IN 2007, THE GOVERNMENT of Hong Kong implemented the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme to provide allowances for parents to purchase services in local preschools. The scheme includes the policy for subsidising the professional development of preschool teachers, which aims at upgrading their professional qualifications in five years, thereby improving teaching quality. This paper explores whether there is a gap between the policy objectives and teacher professional development through case studies at a time when the education reform has been implemented. Semi-structured interviews were used for data collection. The participants had some views in common about the positive aspects of the professional development policy. However, the findings also indicate that preschool teachers have a passive attitude toward learning, which might have an adverse influence on their lifelong professional development. The implications for the professional development policy and teacher professional development are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonS. E., & TogneriW. (2003). School district approaches to professional community building: Intentions, inventions, and tensions. In Annual conference of the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Sydney, Australia, January.
2.
Attride-StirlingJ. (2001). Thematic networks: An analysis for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1(3), 385–405.
3.
ArchibaldS., CoggshallJ. G., CroftA., & GoeL. (2011). High-quality professional development for all teachers: Effectively allocating resources. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from www.tqsource.org/publications/HighQualityProfessionalDevelopment.pdf
4.
AvalosB. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–20.
5.
BlankJ. (2010). Early childhood teacher education: Historical themes and contemporary issues. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31(4), 391–405.
6.
BorkoH., ElliottR., & UchiyamaK. (2001). Professional development: A key to Kentucky's educational reform effort. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 969–987.
7.
BorkoH., JacobsJ., & KoellnerK. (2010). Contemporary approaches to teacher professional development. In PetersonP., BakerE. & McGawB. (Eds), International Encyclopedia of Education (vol. 7, pp. 548–556). Oxford, England: Elsevier.
8.
BowmanB., DonovanM. S., & BurnsS. (Eds). (2000). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers (Washington, DC, National Research Council). Available online at: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309068363/html/261.html
9.
Cochran-SmithM., & ZeichnerK. M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Darling-HammondL. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: The power of the bottom over the top. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 233–241.
11.
Darling-HammondL., & McLaughlinM. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597–604.
12.
DayC., & SachsJ. (2004). Professionalism, performativity and empowerment: Discourses in the politics, policies and purposes of continuing professional development. In DayC. and SachsJ. (Eds), International Handbook on the Continuing Professional Development of Teachers (pp. 3–32). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
13.
DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (1998). Methods of collecting and analyzing empirical materials. Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials, 47–60.
Education Commission. (1999). Education Blueprint for the 21st Century.Hong Kong: Author.
16.
EvanL. (2008). Professionalism, professionality and the development of education professionals. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 20–38.
17.
FullanM. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
18.
GrundyS., & RobisonJ. (2004). Teacher professional development: Themes and trends in the recent Australian experience. International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers, 146–166.
HardyI. (2008). Competing priorities in professional development: An Australian study of teacher professional development policy and practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 277–290.
21.
HardyI. (2009). The production of Australian professional development policy texts as a site of contest: The case of the federal quality teacher programme. The Australian Education Researcher, 36, 73–88.
22.
HardyI. (2012). The politics of teacher professional development: Policy, research and practice.New York: Routledge.
23.
HargreavesA. (1988). Teaching quality: A sociological analysis. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20(3), 211–231.
24.
HoC. W. D. (2006). Understanding the complexity of preschool teaching in Hong Kong: The way forward to professionalism. International Journal of Educational Development, 26(3), 305–314.
25.
Hong Kong Government. (2006). Policy Address 2006. Government Printer, Hong Kong.
26.
HuffmanJ. B. (2011). Professional learning communities in the USA: Demystifying, creating, and sustaining. The International Journal of Learning, 17(12), 321–336.
KvaleS. (2002, March). Dialogue as oppression and interview research. In Nordic Educational Research Association Conference, Tallin, Estonia.
29.
LinnP. L., HowardA., & MillerE. (Eds). (2004). Handbook for Research in Cooperative Education and Internships.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum.
30.
LouisK. S., & LeeM. S. (2012). Does school culture matter? Defining and measuring a strong school culture linked to student learning. Presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
31.
McLaughlinM. W., & TalbertJ. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
MarszalekJ. M., OdomA. L., LaNasaS. M., & AdlerS. A. (2010). Distortion or clarification: Defining highly qualified teachers and the relationship between certification and achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(27), 1–33.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
38.
PiniM. E., & GorostiagaJ. M. (2008). Teacher education and development policies: Critical discourse and analysis from a comparative perspective. International Review of Education, 54, 427–443.
StakeR. (1995). The art of case research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
41.
StollL., BolamR., McMahonA., WallaceM., & ThomasS. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.
42.
StollL., & LouisK. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas. Open University Press.
YinR. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.
47.
YuenL. H. (2011). Early childhood teacher learning through a professional development school program in Hong Kong. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32(1), 72–83.
48.
YuenW. K. G., LaiK. C., & LawK. Y. (2010). The work of early childhood teachers after the implementation of the Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme. Education Planning Digest, 2(11), 1–29. (In Chinese)
49.
ZepedaS. (1999). Staff development: Practices that promote leadership in learning communities.Larchmont: Eye on Education.
50.
ZiglerE., GilliamW. S., & JonesS. M. (2006). A vision for universal preschool education.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
