Teacher collaboration and collegiality is regarded as one of the important factors for the improvement of the teaching profession (Stoll et al, 2006) and in supporting innovations in schools (Kelchtermanns, 2006). It is also argued, that when teachers learn from and with each other this can lead to better outcomes of learners (HMIE, 2009) and enhance confidence and encourage experimentation (Osborn et al, 2000). In other words, it is assumed that teachers can learn effectively when given the opportunity to work together, cooperate, collaborate, share expertise and engage in team-teaching. Collaboration, however, is not straightforward and not all forms of collaboration are empowering. For example, in some contexts teacher collaboration does not go beyond pseudo-collaborative culture when dictated from above, while in other contexts it may require top-down approach to become part of a school culture (Hu, 2010), at least at the beginning of an experimentation and innovation (Dantow, 2011).

In 2011, teacher collaboration for learning and innovation has become a major part of a wider curriculum innovation reform in secondary education in Kazakhstan. While the interest in teacher collaboration is not new in Kazakhstani school context, its focus has shifted from collegiality to creating professional learning communities for innovations. This vision has been constructed based on joint work conducted by the network of 20-Nazabyaev Intellectual Schools, serving as an experimental platform to pilot a skill-based curriculum in Kazakhstan, in collaboration with the University of Cambridge. Between 2011-2015 more than 50 000 (18%) teachers were trained (www.cpm.edu.kz) to create and work in professional learning communities.  Each teacher attended three month long professional development training course by being released fully from teaching with the salary paid as usual for the duration of training. It has become a major investment and commitment of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan (GovRK) in building the secondary school capacity to implement curriculum innovations. However, the potential return from an investment has created some degree of skepticism among policy makers, educators and practitioners, and continues to generate discourse within and beyond Kazakhstani education system. Some argue, how teachers used to work in highly centralised and increasingly prescribed system could effectively promote professional communities for collaboration; others identify the Unified National Test (school leaving test) requiring students to recall large quantities of factual information based on multiple choice questions as a bottleneck for any innovation and changes in the system (Sagintayeva et al, 2014) etc. Thus, there is a risk that investment into teacher CPD to promote teacher collaboration for learning and innovation will not lead to the outcomes that the GovRK seeks for learners.

At this time of transition, this paper intends to explore existing (or absence of) conditions for effective teacher collaborative practice in state secondary comprehensive schools in Kazakhstan. It is based on the doctoral study aimed at examining teachers’ perspectives in relation to forms and types of collaboration that help them to improve their practices and investigating factors that facilitate or hinder their collaboration for learning. The study draws on the UK, Australian and the US practices related to creation of adequate conditions to facilitate teacher professional collaboration in workplace and beyond.

Datnow, A. (22 February 2011 г.). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of accountibility. San Diego, CA, US. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit. HMIE. (2009). Learning Together: improving teaching, improving learning. Livingston. Hu, W.-C. (2010). The Challenges of Promoting Teacher Collaboration: A Taiwanese Context. w-chu@ioe.ac.uk: unpublished research paper. Kaptelinin, V 2005, ‘The Object of Activity: Making Sense of the Sense-Maker’, Mind, Culture, and Activity, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 4-18. Kelchtermans, G. (2006). Teacher collaboration and collegiality as workplace conditions. A review. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 220-237. Kruse, S.D., & Louis, K.S. (2009). Building strong school cultures: A guide to leading change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Osborn, M. McNess, E. and Broadfoot, P. (2000) What Teachers Do: Changing Policy and Practice in Primary Education. (London: Continuum). Sagintayeva, A., Bridges, D., McLaughlin, C., Mehisto.P., Drummond, MJ., Ayubayeva, N., Kishkentayeva, M., Kulakhmetova, A. (2014). Development of Strategic Directions fo Education Reforms in Kazakhstan for 2015-2020. Nazarbayev University, Astana. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional Learning Communities: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Educational Change, 221-258. Yamagata-Lynch, L.C. (2010). Activity systems analysis methods: Understanding complex learning environments. New York: Springer.