The development and use of professional standards for teachers at a national level is becoming the norm for countries worldwide, in part motivated by influential policy-focused reports which promote the use of standards as a means of enhancing teacher quality, and ultimately, improving pupil/student outcomes (e.g. OECD, 2005). But since Sachs asked ‘Teacher professional standards: controlling or developing teaching?’ in 2003, the standards agenda has taken a firm hold globally and the answer to the question ‘controlling or developing?’ has become increasingly complex and multi-faceted. Despite a global meta-narrative which promotes the use of professional standards, the precise national contexts in which they have been developed and implemented, varies across both space and time. This paper is based on the premise that while at a generic level there is much international agreement about the desirability of professional standards, the precise, detailed nature of individual countries’ sets of standards points to a much more complex and nuanced picture, involving both political and professional ideologies.

This paper therefore presents a framework for interrogation of nation states’ professional standards, suggesting that this level of interrogation might help us to create more honest descriptions of the aims/purposes of existing and future sets of standards. The framework is exemplified through analysis of current sets of professional standards for teachers within the four jurisdictions of the United Kingdom (UK): England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The similarities and differences to be found within the four jurisdictions allows the framework to be exemplified in such a way that shows its potential use in countries across Europe and beyond.

The paper provides an overview of existing literature which considers the purposes and effects of professional standards (for example, Ball, 2003; Fenwick, 2009; Ingvarson, 2009; Meng, 2009; Sachs, 2003; Stanley & Stronach, 2012), and draws on Whitty’s (2008) four-fold typology of teacher professionalism as a means of conceptualising the literature as a whole.

It is argued that deeper interrogation of the aims, purposes, structures and proposed uses of professional standards for teachers might lead us to develop a new language which acknowledges that ‘standards’ cannot be understood as one monolithic instrument.

Ball, S. (2003) The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228. Fenwick, T.J. (2009). (un)Doing standards in education with actor-network theory. Journal of Education Policy, 25(2), 117-133. Ingvarson, L. (2005). Teacher standards: foundations for professional development reform (pp. 336-361). In M. Fullan (Ed.). Fundamental Change, Springer: Amsterdam. Meng, J.C.S. (2009). Saving the teacher’s soul: exorcising the terrors of performativity. London Review of Education, 7(2), 159-167. OECD (2005). Teachers Matter. OECD: Paris. Sachs (2003). Teacher professional standards for teachers; controlling or developing teaching? Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, 9(2), 175-186. Stanley, G.E. & Stronach, I. (2012). Raising and doubling ‘standards’ in professional discourse: a critical bid. Journal of Education Policy, iFirst article, DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2012.715355. Whitty, G. (2008) Changing modes of teacher professionalism: traditional, managerial, collaborative and democratic. In: B. Cunningham, ed. Exploring Professionalism: 28-49. London: Institute of Education, University of London.