manpower possible. During the time
after 1986, it is claimed that, against the background of the previous thirty years, what came after had ‘some
semblance of déjà vu’ (Weiler, 1989).
In 1989 the Loi Jospin gave a statutory form to the idea that 100 per cent of an age group should reach a
recognised level of training, thus at least the CAP (Certficat d'Aptitude Professionelle- certificate of
professional competence) or the BEP (Brevet d'Études Professionelles- diploma of vocational studies). It
also stipulated that four out of five pupils should reach the baccalauréat level. The other innovations
instituted by the Loi d'Orientation were a national curriculum council and University institutes for teacher
education (IUFM- Instituts Universitaires de Formation des Maîtres). Under the law, schools also became
more autonomous and more accountable. The notions of 'school project' and ‘school contract’ were the
major instruments, in the sense that the school contract was the frame for the relationship between the state
and the educational community, in which the state took the school projects into consideration for giving
schools appropriate funding (Lelièvre 1990).
Historical developments in French teacher education
1963 was the year when 'decisive steps were taken to redesign the framework of schooling throughout
France, and in so doing to challenge the deeply ingrained separatism of primary and secondary sectors'
(Judge 1994). The government, under President de Gaulle, decided to create a new form of educational
institution, the 'collège' of Secondary Education to provide four years of comprehensive education for all
pupils leaving primary school at the age of eleven (or older if they had repeated a year). The full effects of
the reform upon lives of teachers and their education only emerged during the 30 years that followed.
Reforms and change was perceived necessary (by the government), if France was to recruit an elite from a
base wider than in the past, in order to meet the changing needs of France in the later 20th century, and if
France was to maintain its noble traditions in higher secondary education. Before 1963, neither
comprehensive secondary education, nor the systematic education of secondary school teachers existed.
Traditionally, the Agrégés were educated at the prestigious École Normale Supérieure (ENS), and later also
at the universities, and they provided the teaching body (corps) for the lycées and the higher education
sector. The instituteurs were educated at the École Normale (EN) which was exclusively preoccupied with
the preparation of teachers for elementary schools. The École Normale and the institution of the instituteur
were 'the inheritors throughout France of a self-confident and distinctive tradition' (Judge 1994).
8
9
However, at secondary level, the competitive examination of the Agrégation, with its restricted possibilities
for success imposed by the Ministry's quota, could not provide all the teachers for the secondary schools. In
1950 the government decided to create a new category of secondary school teachers, the certifiés. The
CAPES (teaching qualification to teach in secondary education) required a specialisation in one academic
subject (to be studied at university level), like the agrégation, and rapidly established itself as a ‘second
order’ agrégation. In 1953, regional pedagogical centres (CPR- Centre Pédagogique Régional) were
established throughout France, initially to give practical teacher education to those CAPES graduates during
their first year of employment. At that time, universities were not involved in teacher education. The
university was the public authority responsible for secondary education and for the conferring of all degrees
(including, for example, the baccalauréat and the CAPES). The main forms of teacher education were
delivered outside the university: in the ENS (for the agrégés who would mainly teach in the lycées or in
higher education); in the CPR (for the certifiés); or in the EN (for the instituteurs to teach in the primary and
elementary schools).
Alongside the establishment of the CEG (see earlier), another category of teacher were created, the PEGC
(Professeur d'Enseignement Général de Collège- Teachers of General Education in the Collège). They
received specialist education in two subjects in centres attached to the EN. The dilemma was that the PEGC
teachers did not belong neatly to either the traditional primary or secondary world: they were educated in
centres attached to the EN (and not in the university or ENS), but would be called 'professeur', not
'instituteur'; they were specialised in two subjects, not in one (like the agrégés and certifiés); and their
salaries were lower and their hours of work higher than those of the certifiés and agrégés, but their salaries
were higher and their working hours lower than those of the instituteurs. The two-category pattern of teacher
careers (the instituteur and the professeur) was now to be finally demolished. Alongside the traditional
teachers of primary and secondary schooling, there now stood a 'hybrid' form of teacher, the PEGC.
With the establishment of the new collèges (CES) in 1963, pupils (between the ages of eleven and fifteen)
now could go to one school, the collège. The government had decided that these forms of upper
elementary/lower secondary schooling (lycées or upper elementary school) should be merged unto four years
of unified education in the collèges. The CES became the common lower secondary school for the whole
population. This was a big step in the sense that, in theory, teachers of the lycée, the agrégés and certifiés
who were regarded as subject specialists, could now be teaching side by side with the teachers of former
upper elementary classes or teachers of the former CEG (mostly former instituteurs). They had been
educated at the EN and accustomed to teach a wide range of subjects, and they were now expected to
provide education of a quality comparable to that of the (former lower) lycée. So, in the collèges, the CES,
the lives and experiences of the different categories of teachers intersected, and questions arose about why
three teachers (agrégé, certifié, PEGC) doing the same job should earn different salaries and teach different
amount of hours? Since all teachers were (and are) civil servants, whose scale of pay and conditions of
service were linked to their types of qualifications, issues such as length of course played an importance
which was no longer sustainable.
Influenced by demographic trends and the raising of school leaving age to 16, a strong tide of teacher
recruitment continued until 1975. This growth was also reflected in the rising numbers of admissions to the
teaching body of agrégés. However, the system of secondary teacher education did not change considerably:
professional preparation for the certifiés was conducted in the CPRs, directed by the Inspectorate and
distanced from the universities; agrégés were not expected to undertake any professional preparation; and
the EN had to cope with an uncomfortable mismatch between a traditional system of teacher education (for
primary teachers) and a change to incorporate secondary teacher education (for the PEGCs).
When Mitterrand came to power in 1981, he promised 'a great public education service that would be
nationalised, free and lay' (Judge 1994). Within the next few years internal versions of the agrégation and
the CAPES were introduced in order to enable teachers (for example, PEGCs) already in service to achieve a
higher status. As a result, the boundaries between instituteur and professeur was thereby further weakened.
The Chirac government terminated the recruitment into the category of PEGC and by then the entry to
primary teaching was only possible after passing the DEUG (two year university degree). Therefore, the old
distinction between EN and agrégation, between instituteur and professeur, could no longer be upheld.
At that time, primary and nursery school teachers were educated in the Écoles Normales d'Instituteurs after
two years of studies at university (4 years altogether for Instituteur). Future secondary school teachers were
expected to study at university for 3 to 4 years, after which they entered one year of practical training at
school as stagiaires (supported by the CPR).
9
10
After the reform of teacher education according to the Loi d'Orientation sur l'Éducation in 1989, which gave
the guidelines for development of the French education system for the next 10 years, there were only two
'categories' of teachers: the teachers for primary and nursery schools (professeurs des écoles); and those for
secondary education (professeurs du second degré- agrégé and certifié) in the above mentioned collèges and
lycées, but also in the professional schools. The aim of the reforms was to enhance the careers for future
nursery and primary school teachers, as well as for those of the professional schools, by bringing teacher
education of all school types more in line with each other. Another aim was to increase the quality of teacher
education, because the French education ministry argued that teachers had a great influence on the
development of the education system in terms of alleviating some nationally identified problems, such as the
recurrent redoublement and pupils leaving without any qualification. Furthermore, the need for qualified
teachers was increasing, because the French government had decided that, over a phased period and up to the
year 2000, 80 per cent of an age group should achieve the baccalauréat.
The 1989 reforms also changed teacher education in that they abolished the two-year education at the
traditional École Normale, which were established under Napoleon in 1879 as centres for the training of
primary and nursery school teachers. The abolition of the Écoles Normales, together with the CPRs (centres
for the training of secondary school teachers) and the Écoles Normales d'Apprentissage (centres for the
training of teachers at the vocational schools) gave way for the establishment of the IUFMs (University
Institute for Teacher Education) in 1990. For the first time, all prospective teachers were educated at the
same university institutes.
A brief history of the German education system
After the Second World War Germany was divided into the Federal Republic of Germany and the German
Democratic Republic (since 1949). Their education systems sharply diverged, until the autumn of 1989
when the Berlin Wall (and with it the hermetically sealed border between West and East Germany) was
opened and Germany was re-united in 1990.
In the years after the Second World War the regime in East Germany established an education system
adjusted to the uniform political and ideological power structure which was basically characterised by
'indoctrination' (Mitter 1990). The period of its 'large-scale' reforms aiming at the establishment of a socialist
education system culminated in the education acts of 1959 and 1965. The education act of 1965 stabilised
the compulsory Ten-Year General Polytechnic Secondary School (comprehensive school) within an
integrated education system beginning at pre-school age (Kindergarten) and ending at the level of higher and
adult education. The Extended Secondary School (two-year of upper secondary school) built on a highly
selective admission procedure and prepared students for studies at higher education institutions.
The history of the West German education system after the Second World War can be divided into four
periods: a period of 'non-reform' between the Second World War and the late 1960s; a period of 'large scale'
reforms between the late 1960s and early 1970s; a period of 'consolidation' between the late 1970s and the
1980s; and finally the time after the unification of Germany in 1990. In the Federal Republic the rebuilding
of the educational system was, in fact, a reconstruction of the situation before the Third Reich, and closely
matched that of the Weimar Republic. According to Mitter (1981) 'critics have denounced this commitment
(to the values of the Weimar Republic) as 'restoration' and used this term as a label for the whole period
between the end of the 1940s and the middle of the 1960s'. Robinsohn and Kuhlmann (1967) labelled this
period as 'two decades of non-reform' in West Germany. By allocating the Kulturhoheit (cultural autonomy)
to the then 11 Länder it continued the tradition of the Empire (until 1918) and the Weimar Republic. This
meant that education in the Federal Republic was (and is) a matter for the individual Länder. According to
the constitutions of the Länder, their parliaments and administrations were (and are) responsible for
important items such as organisational structures, curricula, teacher education and teacher recruitment, for
example. The predominant characteristics of the system of the Weimar Republic was the tripartite structure
of lower secondary education with the three types of secondary schools: the Volkschule (elementary school,
later to become the Hauptschule- secondary modern school); the Realschule (technical or middle school);
and the Gymnasium (grammar school).
However, there are important events to be mentioned. In 1947, the Allied Control Commission gave
directions to the German ministers of education to 'democratise' education by establishing 'equality of
educational opportunity' and 'free tuition and teaching materials', for example (OECD 1972). In 1949 the
10
11
West German 'constitution1' was promulgated and article 7 established that the entire educational system was
placed under state supervision. Article 30 specified that the fulfilment responsibilities was a matter for the
Länder and education was one of the most important function entrusted to the Länder. Therefore, the
principle of federalism for educational provision (that had been a feature of both the Imperial and the
Weimar constitution) was enshrined in the 1949 'constitution' (OECD 1972).
The federal structure had led to the establishment of several bodies in educational planning and policy. In
order to co-ordinate educational matters of national importance the KMK (Permanent Conference of
Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder) was set up in 1949. This institution up to the
present day oversees the ‘harmonisation’ of curricula and their educational aims. In 1953, the Federal and
Länder governments established a committee of experts, the Deutsche Ausschuss für das Erziehungs- und
Bildungswesen, in order to 'survey the German system of education and to promote its development through
advice and recommendations'. The most important and famous work of the Deutsche Ausschuss was the socalled Rahmenplan in 1959, which proposed the establishment of two intermediate years of schooling
(Orientierungstufe) at the end of the 4-year primary school that would be common to all three school types.
The idea was to give pupils more time and possibility to be observed, tested and counselled, before choosing
the secondary school type they thought was appropriate for them (Keitel 1980).
According to Mitter (1981) 'in both Germanys the situation at the beginning of the 1970s was marked by a
strong commitment to innovation in the educational system'. However, there were differences in terms of
stages of educational policy. As mentioned before, in the German Democratic Republic the period of 'big
reforms' had taken place earlier and had culminated in the education law of 1965. The 1970s can be regarded
as a period during which the developments of the 1960s were consolidated, in the sense that education was
extended, for example, in terms of revising and constructing new syllabi for primary and secondary
education, to form a curriculum system (Lehrplanwerk) which was to characterise the East German
curriculum. This Lehrplanwerk was characterised by 'a systematic ladder of mandatory prescriptions, hardly
leaving any free space to the individual teacher' and there were fundamental differences with regard to
method and style of teaching between the West German and East German model (Mitter 1990). These seem
to be rooted in the contrast between ‘receptive learning and authoritarian teaching (in the German
Democratic Republic) and tendencies towards communicative teaching and learning (in the Federal
Republic), the latter to be traced back to the big reform movement (Reformpädagogik) at the beginning of
the 20th century’ (Mitter 1990).
In the Federal Republic this period was characterised by 'large-scale' reforms. At the beginning of the 1970s
there was a wave of initiations of various reforms and innovations in the whole educational system (e.g.
concerning syllabi, curricula and teacher education). According to Mitter (1981) the overarching aims of the
reforms were 'identified as the realisation of equality of educational opportunity; the modernisation of the
educational system; and the 'democratisation' of school education and upbringing' (in the sense of not only
involving teachers, parents, representatives of local communities and pupils in the running of the school, but
also replacing the traditional syllabi by curricula). The implementation of the 1968 reforms rested with the
teachers and 'didacticians' of the different subjects. The Deutscher Bildungsrat (German Educational
Council- an advisory body) tried to find coherent concepts for the reforms, which were published in a large
number of substantial reports and recommendations (between 1965 and 1975). The accepted goals of the
reforms, namely the raising of standards of all pupils and of the democratisation of the school system in
terms of equal opportunities, had to be the basis for all developments, both in terms of schooling structure
and of curriculum development. Regarding the school structure reforms, the concept of comprehensive
schooling (which never really got universally implemented except in some left-wing governed Länder) and
the idea of Orientierungsstufe (in the sense that the choice of school type was not based on selection but on
self-determined choice of the desired educational track) were the main developments.
In the subsequent period characterising the late 1970s and 1980s the 'large-scale- reforms were 'suppressed'
and the situation of the educational system in the Federal Republic of Germany could be characterised by
'consolidation'. It is argued (Mitter 1992) that not only external factors, such as the oil crisis and the
following economic recession with the practical result of curtailment of school budgets, but also the 'feeling
of disappointment at the non-fulfilment of hopes (in terms of educational reforms)' have 'coincided and
doubled the effect of disillusion'. Political shifts in the Länder governments are likely to have contributed to
1
Strictly speaking, there is no German 'constitution'; the basic legal documents are the Grundgesetz (Basic
Law) for the Federal Republic and the constitutions of the Länder.
11
12
a change in 'climate'. Equally, in the German Democratic Republic at the end of the 1980s no crucial reforms
were instigated which resulted in a fundamental stability with respect to educational change: the
implementation of new curricula (Lehrplanwerk-curriculum system) had been effected in the 1960s and they
had subsequently been changed and adjusted in the meantime.
After the unification in 1990 the five East German Länder were reconstituted and gained their
constitutionally warranted Kulturhoheit. The legal reconstruction of the education systems has been strongly
influenced by West German models. Some critics even used the term 'colonialism' for the patronising
behaviour of some West German administrators (Mitter 1992). It was remarkable to see how co-operation
was built up by those Länder with the same political direction (for example, Brandenburg and NorthrhineWestphalia, both governed by Social Democrats), but also by neighbouring Länder because of geographical
reasons. As a first step the 'Ten-Year General Education Secondary School' was abolished and separate
primary schools were established. The lower-secondary education reflected the political constellation of the
individual Land, inasfar as the Christian-Democrat dominated Länder reintroduced the selective Gymnasium
and only the Social Democrat governed Brandenburg gave priority to the comprehensive schools. However,
most of the Länder did not establish the Hauptschule and introduced school types which merged the
Hauptschule and the Realschule.
New syllabi and curricula were introduced which closely resemble their Western counterparts, together with
the adoption of textbooks by West German publishers. However, there were problems to be resolved,
because the West German syllabi and textbooks were (and are) predominantly orientated to methods of
instruction based on communicative interaction between teachers and pupils, in the sense that content and
guidelines in the textbooks are aimed at motivating pupils to independent thinking and learning, whereas
German Democratic schools generally had focused on an authoritarian style of instruction. Furthermore, the
East German schools had 'to cope with the 'Socialist' inheritance of ideological indoctrination' which had
influenced their pedagogies.
Interestingly, with the unification of the education systems some 'old' issues and trends for reform reappeared. Most of them had already been debated in the 1960s and 1970s, but had been abandoned or
suppressed in the following years. One of the issues was the idea of comprehensive schooling, which by now
seemed to have established itself in political manifestos and, depending on the political direction, the
individual Land gave it priority or not. A related question was how the Hauptschule had changed and
whether it was still viable to keep the tri-partite system in the way it had been established. The Hauptschule
had been badly attended in recent years and did not seem attractive for many parents to send their children.
As a result, it had developed into a 'remainder school' for the children of migrants and other marginal groups.
Considering that the upper-secondary education in the former East Germany was two years (in comparison
to three for the Federal Republic), all except one of the East German Länder accepted a two-year course
instead of a three-year course. This made considerable impact on the acceptance of qualifications all over
Germany, and coincided with the debate to reduce schooling from 13 to 12 years, comparable to most other
European countries. Some argue (Mitter, 1992) that the all-German situation at the moment can be compared
with the situation in Europe, in the sense that it presents itself as a huge 'laboratory' for educational reforms
with regard to a commitment to Europe and a 'multicultural society' of 5 million migrants.
Historical developments in German teacher education
In terms of historical background the Prussian system, with some variations, served as a model for the statedependent school system and state-controlled teacher education in the Länder of Germany, and it was on this
basis that the post-war West German teacher education was developed. In the early 19th century the state
government and school administration in Prussia established two tracks of teacher education for the
elementary schools and the Gymnasium. Elementary schools were meant for the majority of mainly lower
class pupils, with higher secondary schooling at the Gymnasium intended as the preparation for university
studies for the future elite. There was no possibility of transfer between the two school types.
The educational reforms of 1968 were aimed at uniting the then three educational tracks (for Gymnasium,
Realschule and Hauptschule) and as a result teacher education had to be changed. The intended increasing
assimilation of subject curricula of all school types required the rapprochement of the different teacher
education systems. In addition to that, the emphasis of teachers for all school types to become 'subject
specialist' meant increasing demands on the subject qualifications of future teachers, especially those in the
Grund(primary)- and Hauptschule. The Frankenthaler Beschlüsse of 1970 aimed at a stronger assimilation
of all teacher education tracks. All teachers were, from now on, educated as subject specialists and their
education organised in two phases (plus the in-service education phase): the academic studies were provided
12
13
by the universities, or pedagogical academies, and orientated towards the scientific qualification of future
teachers. The second, more practical, phase was conducted at the seminaries, in order to relate general and
subject didactics to practical teaching. This was done under the supervision of the school administration and
the direction of experienced teachers. Thus, the initial teacher education of Hauptschullehrer changed in the
sense that their education was now organised into two phases, like that of the Gymnasium teacher, with the
first phase emphasising subject study. The future teachers for the Gymnasium had to spend more time in
education departments, and regular studies in educational and social sciences became a necessity for all
future teachers (Keitel 1992). Furthermore, due to the reforms and in order to raise scientific standards, some
of the traditional teacher education institutions for the Grund- and Hauptschul teachers gained graduating
rights and university status (for whose entrance the Abitur was required). Therefore, all future teachers
needed the Abitur in order to start their teacher education.
The raising of scientific standards of teacher education called for new concepts of teacher education. In some
Länder the 'old' pedagogical academies were dissolved and integrated into the universities. In other Länder,
they were turned into university-like education colleges. All these procedures did not solve the main
problem: how to produce a 'scientifically educated subject specialist as well as a pedagogically sound expert'
(Keitel 1992). No courses which integrated subject study and study of its pedagogy were offered at the
university level, and subject study and study of pedagogy remained separate disciplines. However, some
Länder offered different models of teacher education, which were directed towards a curriculum integrating
all school types. For example, the Land of Northrhine- Westphalia (NRW) organised teacher education
according to the hierarchy of age groups of pupils (Stufenlehrer), where the students could structure their
studies according to the grades they wished to teach in schools (grade 1-4, grade 5-10 or grade 11-13), but
they were still subject orientated.
The reforms also included that certain core subjects (for example, mathematics) should be taught to all
pupils. This reinforced the argument that the teaching and learning of those core subjects should be
scientifically investigated and the results of the research (on teaching and learning of those subjects) be
transmitted to all future teachers. Thus, the study of subject didactics2 was included into the programme for
the education of teachers at the university. This helped to establish subject didactics as an interdisciplinary
science at university level.
Against these historical backgrounds teachers’ work and their role has to be re-considered. But beside
historical developments, of which some became systemic characteristics of the individual country, there are
educational and cultural values that underpin present characteristics, practices and belief systems in English,
French and German educational establishments. One possibility is to locate the ideological debate about
educational values, or its consequences, in types of curricula and schools. Another is to examine teachers’
beliefs and practices, and to raise the issue what the teacher is for, which includes the aspect referring to
what cultural values can be inferred to ‘define’ the role of the teacher. Such questions imply reference to the
cultural values of educational systems as well as to those of teacher education. But what are the cultural
values that underpin our systems and practices? In the following section it is attempted to present cultural
views of school knowledge and curriculum traditions.
2 School knowledge and curriculum traditions
Whilst acknowledging the influence of epistemologies of particular subjects, teachers’ beliefs and
conceptions of the nature of that subject and its teaching and learning (1999c), there are other powerful
influences that underpin, arguably, teachers’ work. These stem from the country’s philosophical traditions.
They permeate and underlie the individual national systems and influence, to a greater or lesser extent,
teacher pedagogy and their role in the classroom and beyond. England, France and Germany have longstanding educational traditions and institutions which are the result of philosophical and historical
developments, and there are substantial differences in the national educational traditions of the three
countries. These cultural backgrounds, arguably, permeate through to the school level, and, in turn, influence
teachers’ work and role in the classroom and in the larger community. Whilst acknowledging that national
2
Quite different from the English use of the word 'didactics', the German tradition of didactics generally
refers to the theory of teaching and learning. It is concerned with teaching methods ('how' to teach) linked to
theories of learning, as well as with the content ('what' to teach) and the consequences in a societal context
('why' these aims, this content).
13
14
cultural traditions of different countries do not have clearly defined boundaries, in the following it is
attempted to outline cultural and educational traditions in the three countries, and provide ‘profiles’.
According to McLean, and followed up by Pepin (1997), the main underpinning philosophy of the English
education system is humanism, with its associated principles of individualism and morality, amongst others.
English education is said to be child-centred and individualistic, and the interaction between teacher and
pupil is greatly emphasised. English child-centred education (mainly promoted in primary education, by the
Plowden Report in 1967, for example) is widely regarded as a pedagogy focussing on the need of the
individual pupil and active learning. With respect to morality, there was (and is) the belief that education
should develop qualities such as fairness and integrity, and teachers have traditionally had a pastoral as well
as an academic function. The teacher has traditionally been responsible not only for the academic but also
for the moral development of the child. Thus, individualism and moral purpose of education are two of the
traditional signposts of the English education system.
There are two features in the philosophy of French education which help to understand the system and the
practices of those who work within it. Firstly, France is seen as one of the heartlands of encyclopaedism,
with its main principles of rationality and universality, and the associated principle of égalité, transforming
society in the interests of the majority of its members. The principle of rationality encourages the teaching of
subjects which are perceived to encourage the development of rational faculties (for example, mathematics).
The egalitarian views aspire to remove social inequalities through education and promote equal opportunities
for all pupils. Secondly, the principle of laïcité traditionally leaves the social and moral education for the
home environment, whereas intellectual and academic work is expected to be placed in school. Thus,
traditionally teachers have been responsible for the academic development of the child, the parents and the
church for their moral development. However, this has been changing in the sense that changes in the social
role of families have transferred a socialising function to schools.
Germany espouses mainly humanistic views, based on Humboldt’s ideal of humanism, combined with
naturalistic tendencies. Humboldt’s concept of Bildung searches for ‘rational understanding’ of the order of
the natural world. It incorporates encyclopaedic rationalism as well as humanist moralism, and basically
promotes the unity of academic knowledge and moral education. Therefore, teachers have traditionally held
the two functions, that of academic specialist and, possibly to a lesser extent, that of moral educator. The
naturalistic view, in the German sense, combines the child-centred approaches with the work-orientated. The
‘wholeness’ of education emphasised the belief that educative experiences are not necessarily intellectual. In
Germany, there is the cultural view that every occupation has dignity and that work of every occupation
should be carried out with maximum commitment and thoroughness.
However, beside these perceived ‘typical’ school knowledge traditions of England, France and Germany,
there are curriculum traditions which might, or might not, cut right across those national traditions. As will
be seen later, these ring true more with some teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and practices than with others.
The ‘technocratic’ tradition (Golby, 1989) makes the assumption that all learning can be reduced to
statements of learner behaviour. It adopts a version of teaching as moulding the learner to a predetermined
shape. Educational value is implicit in ‘worthwhile’ activities which are to be pursued as educational for the
procedural principles inherent in them, and until the observable result is brought about in the learner. Ernest
(1991) models five ideologies within the area of mathematics education, amongst them the ‘industrial
trainer’ for whom the subject (i.e. mathematics) is a ‘body of knowledge and techniques’ and teaching is
seen as ‘passing on a body of knowledge’. Another of Ernest’s categories is the ‘technological pragmatist’
philosophy, where knowledge is two-fold: there is pure (mathematical) skills, procedures and facts; and the
applications and uses of the subject matter (mathematics). The theory of learning within this paradigm is the
‘apprenticeship’, i.e. knowledge and skills are acquired through practical experience.
Golby’s (1989) second curriculum tradition is that of a ‘liberal-humanist’ nature, where ‘knowledge’ is the
cornerstone, the structure of the subject matter is of high importance. In terms of pedagogy, the learner is
conceived as a postulant to be initiated into the mysteries of a subject by working alongside a ‘master’- a
model of traditional university teaching. Ernest (1991) identifies the category of the ‘old humanist’ where
the subject matter (mathematics) is regarded as a ‘pure, hierarchical structured’ body of objective
knowledge. The teacher’s role is that of ‘lecturer and explainer’, communicating the structure meaningfully.
Golby’s third category of curriculum traditions are the ‘progressive traditions’. The progressivist takes
subject matter into consideration, but only insofar as it illuminates the learner’s world. Growth in learning is
central, and the progressivist’s pedagogy is opportunistic, sustained by thorough knowledge of the individual
14
15
child in a framework of organised resources- the scaffolding needed for learning to take place. The teacher is
the ‘facilitator’ for learning, by providing opportunities for the pupil’s following of interests. Ernest (1991)
identifies the ‘progressive (mathematics) educator’ where the subject matter is a vehicle for developing the
whole child and the emphasis in on the child, not the curriculum. The pedagogy consists of encouragement,
facilitation, and the arrangement of carefully structured situations for investigation. Another of Ernest’s
frames is that of the ‘public educator’, where the subject matter must be reflected as a social construction
and not alienated from the learner’s world. Subject knowledge is expected to provide power over both the
abstract structures of knowledge and culture, and the social and political reality. Pedagogy include ‘genuine
discussion’, co-operative groupwork and problem-solving, and encouragement of pupil critical thinking,
amongst others.
3 Perceptions of teaching
A balanced comparative analysis needs to approach data and issues in both sociological and historical
perspectives. The first section presented historical overviews of the education system and teacher education
as they had developed within the educational and socio-cultural contexts of England, France and Germany,
whereas the second section outlined the perceived educational and cultural traditions of the three countries.
Together they form the background for an analysis of teachers’ work and roles. In this section we seek to go
beyond the interwoven description of institutions, acknowledging that much work has already been done in
this field. Teachers are professionals who make decisions based on their experiences and beliefs, beliefs
about their role and about norms that govern social interactions between them and other role groups in the
school community. Those groups include pupils, head teachers, parents, colleague teachers, and inspectors.
Many of these relationships are mediated by the school system which, arguably, operates first and foremost
in the interests of established society, whatever the individual teacher’s perception of his/her role is. Thus,
whilst acknowledging and considering teachers’ ‘insider views’, we also have to take account of the
structure of the distribution of power in and the characteristics of the wider society of the particular country.
Another way of expressing this idea is to say that teachers do not hold values or possess interpretations of
their work within schools and society, and of their roles within these, independently of the positions they
occupy in the structure. We want to analyse teachers’ work by adopting a comparative sociological approach
where teachers’ views are considered as those who can ‘testify’ from ‘within’, whilst considering the
broader picture in terms of historical developments and cultural traditions from ‘without’. A view of society,
it is argued, can be understood in terms of the beliefs, ideologies, principles and values characteristic of the
social group that holds the view, such as the occupational group of teachers. By defining teachers’ work in
terms of cultural values, social structures and social processes, we aim, eventually, to arrive at some measure
of understanding of the dynamics of teachers’ work and role, which has implications for teacher education.
Some research (Lacey 1977, Haggarty 1995) suggests that established values, commitments, orientations and
practices persist, despite the efforts of training institutions, thus constituting a certain ‘culture’ which is
reinforced on entry to the teaching profession. Other researchers (e.g. Anders and Evans, 1994; Pepin 1999c)
contend that one of the quiet but powerful frameworks is the epistemological belief that students and
teachers hold. Stated in operational terms, the issue becomes that of accounting for perceptions of and
expectations for the teacher’s tasks and role in school, the tasks that are ascribed to the teacher in terms of
the norms and values of the educational system and the broader culture that it serves.
The research that forms the basis of the empirical work reported in this paper sought to develop an
understanding of mathematics teachers’ work at secondary level in three European countries: England,
France and Germany (Pepin 1997). The original question underlying the study was whether it would be
possible for mathematics teachers at secondary level in England, France and Germany to work in a country
other than their own (Pepin, 1999b). Twelve mathematics teachers, four in each country, were ‘shadowed’
for two weeks each, in order to develop an understanding of their beliefs concerning teaching and learning,
and their classroom practices. The work was carried out within the framework of an ethnographic approach,
in combination with stimulated recall, in order to explore the context in which teachers were working; and
how they conceived of and carried out their tasks in schools. Five theoretical conclusions were generated
from the study. Those theories were concerned with commonalties amongst mathematics teachers in the
three countries; with the influence of cultural educational traditions on teachers’ pedagogies (Pepin, 1999a);
with the influence of varying ranges of teachers’ tasks and responsibilities on their beliefs and practices
(Pepin 1998); with terms and conditions under which teachers work with respect to people in the wider
community; and with the influence of teachers’ different beliefs about mathematics on their practices
(1999c).
15
16
In the following teachers’ educational background, their opinions and experiences on initial and in-service
education, and reasons for becoming a teacher are compared.
Initial teacher education
All teachers studied had gained a qualification to teach in their country. They all had qualified teacher
status, which was either gained by doing a degree first followed by initial teacher education, or they had
obtained a teaching certificate from a teacher education collège. This means that they had all gone through a
more or less intense pedagogical teaching programme which was intended to prepare them for the type of
school in which they were teaching. Most of the teachers participating in the study were educated on courses
that were organised in two phases, where the first phase took place in a university and was mainly
concerned with subject studies, whereas the second phase was organised through either university or
regional education centres, and was partly school based. Both phases had to be completed to gain qualified
teacher status. However, the number of years that student teachers spent on their subject study was different
in the three countries. French and English teachers spent about three years at university (for the study of their
subject) before entering the second phase. This second phase took one year in England (no payment) and
two years in France (where the second of the two years was paid). As student teachers, most teachers in the
two countries studied one subject which they were subsequently entitled to teach in schools. In Germany,
future teachers had to decide from the start of university to enter the teacher education route. The student
teachers, especially those for the Gymnasium, generally spent between four to six years on the study of the
subjects (at least two subjects), followed by one to two years of phase two of teacher education (with phase
two being paid). This by British standards was a long education. It appeared that in Germany the length and
depth of teacher education was regarded as an investment in quality (OFSTED 1993). But it also meant that
teachers were usually older than their French and English colleagues when entering the profession, and even
older when obtaining a permanent position as civil servants, especially since not every qualified teacher was
given a permanent position immediately. A German Hauptschul teacher pointed out that for ten years (after
teacher education) he had applied every year for a permanent position and that it took him 16 years from the
time he started his studies to the time he got a permanent position as a civil servant.
Another feature of the German teacher education was the differentiation between teachers for the different
school forms (Hauptschule, Realschule and Gymnasium) of the tripartite system. Teachers for these distinct
types of schooling followed different courses (and subsequently had to teach different syllabi in their
respective school types). There was also a distinction between upper (age 10-19) and lower (age 10-16)
secondary school teachers, where upper secondary school (Gymnasium) teachers followed longer and more
specialised subject courses in the first phase than lower secondary teachers (Hauptschule and Realschule),
and it was also important for salary purposes. A German teacher remarked that to educate teachers for the
Gymnasium (which is the longest study and the best paid position) is 'a luxury that the (German) society
allows itself' (4G).
Opinions on teacher education courses
Even though the courses were and are quite different in England, France and Germany, none of the teachers
mentioned many positive aspects about their teacher education. From the perspective they had now, and
remembering what they felt at the time, they chose to talk about particular points about their respective
courses that were either neutral or negative, with very few examples of positive features. Some mentioned
that they were disappointed with their courses because they did not get enough teaching practice with certain
classes and age groups or experience with certain parts of the curriculum, and therefore did not feel prepared
for the job. Others were disappointed about the support of their tutors in schools, some felt that they were not
given enough time to reflect on their teaching or enough practice in lesson planning and preparing different
topics. An English teacher remarked that she got 'a fair amount of teaching practice', but that the 'theory
input was not good at all', in the sense that she was told about 'this miraculous new thing' of investigation,
but no indication was given of how to prepare for it or how to teach it (12E). Another younger English
teacher (10E) said that she 'did not find the maths sessions particularly useful because they did not focus on
aspects' which she was 'more interested in', such as 'the basics of how to help children to understand a
particular topic'. She remarked that 'there was a lot more focus on investigational setting up', but 'just ideas
for investigations, not properly evaluating them or how to bring them across to children'.
On the positive side, some English teachers commented on the usefulness of those parts of her PGCE course
concerned with classroom control and strategies of dealing with disruptive children. They also felt that their
teaching practices were satisfying in the sense that they became more confident in terms of discipline or got
a fair amount of teaching practice, respectively. Interestingly, teachers were critical of different aspects of
16
17
the courses: too much theory, not enough theory, inappropriate theory; school based support, university
based support; time for teaching, time for reflection. It might therefore be speculated that whatever the type
of teacher education programme, teachers, in retrospect, are likely to be critical of it.
In-service education
In-service education was available in all three countries, taking place partly during teachers’ working hours,
partly outside working hours, but the ways in which it was provided and under which conditions teachers
participated was different. In France, there appeared to be a climate in which it was expected that teachers
went on courses. These were funded by the education authorities. Because courses were funded elsewhere,
there was no mention of financial implications for schools. Teachers remarked that every year they attended
in-service courses, about two per year, and there was a range of courses including mathematics teaching
available to them.
In England, there was and is a legal requirement to do five days in-service education (usually done in
schools), but it appeared that a climate was created in which teachers felt that, despite the encouragement of
the school management, they could not ask for any more because there was little funding for any further
courses. Because schools and departments administered their own budget, it depended on the school or the
department whether the teachers felt encouraged to go on courses in addition to their obligatory five inservice days. For example, an English teacher (10E), who worked in a school where the department managed
their own finances, mentioned that members of her mathematics department were 'encouraged' to go on
courses, but that 'there (was) limited availability in terms of money'. Because the money for the course and
for the teaching supply had to come out of the department's budget, she commented that she felt 'guilty'
going on courses and that the 'feeling' that the money came out of the department's resources was 'very much
passed on to members of the department'. However, in a different school, in-service education was organised
in such a way that teachers in school could choose what they wanted to do for their 5th in-service day.
In Germany, although there was a legal requirement 'in vague terms' (Nentwig, personal communication),
there was not a climate in which it was expected that teachers would go on courses. It was left to the
teachers' own initiative to attend courses, although they seemed to be readily available. Teachers did not
comment very much on in-service education, but most mentioned that they had been on courses on various
themes offered by the Land. One teacher had gained her teaching qualification for Information Technology
through in-service education.
Reasons for becoming a teacher
The reasons why teachers decided on a teaching career were varied. However, there were two common and
intertwined threads: their interest in people; and their interest in the subject matter. In Germany, it was
mainly the interpersonal factor which motivated people to go into teaching and most German teachers
mentioned that they wanted the contact with people or children. They said that they simply liked the contact
'with people' (4G), which suggested that they perceived interpersonal work as valuable. Connected with this
theme was the interest for the subject. Most teachers mentioned that they wanted to teach their subject(s) and
'at the same time be with people' (2G). Interestingly, in France and England, most teachers mentioned their
interest in the subject. In addition, many declared that they had always wanted to teach. Some English and
French teachers talked of their attachments to school and teaching (when they were pupils) and referred to
them as attractions to the occupation. Others declared that they did not have the ability needed for a
professional career in mathematics and that they found in teaching a medium for expressing their interests in
the subject. In some cases teaching served as the means of satisfying interests in mathematics which had
been originally fostered and reinforced during their time at school.
The idea that teaching is a valuable service of special moral worth was also a theme mentioned. For
example, one teacher (11E) referred to her decision to become a teacher as 'a feeling that she wanted to do
something useful with her life'. Another (10E) mentioned that she regarded it as 'the most worthwhile job'
and that she could not 'see anything more worthwhile than educating the next generation'. Interestingly, more
English teachers supported this view than French or German teacher. It was also interesting to note that few
teachers mentioned the working conditions, e.g. flexible working hours (in the sense that they did not have a
9 to 5 job and could, to a variable degree, chose their own working schedule), attracted them in their
decisions to become a teacher, and they related flexible working hours to other obligations and pursuits, for
example family commitments. As only one teacher (4G) mentioned the salary as an additional incentive to
go into teaching, it appears that the emphasis in all countries was on service and not on money. Moreover,
seemingly teachers were not supposed to consider money, prestige and security as major inducements. For
example, one English teacher (12E) commented on peoples' attitude towards teachers that there was the
17
18
'underlying idea that people (were) in school either because it (was) a vocation or (that) they (were) teachers
because they could not do anything else'.
Only German and French teachers pursued other interests, English teachers just did not have any spare time
to spend. It is likely that at the time when they chose the profession they did not think of pursuing another
career, but they nevertheless had the time now to fulfil their duties in both fields. A French teacher (7F) who
was involved with the local government (town council) commented that he had 'never stopped simply at the
professional level' and that '18 teaching periods plus the work at home did not satisfy' him, that he had 'to do
other things'.
Concerning the influences on their decisions to become teachers, the reasons were very varied. Some felt
influenced by their home environment, whereas others claimed that they had came into teaching by
circumstances and chance. When teachers were asked to describe an outstanding or, in their view, influential
teacher (of their time at school) or mentor (at university), they often linked that striking teacher with their
decision to enter the occupation or they described him/her as a strong role model. This suggested that the
continuing influence of former teachers was present in those teachers. Colleagues were also taken as role
models.
4 Teachers’ tasks and responsibilities
Whatever else might be said about teachers’ work, few would argue that it has changed over the years. As
the social conditions in society change, schools have changed and they are the workplaces for teachers.
Teachers have more diverse responsibilities than before. Whilst acknowledging the richness and subtleties of
the findings, in the following ‘profiles’ of teachers’ tasks and responsibilities are painted (for more detailed
descriptions of the findings, see Pepin 1998).
Teachers in the three countries had many tasks and responsibilities in the school. Beside the task of form
tutor, teachers held positions of responsibility within mathematics or of responsibility in administration or
staff councils in the school. In France, the emphasis was on the teaching of the subject (mathematics) with
little or no responsibilities for the pastoral care of pupils or for the wider school community. The expectation
for French teachers’ role in the classroom was concerned with the teaching and learning of mathematics and
children’s academic performance in school.
“ …la responsabilité du professeur, c’est à partir du moment où ils rentrent dans la salle de
classe jusqu’à ils sortent …” (5F) [… the responsibility of the teacher starts from the
moment when [the pupils] enter the classroom until they leave …]
Amongst the German teachers, it had to be differentiated between the Hauptschul and the Gymnasium
teachers because of their different role as form tutor in terms of pastoral care. Whilst Hauptschul teachers'
responsibilities tended to move towards more pastoral care duties, the Gymnasium teachers stayed as subject
specialists with some pastoral care duties. In general teachers were responsible for the academic side of
teaching with the involvement of a moral dimension and with some defined tasks in terms of pastoral care.
English teachers had many more responsibilities than their French and German colleagues. English teachers’
tasks encompassed the whole child (academically as well as morally) and they were responsible for the
academic as well as the pastoral side of schooling. It appeared that a climate was created where the pastoral
care and other non-teaching responsibilities became at least as important as the preparation and teaching of
the subject.
“ … I sort of act as second on site … I am also the IT consultant for the department across
site … and as part of that I am a member of the It working group … I also organise
internal cover on this site … I organise charity work on this site … and all that sort of
internal paper work to do with that … I deal with all the paper work that informs
everybody about what is happening that day … I deal with the credit and access system on
this site which is a way of pupils building up acknowledgement of good things … I also
take site responsibility one day a week at lunchtime … which means I have overall control
of the entire site: dinner ladies, supervisors, etc … and if there is any problem it is my
responsibility to sort it out … spend most of the lunchtime wandering around … I also
attend senior management meetings once a fortnight … at the moment I have an extra
18
19
thing … there is a small governor-staff working party looking at how we plan and finance
IT provision for the future … I also do the minutes of full staff meetings … I am a mentor
… in charge of maths interns … [tutorial programme of years 10 and 11] I opted into the
system and I specialise in Year 10 and 11 health education … “ (12E)
This can partly be understood in the light of the national cultural tradition of the three countries. In England
individualistic views and the desire to give pupils ‘feedback’ encouraged mathematics teachers to mark
every child’s book ‘at least once a week’, and the principle of morality expected teachers to spend a
considerable amount of time on pastoral responsibilities- all approaches that could be said to derive from
(English) humanistic principles. French mathematics teachers, reflecting encyclopaedic views of rationality,
were expected to prepare their lessons in such a way that learning experiences were as mind-training as
possible for pupils. The principle of laïcité freed teachers from major pastoral duties, and they could
concentrate on the preparation and teaching of their lessons. In Germany, (Humboldt’s) humanistic views
encouraged mathematics teachers to combine academic teaching and the moral side of education. Depending
in which school type of the tri-partite system teachers were working, their responsibilities in terms of
pastoral care were greater (Hauptschule) or lesser (Gymnasium).
Teachers' time outside the classroom
All teachers in the three countries claimed that they spent at least 35 hours per week fulfilling their
responsibilities. Because in Germany and France teachers were only expected to stay in school for their
timetabled lessons, lesson preparation and marking, for example, were done at home, whereas in England,
teachers tried to fit in their work (marking, for example) whenever they were not timetabled to teach (but
were in school). This included some of their break times which in turn became 'frantic' (11E) at times, so
that little time was left for relaxation between lessons. They claimed, and it appeared, that they were busy all
day, all the time.
“ … rarely do I go home straight away … on Mondays we have meetings … Tuesdays I
have got detentions … Thursday I have got netball club and then Friday I sometimes go to
badminton club with the staff … on Tuesdays I might have detentions … if I had
discipline problems, I tend to keep that after school … Wednesdays, sometimes I get home
quite early on a Wednesday … Wednesday lunchtime is puzzle club … so I do not really
have any break at lunchtime … I go to bed quite early … I see my husband on Saturdays
… [on Sundays she prepares her lessons for the following week] “
Although in all three countries there were meetings, such as faculty or class council meetings which teachers
had to attend, in England teachers complained about too frequent meetings. Because of English teachers'
involvement with different responsibilities in the school, they attended more meetings according to their
respective tasks and commitments. It appeared that the actual frequency of meetings related to mathematics
teaching was not greater than in the other two countries, but because English teachers had many other
responsibilities beside their subject teaching, the overall number of meetings became greater. Moreover,
English teachers' perception of the high frequency of their meetings was also a result of the fact that they felt
generally so pressurised in terms of time that they complained about things that were in fact not much
different from their French and German colleagues. Indeed, it appeared that English teachers were always
short of time and the teachers themselves recognised this and they wanted more time for various projects or
improvements to their work. German teachers also complained about more and more small tasks being asked
of them, which in turn took away their time to be spent on classroom and pastoral matters, but the demands
on time had not yet reached the levels of their English counterparts. French teachers appeared to be
reasonably contented with the distribution of their time and their tasks were clearly marked with respect to
time and obligation, but they recognised that there was a danger of more responsibilities in terms of pastoral
work being expected of them in the near future.
Teachers in Germany and France did not have to stay in school outside their timetabled lessons. Therefore,
most German teachers left school at 1pm, especially if they did not have lessons in the afternoon. French
teachers stayed in school for their timetabled periods, which were spread over the whole school day (8am to
about 6pm), but they had whole mornings or afternoons, or even days, out of school during the week, which
seemed to give them the necessary time to prepare their work. English teachers were expected to stay in
school for the whole day and indeed they taught for most of the day. This resulted in them trying to fit in
tasks whenever they could, such as administrative tasks in connection with their tutor groups or marking of
books, for example. It also meant that they did some of these jobs during their morning or lunch breaks. For
example, one teacher (9E) mentioned that she 'always (spent) the first part of (her) lunchtime ... in her
19
20
classroom', either 'marking' books or 'just sorting things out for the afternoon or the next day'. One of her
colleagues (11E) commented that 'break times (were) fairly frantic, hoping to get a cup of tea (in the faculty
room) and sorting out (what she planned to do) next' lesson. As to her lunchtimes, she estimated that she
generally took '15 minutes for actual relaxation' and that 'the rest of the time' she was 'running a club', or
otherwise trying to get jobs done or see pupils'.
In France, teachers did not mention that they worked during their break times, free periods or during
lunchtime. Observations showed that they came to school to teach their lessons (and maybe did some small
administrative tasks, such as photocopying, for example) and the rest of their work was completed in their
own time at home. In Germany, a similar picture was painted, with the exception that teachers, like their
English colleagues, had some supervision duties and that some of their non-teaching periods were used for
lesson preparation or to carry out administrative tasks. During non-teaching periods in the morning teachers
either prepared their lessons in terms of setting up experiments or they attended to administrative duties,
such as filing absence notes or filling in registers for the class tests.
In terms of time distribution, although English teachers had such a full day compared with their French and
German colleagues, they still mentioned work to be done at home, such as marking, for example. However,
the number of hours spent on marking and preparation was not the same in England compared with France
and Germany. The more experienced English teachers referred to about six hours per week for marking and
preparation, whereas one younger colleague (10E) mentioned that, in order to have all books 'marked once a
week', she would mark at least one set of books each night, which gave her about 'one and half hours' of
marking work per night. This did not include her lesson preparation. The German and French teachers
quoted hours for lesson preparation and marking (of tests and homework sheets) which varied from about 15
to 22 hours, with all German and French teachers lying within that range. In contrast to England, the
emphasis in Germany and particularly in France was on lesson preparation rather than marking (discussed
later), and the German and French teachers very rarely took books home for marking. Their marking (beside
marking during lesson) mainly included the marking of tests and (weekly) homework sheets, and they did
not feel obliged to mark every pupil's book once a week. Pupils were expected to mark their work in class.
Most teachers mentioned that they were working over the weekend and during holidays to a greater or lesser
extent.
Time in general was one of the issues that, especially English teachers, saw as a restriction to their work.
One English teacher (12E) commented that 'the only support that (she had) not got' was in terms of 'time',
that teachers 'would all love more time'. Another teacher (10E) even planned to leave the profession because
she felt that she wanted a job 'which (was) more a 9 to 5 job for a couple of years, where (she did) not have
to take work home'. She explained that she would want to break from 'being a constant teacher', and that it
would not be 'an anti-teaching move', but rather 'an anti all that comes with it' move.
Whereas some English teachers already felt that they were working under severe time constraints, German
teachers perceived their job as moving towards that state. They appeared to want to concentrate their efforts
on the core task of teaching and caring for the children (depending on the school type), not on distructive
organizational duties which took away what they saw as valuable time. For example, a German teacher (2G)
felt that he was 'bombarded with small matters (in this case by the management) (which he had) to deal with
and which (took) time, so that one no longer (had) any motivation and any time and any will to think about
matters concerning the children and the class'. His colleague (1G) in the same school type commented that
there was 'more and more pour(ed) onto (him) in school' and that 'there (was) so much to be dealt with so
quickly'.
These are examples for the argument that what systems demand of their teachers is quite different in the
three countries. Systemic features include the amount of time teachers were asked to spend teaching their
subject, and the amount and nature of other tasks they were expected to do. English teachers were generally
asked to do many tasks beside their teaching-related responsibilities, whereas in particular French teachers
were expected to focus on tasks directly related to the teaching of their subject (preparation and assessment,
for example). In addition in one system teachers could go home between lessons, whereas in another they
had to stay in school for the whole day. Working in a system where teachers were not obliged to stay in
school implied that teachers might not feel the same collegiality than those who were expected to stay,
which could lead to a feeling of isolation. On the other hand, teachers who worked in a system where they
were expected to stay in school all day were more likely to be involved in non-teaching tasks, such as
administrative tasks or pastoral care of pupils. This is the topic of the following section.
20
21
5 Teachers beliefs about norms of social interaction
In this section teachers’ beliefs about norms for social interaction, interaction between teachers and pupils,
headteachers, parents, colleagues and inspectors, will be analysed. The terms and conditions under which
teachers worked with respect to people in the wider school community are explored here: who has a likely
influence on teachers; what forces they felt were exerted on them; and how that was influenced by
conditions of work in each country. It is argued that teachers were not working in isolation and that they
were influenced in different ways by people in their vicinity in terms of their beliefs concerning teaching and
their practices. The most influential relationship was that between teachers and pupils. Every other person
was expected to support and provide conditions favourable to facilitate good pupil-teacher relations and
teaching.
There were many common features in the relationships of teachers and other people working with them in
schools. The most striking feature was teachers' perceived 'inter-connectedness' between themselves and
their pupils, and this was common to teachers in all three countries. Other commonalities included the
relationships between teachers and head teachers. Teachers expected head teachers to provide support and
leadership, but they did not want them to interfere with classroom matters. Concerning the relationship
between teachers and parents, teachers felt undervalued and misunderstood. There were other relationships,
such as teachers and colleagues, which depended to a large extent on the cultural traditions within the
country and the particular school.
In terms of head teachers, there was much commonality amongst teachers in all three countries about what
they expected of their head teachers. Teachers expected head teachers to provide support, protection,
resources and leadership, but they did not want head teachers to interfere with teaching. Concerning support,
teachers wanted head teachers to give them support with regard to discipline. In terms of protection, teachers
expected head teachers to protect them from all influences that could jeopardise their teaching and generally
their working atmosphere. This included parents, if teachers felt that parents intruded into their work sphere.
Teachers wanted head teachers to provide them with the necessary resources and they expected leadership in
the sense that head teachers were regarded as the co-ordinators and visionaries of what happened in the
school. On the other hand teachers did not want head teachers to interfere with their work in the classroom in
any way, beyond ensuring the provision of a work environment so that teaching and learning could take
place.
“… wo ich von ihm erwarten muss, dass er mir organisatorisch unter die Arme greift
…(2G) […where I can expect of [the headteacher] that he helps me in organisational
matters… ]
In terms of roles of teachers and students, there were many commonalities amongst teachers in the three
countries. All teachers felt the 'inter-connectedness' of the roles of the two groups, teachers and pupils, and
they regarded their main aim to help pupils to learn and to work well together.
“… [it is a good day when ]the kids have in what you want them to take in … as far as the
kids are concerned, nobody has shared something which is distressing …” (12E)
The tasks of teachers was to teach pupils and to help them learn, and all teachers considered themselves to
be in charge of their classes. Pupils were expected to learn and were not involved in the planning,
organisation and initiation process in the classroom. Regarding detailed pupil behaviour there were, as
mentioned earlier, 'desirable states' which were slightly different in each country. All teachers felt a
commitment towards teaching and pupil learning in the sense that teachers were supposed to teach pupils
something; a commitment towards their pupils in terms of pupils' general well-being; and a commitment
towards the school in general. In their commitment to teaching and pupil learning, teachers wanted to
provide a consistent environment for their students (and for their teaching), where order was maintained, and
the conditions of teaching, as well as the learning environment for students, were motivating for both parties.
The details of these desired conditions depended on the individual teachers' aims and expectations. It
appeared that in general teachers' expectations were related to pupils' attitudes, to pupil behaviour in class
and to pupil achievement. The expectations that teachers brought for pupils' academic success were
influenced by student behaviour. To conclude, teachers felt an 'inter-connectedness' between them and their
pupils. In their views, as much as teachers were influenced by their pupils, the pupils were influenced by
their teachers.
21
22
Concerning teachers and parents, there was a commonality in the sense that teachers felt undervalued by
parents and that they were held in low esteem by them.
“… es gibt Eltern, die betrachten einen irgendwie als Feinde, halten einen für doof …
grosser Prozentsatz der Elternarbeit [ist] unerfreulich …” (3G) [… there are parents who
regard us as somehow as enemies, regard us as dumm ... the majority of work with parents
is unpleasant …]
However, teachers felt that this changed when parents came into close contact with them, in the sense that
they then began to understand the concerns and problems involved in teaching. In their view the reasons for
the low regard for teachers were a result of: their relatively low salaries compared with other comparable
professions; the perception that teachers had a lot of free time; and the perceived lack of understanding for
teachers' work with its ever-increasing responsibilities. What was different in the three countries was the
amount of parent involvement in schools and the 'distance' between teachers and parents. For example, in
Germany teachers were contacted at home by (sometimes angry) parents (3G), whereas French teachers had
little contact with parents beside parents evenings. In England, although teachers had a large involvement
with pupils' general well being and their pastoral care role was great, the location of the contact with parents
seemed to be restricted to the school. All teachers wanted parents to understand teachers' tasks and
responsibilities better, they wanted them to see what effort and sometimes hard work it was to teach
mathematics to a class of children. However, there was no evidence that suggested that teachers helped
parents to understand. This understanding, in teachers' views, would help to increase their status and esteem
with parents. The harder teachers perceived their work to be, the higher were their expectations for parents'
understanding.
In terms of teachers and colleagues, the amount of general support teachers got from their colleagues
within the school depended on the cultural traditions and the system of the particular country. In England
teachers spent all day in school and had, timewise, more opportunities to establish friendships and support
groups within the school than their German and French colleagues, who could leave school as soon as they
had finished teaching their lessons. One would expect therefore that there was more support amongst
English teachers. This was true concerning social integration in school. English teachers felt part of the
school, within a system that supported them as a matter of course, whether or not they managed to tap into
that system. French and German teachers did not have this feeling of belonging to the school community, but
rather of 'belonging' to the classes they taught. They agreed, or not, with the ethos of the school, but what
mattered was that they prepared and taught their lessons.
However, in England the social structure did not appear necessarily to include teachers supporting each other
in terms of discussions about teaching and learning of particular elements of their subject. English teachers
had the social network and support structures within their schools and, compared with their German and
French colleagues, they spent more time in schools. But the culture in English schools appeared to be that
within those structures teachers did not use that time to reflect on their pedagogy, although they might use it
to exchange ideas of comparisons from one group to another. Thus, although they might discuss the teaching
of a particular topic for the next lesson, they were more reluctant to use their time for any formal reflection
about the teaching and learning of their particular subject. The researcher felt that compared with the time
English teachers spent in school and compared with the social network they had, there were few exchanges
in terms of pedagogy.
“… I find it quite a lonely job with teaching … I find you are really quite on your own
about it, unless you go out of your way to talk to other teachers … I do tend to use that
time to see people about things that relate to [pupils] … I try and do a bit of private matters
and general socialising … I am very aware of that I might be considered boring, if I do not
do that …” (10E)
Therefore, even though English teachers spent all that time in schools and with colleagues, in terms of
exchanges about pedagogy, the situation was not very different from France and Germany. How much
support teachers received concerning the teaching of their subject depended on the individual teacher,
whether s/he tried to discuss matters related to subject teaching with his/her colleagues and on the teacher's
perception of his/her tasks. It appeared that individual French and German teachers discussed their teaching
as much as individual English teachers. In fact, it appeared that French and German teachers (in particular
Gymnasium teachers) concentrated on their teaching and the discussions about matters relating to it more
22
23
than their English colleagues. This can be understood in the light of the varied tasks and responsibilities
English teachers had within the school. Whereas for the French and German teacher the subject teaching
(and its preparation) was the main part of their task, the English teacher did not have this clear demarcation.
To summarise, teachers were influenced by their colleagues in the school. The way they were influenced
depended on the culture of the school, teachers' perception of their tasks and their own willingness to open
up to their colleagues advice.
In terms of teachers and inspectors, the relationship between the two depended on the role and
responsibilities inspectors had in the different countries. In Germany, for example, teachers rarely saw the
school inspector. The inspector worked for the ministry of the Land and only called if a teacher had broken
school rules (and decisions had to be made concerning sanctions) or if a teacher had applied for promotion
(and decisions had to be made concerning promotion). Therefore, in the everyday running of the lessons the
inspector had no say. In England a team of inspectors inspected a whole school for a week, and the
mathematics department and its teachers within that, and there was not yet a direct influence on individual
teachers' pay, although this has supposedly now changed (performance related pay). In France the inspector
visited the individual teacher every five to seven years in order to assess their classroom teaching (an
administrative mark was also given by the head teacher). This assessment, in turn, had an influence on
teachers' pay. Teachers were put into one of three categories (fast, medium and slow) which in turn
influenced how fast teachers moved up the salary scale. Inspectors also proposed courses to teachers, if they
felt that the teacher did not correspond to their expectations. Therefore, it seemed that the tradition of
inspection, with repercussions for individual teachers, was strongest in France.
Interestingly, it was also in France where there was most change visible in terms of classroom practices. It
could, therefore, be argued that this was due, at least in part, to the influence of the inspection system. It
could further be argued that adopted changes (such as investigative teaching, for example) might need
pressure as well as support from people around them, including the inspectors. French teachers expected
understanding from inspectors, understanding of their needs and the constraints under which they were
working. They also expected them to provide resources (such as training courses, for example) and rewards
(good marks). Good inspectors were perceived as those who sought out and satisfied teachers' professional
needs and collaborated with teachers (5F).
Concerning teachers and the government, this was a distant relationship. Teachers generally blamed the
government (of the country or Land) for poorly though-out changes and innovations, for missing resources
and for lowering teachers' status. It was in England that teachers were most angry about their government's
behaviour and attitude towards teachers and schools.
“… if the government does not really care about state education, then I do not know where
w go from there, because education is our future, it is the country’s future … and if they
are for ever cutting back or making policies without thinking about what is actually
happening in the classroom, then I really do believe that that makes our job more difficult
…the lack of interest almost … in the education that most children have in this country
…” (9E)
They generally felt let down by the government's inadequate provision of resources and the constant blaming
of teachers for poor standards in schools, against the reality of the increase of teachers' work load and the
change of their role from subject teacher and ‘conveyor of learning’, to that of disciplinarian and ‘patching
up’ of society’s ills.
Conclusions
One of the most striking, perhaps expected, finding of this study was that teachers did not see themselves as
agents to bring about changes imposed by those who think they can control and direct what should happen,
they did not view themselves as mere recipients of educational reforms. Teachers regarded themselves as
professionals who had their own values and principles, which were in turn culturally determined, but these
did not change as rapidly as some ‘reformers’ would like. It can be argued that it is appropriate that teachers
temper the ‘worst’ excesses of whichever changes of those trying to drive the change. Thus, teachers become
gatekeepers to change, perhaps holding on to conservative practices, perhaps adopting and adjusting the
changes into their world of pedagogical practices in their own ways. As Pepin (1999a) put it, “teachers’
23
24
practices are a personal response to a set of institutional and societal constraints, to a set of traditions and a
set of assumptions".
The second important point to be made relates to the ways that reforms have been implemented in England.
On the surface the changes in teacher education (see earlier section) seem to be small, but in detail they
obscure the fact that initial teacher education has been increasingly taken away from universities- who were
perceived to be a ‘negative’ influence on beginning teachers whom the government wanted to behave in
certain ways. As Haggarty (2000, personal communication) put it, teacher education was not wanted, teacher
training to carry out prescribed practices was wanted. It appears that the intellectualisation of teaching (i.e.
recognising its complexity, etc) was also seen as unhelpful and ‘woolly’. The government simply played to a
populist and simplistic view of teaching and learning, in order to cut out the influence, as they saw it, of
universities: teaching is straightforward and everyone can define a ‘good’ teacher; there are ways of teaching
which work for everyone; student teachers can be told what to do and how (by watching experienced
teachers and talking to them about what they make of what they have seen); and there is little use in
questioning issues in education- everybody knows what is wanted. This attitude, reflected in recent changes
and developments in teacher education, led to a deprofessionalisation of teachers. It is argued here that
teacher professionalism and the role of the teacher are the central issue in this debate. Is the teacher there to
think and make decisions, or to implement what s/he is told to implement by successive governments? Who
decides on what basis?
Furthemore, and contrary to a liberal-humanistic tradition, practices were prescribed in a ‘technocratic’ way.
The idea was that decisions about design for learning could be achieved by recourse to a means-end model
of human action: if one is clear about what one wishes to teach, and perhaps the reasons why, curriculum
decisions should be reached through the specification of clear objectives and the choice of technically apt
methods for the achievement of those objectives. There are a number of objections to this account. Firstly,
has agreement been made on the aims and objectives? The teachers in our study definitely felt left out in this
process. They felt that they got programmes (of study) that were imposed on them. Secondly, there is the
assumption that all learning can be reduced to statements of learner behaviour. Examinations and test results
were regarded, by administrators, as more important than the learning process. Whereas teachers wanted to
be connected with and take part in the learning processes of their pupils, in particular the English teachers
felt more and more pressurised into the ‘result mode’ where they had to ‘teach for the test’.
The third important issue that emerged from the findings relates to time. Hargeraves (1994) points out that
“an important part of the sociopolitical dimension of time is the separation of interest,
responsibility and associated time perspective between the administrator and the teacher.”
(p.107)
The teachers in our study wanted to have more time: time to spend with pupils in their classrooms; time to
think about and discuss pedagogical issues with colleagues. The most important group of reference were the
pupils, not parents or inspectors; they wanted to close their doors and teach their subject. Teachers’ most
important rewards were related to pupil understanding and the relationships they had with their pupils. They
also claimed that more and more tasks and responsibilities was laid onto them, which not only kept them
away from what they really wanted to do- be in the classroom with their pupils-, but it also resulted in an
intensification of teachers’ work. Teachers were more and more driven by ‘external’ expectations and
pressures which related to tasks they did not value. This, in turn, resulted a deprofessionalisation process.
In summary, the ‘technocracy’ of curriculum ‘making’ and implementation, and the drive towards ‘absolute’
accountability, as presently experienced in England, renders teaching into a technical exercise in an ‘audit
society’ (Power 1997), failing to account for the sources of educational values that teachers and learners
hold. A view of teaching and learning as a cultural and personal process emerging from a social negotiation
between teachers, pupils and people working with them, in the wider field even between generations and
countries, would offer hope of developing an understanding of teachers’ work.
Acknowledgement
The author is grateful to Dr Linda Haggarty for her insightful comments on draft sections of the paper, and
to the Economic and Social Research Council for their financial support of the research.
References
24
25
Anders, P.L. and Evans, K.S. (1994) Relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their instructional practice in reading. In
R.Garner and P.A.Alexander (eds) Beliefs about text and instruction with text. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
Dreeben, R. (1970) The nature of teaching, Glenview, IL: Scout, Foresman.
Ernest, P. (1991) The Philosophy of Mathematics Education. London: The Falmer Press.
Golby, M. (1989) Curriculum Traditions, in Moon, B., Murphy, P. and Raynor, J. (eds) Policies for the Curriculum,
London: Hodder& Stroughton.
Haggarty, L. (1995) New Ideas for Teacher Education. London: Cassell.
Hanley, D.L., Kerr, A.P. and Waites, N.H. (1984) Contemporary France- Politics and society since 1945. London and
New York: Routledge.
Hargreaves, A. (1994) Changing teachers, changing times- teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age, London:
Cassell.
Judge, H. (1990) The Reform of Teacher Education. In The Oxford Internship Scheme: Integration and Partnership in
Initial Teacher Education, ed. Benton, P. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Judge, H., Lemosse, M., Paine, L. and Sedlak, M. (1994) The University and the Teachers- France, the United States,
England. Wallingford: Triangle Books.
Keitel, C. (1980) Entwicklungen im Mathematikunterricht. In Bildungsbericht Bildung in der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland: Daten und Analysen, ed. Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung (Projektgruppe). Stuttgart: KlettCotta.
Keitel, C. (1992) Mathematician or pedagogue? On education of teachers of mathematics in Germany. The Curriculum
Journal 3 (3): 291-309.
Lacey, C. (1977) The Socialisation of Teachers. London: Methuen.
Lelièvre, C. (1990) Histoire des Institutions scolaires. Paris: Nathan.
Levacic, R. (1993) The co-ordination of the school system. In Managing the UK, ed. Maidment, R. and Thompson, G.
London, Newbury Park, New Dehli in association with the Open University: Sage Publications.
Levitas, M. (1974) Marxist perspective in the sociology of education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
McLean, M. (1990) Britain and a single Market Europe. London: Kogan Page in association with The Institute of
Education, University of London.
Mitter, W. (1990) Educational reform in West and East Germany in European perspective. Oxford Review of Education
16 (3): 333-341.
Mitter, W. (1992) Educational adjustments and perspectives in a united Germany. Comparative Education 28 (1): 45-52.
Nelson, M.K. (1983) From the one-room schoolhouse to the graded school: Teaching in Vermont, 1910-1950. Frontiers:
a journal of women’s studies, 7 (1):14-20.
Nickson, M. (1993) The culture of the mathematics classroom: an unknown quantity? In D.A. Grouws (ed) Handbook of
Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillian Publishing Company.
OECD (1972) Reviews of National Politics for Education-Germany. Paris: OECD.
Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) (1993) The initial training of teachers in two German Länder: Hessen and
Rheinland-Pfalz. London: HMSO.
Pepin, B. (1997) Developing an understanding of mathematics teachers’ work in England, France and Germany: an
ethnographic study. Reading: Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Reading.
Pepin, B. (1998) What mathematics teachers in England, France and Germany really, really want. Paper presented at
BERA ’98 Conference in Belfast, August 1998.
Pepin, B. (1999a) The influence of national cultural tradition on pedagogy. In J. Leach and B.Moon (eds) Learners and
pedagogy. London: Paul Chapman in association with The Open University.
25
26
Pepin, B. (1999b) Mobility of mathematics teachers across England, France and Germany. European Educational
Researcher, Volume 5 (1), pp.5-14.
Pepin, B. (1999c) Epistemologies, beliefs and conceptions of mathematics teaching and learning: the theory, and what is
manifested in mathematics teachers’ practices in England, France and Germany. In Hudson, B., Buchberger, F.,
Kansanen, P. and Seel, H. (1999) Didaktik/Fachdidaktik as science(s) of the teaching profession. TNTEE Publications,
Volume 2 (1), pp. 127-46.
Prost, A. (1968) Histoire de l'enseignement en France de 1800-1967. Paris: Armand Colin.
Prost, A. (1992) Éducation, societé et politiques- une histoire de l'enseignement en France de 1945 à nos jours. Paris:
Seuil.
Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weiler, H.N. (1989) Why reforms fail: the politics of education in France and the Federal Republic of Germany. Journal
of Curriculum Studies 21 (4): 291-305.
26