Benchmarking, Competencies and Teacher Education BENCHMARKING, CASE WRITING AND TEACHER EDUCATION Rose Mulraney Victoria University of Technology (Footscray) with Brenda Cherednichenko, Neil Hooley and Tony Kruger Symposium Paper Australian Association for Research in Education Conference 26-30 November, Hobart, Australia Benchmarking, Case Writing and Teacher Education Quality Teaching Project In June 1994, $140 000 was made available by Victoria University of Technology, Victoria, for the establishment of a Quality Teaching Project(QTP) to enhance the quality of teaching and learning programs at the University. This supported the University's Strategic Plan which "locates teaching as an activity equal to research and community service in its collective endeavour."(Quality Teaching Program : 1994). The strategic intent of the QTP aimed to : 1.Extend at the institutional level, understandings about how mentor driven processes assist academic staff to enhance/extend skills development. 2.Develop institution-wide approaches to continuous improvement in the delivery of subjects through the application of improvement methodologies, in particular, Action Research. 3.Assist with the documentation of good teaching practice across the University. 4.Link innovative teaching practices to centrally-located policies and procedures. 5.Build a pool of expertise among academic staff about quality principles in higher education through application of Action Research and other continuous improvement monitoring methodologies. 6.Integrate the needs of all students - especially those outlined in the University's policy of Access and Equity into subject / course design. (Quality Teaching Program : 1994) QTP Description Each academic department within the University and two schools of TAFE could write a proposal to apply for a $5000 grant to enable academic staff to participate in a process improvement activity in semester 1, 1995. The Project timeline comprised 10 October 1994 - 31 July 1995. The QTP would also provide centrally delivered programs in Planning Days for Team Leaders, Teaching Portfolio Preparation and Teaching / Learning Seminars; and Facilitator Support. Individual Project Teams could present their budget allocation for consideration but time release for team members would only be considered under special circumstances (Quality Teaching Program : 1994). Project teams were encouraged to undertake Action Research and where possible, to go through several cycles (See Appendix 1). Full-time and sessional staff members in the Pre-service and postgraduate programs(Bachelor of Education[Footscray], Bachelor of Education [Melton], Graduate Diploma of Education[Footscray]; and Master of Education - Education and Training [Footscray]) in the Department of Education (Footscray and Melton) developed a QTP proposal, Developing new Partnerships. The Project team comprised the Team Leader, Rose Mulraney; and team members - Brenda Cherednichenko, Gayle Cope, Barrie Bell, Neil Hooley, David Jones, Tony Kruger, Christine Leece and Bill Walker. What is remarkable about the composition of this team is that it comprised full-time and sessional University educators who taught in pre-service and postgraduate courses across two University campuses 35 Kilometres apart in the western region of Melbourne. The aim of the Department of Education(Footscray and Melton) QTP was to put the following process under improvement : to improve the relevance and quality of teaching and learning in Curriculum (Bachelor of Education and Graduate Diploma of Education) through working in partnerships with schools in the western region of Melbourne, Victoria. (Quality Teaching Scheme Expression of Interest : 1994) Within the program : students, classroom teachers and University lecturers would investigate quality teaching and learning through school-based tutorials incorporating reflective practice; the writing of case studies; and benchmarking within the National Teaching Competencies and the Total Quality Teaching Project, Victoria University of Technology. (Quality Teaching Scheme Expression of Interest : 1994) The expected outcomes of the project were : 1.A set of Curriculum case studies written by students, classroom teachers , and University educators; and 2.A Handbook, Developing new Partnerships, for participating schools and University educators. (Quality Teaching Scheme Expression of Interest: 1994) Features of the Department of Education(Footscray and Melton) QTP *Team members were asked to contribute to the development of the project, to participate fully in the project, and to attend as many scheduled sessions as possible.(There were eleven 1.5 - 2 hour sessions during semester 1, 1995). *Team members who were familiar with case writing, reflective practice, and case discussion (Shulman, 1992) would inservice those members who were not familiar with these practices(Professional Development days :13 & 14 February 1995). *Team members were asked to incorporate the integral components of the project into the Curriculum subject(s) which they taught i.e.case writing, reflective practice, discussion. Members were encouraged to incorporate the QTP components in any way which would best meet the needs of their subject(s). Diversity was expected, encouraged, and the Project Team looked forward to learning from individual team members about the diversity of process - the variety of adaptions; the intended and unintended impact on the team member's teaching; and the educator's and students' learning; strengths, weaknesses, other. *Each team member was invited to write a case study to present to the team for the purposes of discussion, on any aspect of their work as a staff member of the University. *Team members were encouraged to write up to three drafts of their case in an effort to 'craft' their case. *Team members were invited to facilitate a team discussion on a colleague's case but not their own case.[During the case discussion, the case writer could not participate in the discussion of the case. The case writer was always present and recorded the discussion on either an electronic whiteboard and/or a whiteboard. The purpose of this was that the case should stand alone for the purpose of case discussion; the writer should be present and have a meaningful role; reflection, analysis and insight should be recorded; and the written record of the discussion could be useful for formal recording, future reflection, and any action which the team had proposed which was initiated through the discussion of a particular case]. *Please note that a decision was taken to record the case discussions via the mentioned mediums. Video and/or a cassette recordings of the discussions were not suggested by any team member. *On the conclusion of a case discussion, case writers could converse with the team about the case, the discussion, the writing of the case, other. *The industrial term of 'Benchmarking' was unknown to the team. Members were asked to find resources, conferences, and / or personnel who could assist the team to increase its knowledge of benchmarking; promote discussion on whether benchmarking was appropriate in the field of education; and if so, how could benchmarking be implemented in courses in the Department of Education, Victoria University of Technology. Had any other Australian and / or international Departments of Education benchmarked Teacher Education Courses? Was benchmarking being implemented by Victoria University of Technology in any academic and / or administrative program(s)? Different team members attended the Benchmarking School Education Conference, Sydney [9-10 March]; and Performance Indicators in Schools Education - Benchmarking, Melbourne [17 March 1995]. Members who attended either conference reported to the team at a specifically scheduled 'Benchmarking' session and disseminated any acquired information. *If appropriate to the Curriculum subject(s) which they taught, team members could approach classroom teachers to become involved in the project. Professional Development would be facilitated by team members to introduce classroom teachers to the components of the Project. *A set of written cases by staff, students and classroom teachers would be collated and published if permission was granted by the writers. Writers would be given a copy of the publication; and the team would potentially determine one or more purposes that the cases could be used in the future. All writers were given the professional assurance that their writing would not be used by the team unless they were consulted. The writers's decision was final! *A Developing new Partnerships Handbook would be compiled by Project participants. QTP Outcomes *Colleagues developed a sense of collegiality! *Colleagues participated in a QTP with the primary aim of enhancing the quality of teaching and learning programs in the Department of Education(Footscray and Melton). *Colleagues were involved in Action Research in the Department of Education (Footscray and Melton). *Colleagues were committed and enthusiastic to the QTP. This was demonstrated through meeting attendance, case writing, quality discussions, and oral feedback to each other and to the team leader. Full-time members attended 90% or more of the scheduled meetings which is important to highlight as this project was above staff teaching and research loads. Sessional staff attendance was lower even though sessional staff were paid to attend professional development and scheduled session times. *Colleagues made time to talk formally about their work on a systematic basis during semester 1, 1995. *Colleagues wrote about their work - their teaching and learning, their students' teaching and learning, their work with classroom teachers in schools, their perceived inability to initiate programs in the Department of Education, the impact of other staff and Department structures on quality teaching and learning taking place, the challenge of teaching, personal teaching 'failure'; and teacher training. *Colleagues reflected on their practice and their colleagues' practice. *Colleagues gained a "window on practice" in the Department of Education (Footscray and Melton). *Colleagues discussed their colleagues' practice in a supportive environment. *Colleagues developed facilitation skills to optimise the discussions of their colleagues' case writing. *Colleagues developed "wisdom of practice" through participation in the QTP. *Colleagues questioned the case writing process as per Shulman(1992): .What is a case? .Should cases always be written? Could they take other forms? .Could cases be written in a different way? .Should cases always be about dilemmas or can writers celebrate successes? .Are we interpretating each case in the right way? Is this important? Is there only one way? .Is there a 'best' way to discuss a case? .What is the writer's role during a case discussion? *Colleagues questioned and discussed what action could be taken to improve quality teaching and learning to improve student learning outcomes (In process). *Colleagues have increased their knowledge of 'Benchmarking and are still grappling with how Teacher Education can be effectively benchmarked. Colleagues are writing about benchmarking; presenting their work at this conference; inviting those interested in Benchmarking in Education to converse with them; encouraging other educators to explore other means of benchmarking; and proposing an annual National Benchmarking Conference, possibly with the AARE annual conference. *Colleagues increased their awareness of the Quality Assurance Strategy, Victoria University of Technology. *The University introduced QTP communication systems (1994). All QTP team members throughout the University were networked via e-mail; and a regular QTP column featured in the University's newspaper, Nexus. *In semester 2, 1995 QTP team members were invited to incorporate computer managed learning as part of a pilot program. This was investigated by two team members. *The QTP team has been invited to participate in Teaching Matters, the 1st Annual Quality Teaching Symposium (8 December 1995). Unachieved QTP Outcomes *The QTP time-line was too short to involve classroom teachers to the degree that the Quality Teaching Scheme Expression of Interest indicated. i.e. Semester 1, 1995 = 13 weeks. .The handbook Developing new Partnerships was not written however, valuable work in this field was undertaken by Jones and Hooley (1995). .Classroom teachers did not formally participate in the Project although many classroom teachers were informally involved through interaction with team members and student case writing; and discourse with students about teaching, learning and the students' case writing. *The QTP budget expenditure time-line was too short to enable the team to formally publish the written cases. The integral components of the Project process culminating in a formal publication could not be hurried, nor could it take precedence over other aspects of the team's scheduled teaching and research, for completion by 31 July 1995. Future use of the cases and / or publication is under consideration. Conclusion Although the QTP concluded 31 July 1995, colleagues have continued to communicate, collaborate, and actively seek to continue the discourse and process which were initiated through participation in the QTP. The QTP developed a focus for the participating staff. Involvement in the QTP challenged the participants' thinking about their work and this is impacting on their future planning and practice(1996). REFERENCES Kember, D., & Kelly,M. (1993). Improving teaching through action research. HERDSA. No.13. Shulman, J. (Ed.). (1992). Case methods in teacher education. Teachers College Press : Columbia University. Victoria University of Technology. (1994). Quality teaching scheme (1994). Victoria University of Technology. (1994). Quality teaching scheme expression of interest : 1994. AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH IN EDUCATION CONFERENCE Hobart, 1995 Symposium on BENCHMARKING, COMPETENCIES AND TEACHER EDUCATION presented by Brenda Cherednichenko:Competence and Case Writing Neil Hooley:Benchmarking Partnerships in Teacher Education Tony Kruger:Benchmarking Teacher Education Rose Mulraney:Benchmarking, Case Writing and Teacher Education Address:Department of Education Victoria University of Technology PO Box 14428 MCMC Melbourne 8001 TEL:03 9688 4844 FAX:03 9688 4646 E-mailneilhooley@vut.edu.au brendacherednichenko@vut.edu.au tonykruger@vut.edu.au rosemarymulraney@vut.edu.au BENCHMARKING, COMPETENCIES AND TEACHER EDUCATION presented by Brenda Cherednichenko:Competence and Case Writing Neil Hooley:Benchmarking Partnerships in Teacher Education Tony Kruger:Benchmarking Teacher Education Rose Mulraney:Benchmarking, Case Writing and Teacher Education SYMPOSIUM ABSTRACT Innovations such as Total Quality Management, Competencies and Benchmarking, which have their genesis in industry, have received a circumspect reception in education. One of the main objections to the application of `benchmarking' to education is its treatment of teaching and learning as unproblematic and technical activities. Another interpretation of benchmarking is possible, however, one which commences from a recognition of the richness and complexity of teaching and learning. Benchmarking, in that view, makes explicit the connection between`successful' teaching and learning, and enables comparison of the ways in which teaching and learning occur in different locations. This symposium will report on the introductory work within the undergraduate program in Education at Victoria University of Technology to construct an approach to benchmarking the competence of graduating teachers within the context of the Draft National Teaching Competencies. The graduating teacher at Victoria University provides two (related) kinds of evidence of teaching competence: in the development of competent teaching practices; and in the acquiring of a professional discourse appropriate for the competent beginning teacher. The symposium will report on graduating teachers' demonstrations of the acquisition of `benchmark practices' and `benchmark discourses', in part through case writing within the structure of the Draft National Teaching Competencies. Case writing allows the graduating teacher to construct a personal representation of competence which includes both the formality of a demonstration of readiness to teach as well as an opportunity for the teacher to express personal interests and commitments. One outcome of the symposium might be that Australian university education faculties might agree to participate in a collaborative benchmarking of pre-service teacher education. BENCHMARKING AND TEACHER EDUCATION by Tony Kruger Department of Education Victoria University of Technology PO Box 14428 MCMC Melbourne 8001 Abstract Concepts such as benchmarking and competence direct attention to the outcomes of teacher education. Although the concepts can have mechanistic application, in teacher education they will have a `plastic' character, and will be concerned principally with the practices and discourses of graduating teachers. The undergraduate program at Victoria University of Technology has investigated the use of Case Writing as a means by which graduating teachers demonstrate teaching competence. Case Writing will also provide reflexive knowledge of the teacher education program and thus can be used as evidence in a benchmarking of teacher education. The paper argues that the collected Case Writing will reveal the nature of what might be graduating teachers' benchmark practices and discourses, possible starting points for Australian teacher education faculties interested in benchmarking their courses. A graduating teacher writes As I looked around at the active, busy, bustling, noisy, messy room full of students actively engaged in building their models of the Three Bears' House, I wondered what an `outsider' might make of this situation. Would they realise that they were looking at a group of children who were working independently of the teacher and taking responsibility for the direction of their own learning experiences? Would they realise that the teacher was not really `teaching' the students, but merely being an `assistant' during this activity. Would they realise that the students were learning from each other as they tested out ideas and strategies amongst themselves, and would they realise that the students in each group were indeed working towards a common goal, even though they were approaching the task in different ways? This situation forced me to think about the way that this `independent learning environment' was created. Admittedly, the students had already been exposed to a variety of other experiences on this topic through previous lessons, but now was the time to find out what the students knew, and how they would go about demonstrating that knowledge. From the outset of this session, the students were given only a few basic guide-lines to follow. After the initial introduction and discussion about the activity, the whole grade was involved in deciding on a selection of materials for the activity. This selection ended up including everything from wool to building blocks! The students were then randomly selected to form their small co-operative groups. They were encouraged to participate as members of their group by being given an `important' role within the group. The groups were then responsible for making sure that they worked through all stages of the activity, including conferencing, designing, selecting materials, constructing and evaluating their group's version of the Three Bears House. The rest was left to them. It took a while for the groups to settle into drafting their designs (after all, there was much to discuss!) and it also took a while for them to get used to using each other as `sounding boards' instead of asking me for advice all the time. Eventually, the finished designs began to appear and it was obvious that the students were applying and building upon their own understanding of the concepts covered in the previous maths and language sessions which focused on `Goldilocks and the Three Bears'. Interestingly, each group approached the design and drafting stage in a variety of ways. As the groups continued to work through the various stages, it was clear that I had underestimated the level of interest and involvement that the students would take in this activity. Throughout all the bustle and noise, each student was busy and actively involved in some aspect of their group construction; whether it was sitting still and making something, talking about their work, or searching for pieces of material to use. I had also underestimated the amount of time it would take to complete an activity such as this because many of the designs ended up being very detailed and complicated. The students also realised that the constructions were going to take much longer that they thought as lunchtime drew nearer and they were nowhere near finished. The room resembled a disaster area which was akin to a real building site, with pieces of discarded building materials strewn everywhere around the emerging constructions, and the builders each busy with their own particular job. After careful deliberation (which didn't take long at all) I decided to extend the session into the afternoon and take advantage of the wonderful independent learning environment that had been created. The students were thrilled when they realised that they would have time to finish their constructions after all. Some groups decided to extend themselves and make `extensions' to their houses, or build models of Goldilocks and the Three Bears to go into the houses, while others concentrated on getting the smallest details `just right'. This extension of time not only allowed students to finish their constructions without undue rushing, but also allowed us the luxury of a long and detailed `share time', which was conducted by each of the groups as they presented their construction. I was amazed at the level of interest in the constructions, as the groups were asked to explain the smallest details of their creation by other students. During this time, I noted that each group had indeed made sure that the required elements of the task were included in their work, and I listened and watched with pleasure as each group proudly presented their construction, knowing that they had learned much more during this session by working under their own steam, than could ever have been possible if the lesson had been teacher directed. As part of their final year assessment requirements, graduating teachers in Year 4 of the Bachelor of Education prepare one piece of Case Writing in each of the five Areas of Competence of the Draft National Competency Framework for Beginning Teaching (1993)1. The intention of the task is that each graduating teacher prepares to enter the profession with an explicit awareness of practice and equipped with personal theories with which to sustain practice. The example above was written by a teacher who completed the course in 1994 and is now teaching in a school in Melbourne's Western region. Our claim is that the graduating teachers' case writing, which collected constitute a formidably large folio, present not only the accomplishment of a level of teaching competence verified by the teaching profession, but also serve as a window on our teacher education courses. Through the graduating teachers' texts, readers can identify the language, concepts, understandings, skills and moral commitments valued within our courses and form judgements about how they have been taught and learned. We have used graduating teachers' case writing not only to assess their readiness to join the teaching profession but as important evidence in an evaluation of our courses, a process which is only at an exploratory stage. We are proposing that case writing enables teacher educators and other stakeholders to make comparisons between courses, that is to undertake a benchmarking of teacher education programs, by coming to agreement about what constitutes benchmark practices and benchmark discourses. We do not see the two as separable, but recognise that the connection between them is neither direct nor unproblematic. Our work2 raises three questions: *Can a discursive representation of personal teaching practice, such as case writing written within a nationally agreed structure of teaching competence, enhance the generation of professional readiness and ongoing development? *Does a collection of such case writing , written by graduating teachers, mentor teachers and teacher educators, provide an insight into the quality of the curriculum, organisation and practices of the teacher education program? *Can that collection of the discursive representations of teaching practice enable a comparison of the learning outcomes of different teacher education programs and consequently serve as a basis for improvement; that is benchmarking? Our pursuit of these questions is not a matter of whim, of course. Clearly we have investigated benchmarking because it is a prominent concept in the current `quality in education' national policy climate. The `quality' question A claim that industrial models of policy and organisational practice - `quality in education' - have become influential; in the Australian education context in the past decade is hardly controversial. The observation is associated apparently with strong responses: approval from those who consider that a dash of market reality will lead to educational improvement; and antagonism from critics who discern that the imposition of industrial concepts and practices on education threatens the nation's commitment to equality, diversity and access. The Australian education literature provides clear demonstrations of that contradiction. For example, the June 1995 edition of Unicorn, the Journal of the Australian College of Education, contained a set of papers (eg by McGaw) which argued the potential of the application of benchmarking principles to education. Elsewhere, others (for example Watkins 1993, Bates 1994, Angus 1994, Dwyer 1995) have argued the contrary position, that the logic of the free market has destructive effects on education. One observation, cynical perhaps, is that the current social and educational policy context has benefit for those whose work is either policy's construction and implementation or its critique. Being the object of such policy and critique as are teachers and teacher educators (especially those in pre-service teacher education) is not a pleasant experience. We are offered the opportunity apparently to comply and find our work distorted and formularised; or to resist and be marginalised. Neither alternative is attractive, especially when we work with students whose hope, if not always their expectation, is to teach young people creatively in schools. In the Department of Education at Victoria University, we have attempted to develop a third option: to understand the application of the industrial conception of `quality' and `benchmarking' by participation, description and reflection. Our hope is that our participation is `oblique, interpretive and very critical' (Beck, Giddens and Lash 1994: 215). One view is that our project is an example of the social inquiry known as Action Research, although we have not used that terminology explicitly, nor followed any particular methodology. But we have been conscious that our investigation is characterised by the kind of approach to inquiry which we encourage our student teachers to use, both as a means of developing teaching practice but also as a basis for curriculum planning and teaching. One criticism of our position obviously is that we are engaging in wishful thinking: that in our investigation of quality and benchmarking we are `consorting with the enemy', allowing our work to be co-opted in the interests of those who will benefit from the application of market forces in education. Therefore, we have proceeded `with caution' as Kenway (1995) has advised, and our progress has not just been indeterminately hopeful. Social theory, or at least one branch of it has given some contextual support. Modernity in Social Theory As I experience education, the principle criterion for `theory' is that it explains practice. It is a quality with which I associate the work of Anthony Giddens and Bob Connell. Since 1984 Giddens has moved from exposing and critiquing others' sociology to proposing his own social theory. As with Connell, his theory explores human action within a structure-agency framework. For Giddens (1984) `structuration' is the theoretical construct; Connell (1995: 65) refers with similar obscurity to human practice as `onto-formative'. At stake is a preference for ways of understanding the world. Can practices be understood is the question; or we are doomed as cultural theory would have it that our understanding is constituted only in text (Perl 1994). Cultural theory has dismissed the structure-agency conception as `the fantasy of mastery (Game 1992: 7). Unfortunately, the end point of such a position is a re-visiting in more arcane language of the `what to do on Monday morning' question of 1970s neo-marxist analyses (eg see Willis 1979) which seemed to provide little support for teachers' practices. My view is that teachers (and teacher educators) deserve something more than critique from the theory they receive in teacher education. Conceiving theory, structure and practice as Giddens has, provides a context which does not diminish the work of the teacher and leaves open the possibility that understanding can commence the process of worthwhile change. Anyway, it seems that whenever cultural theory texts seeks to submit its insights to validation in practice (for example Perl 1994) they demonstrate a convincing portrayal of human agency! Giddens project since 1984 (see Giddens 1984, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994) has been to explain what he has termed `late modernity', or latterly `reflexive modernity'. Reflexive modernity is a world characterised by expertise and the doubting of expertise, a longing for `ontological security' through trust in technology and the erosion of that trust resulting from the risks associated with manufactured uncertainty. We have formed and are formed by our world which is constituted by three dynamics (Giddens 1991): Separation of Time and Space Disembedding mechanisms Institutional reflexivity That diagnosis of reflexive modernity provides an effective theoretical context for a re-consideration of the dominance of the `quality' question in education and at least one justification for our interest in `benchmarking' in teacher education. It is a revision, for me, which owes a good deal to Giddens surprising analysis (my evaluation) of `self-help' aids and therapies in Western social life (Giddens 1991 and 1992). In a prior theoretical commitment, I might have interpreted the proliferation of `self-help' books etc as coping strategies, opiates for the masses, needed by people to live in a violent and unequal world. Giddens (1991: 14) makes more of the observation than that. Such writings are part of the reflexivity of modernity: they serve routinely to organise, and alter, the aspects of social life they report on or analyse. .... Such knowledge is not incidental to what is actually going on, but constitutive of it - as is true of social life in conditions of modernity. Not only this: everyone is in some sense aware of the reflexive constitution of modern social activity and the implications it has for her or his life. Here then is a way of interpreting calls for benchmarking in education in a way other than as an assault by `economic rationalist' forces on education in Australia. `Quality' and `benchmarking' are codes for institutional reflexivity in much the same way that `self-help' therapies are for personal reflexivity. We in education are now experiencing the full-blown condition of reflexive modernity. Education policy makers are caught up in reflexive modernity as much as teachers and teacher educators. Not knowing for policy makers is worse than knowing something negative about, say, the effectiveness of teacher education programs. A blanket rejection by the education community of `quality' and `benchmarking' is a denial of policy makers' (and I suspect most people's) expectations for reflexive knowledge about the nation's education systems. Our refusal to participate in institutionally reflexive inquiries into our own work will lead on current trends to even more extensive colonisation of education's cultural space by the rules of the money system. Again Giddens is a help here. He has distinguished himself among modern social theorists by proposing (Giddens 1994) a positive program for social change which connects directly with his analysis. It rejects any grand social endpoint but also eschews the dark future prospects with which I associate the insights of much of cultural theory. Giddens reads into reflexive modernity a potential for a generative and dialogic democracy `a reconstituted radical politics' (1994:12) which is a direct outcome of every person's access to the resources of social reflexivity and which will enable `individuals and groups to make things happen, rather than have things happen to them'. Education in Giddens view is one institution which emphasises the self-development and social care within the welfare state. Perhaps our participation in benchmarking in teacher education risks the continued marketisation of our work. But a more constructive interpretation is that we are advancing an argument about what education is and what we hope it to become: dialogic, concerned with life chances and the expansion of opportunity. Education, more than any other institution in modernity, has been constituted by reflexive awareness. Understanding development in education as action research, reflective practice and narrative inquiry (see for example Schon 1991) is now mainstream in teacher education. And we should regard the development of the Draft National Teaching Competencies and the National Curriculum Statements and Profiles (Curriculum Corporation 1994) as reflexive monitoring strategies. The striking feature of those latter two superficially technical educational developments is that they require the discursive representation of practice (Cases in the Teaching Competencies, Louden 1993 and Louden and Wallace 1993; or the widespread illustrative use of Work Samples in the National Profiles) for the reader to interpret their application. Education is awash with reflexive knowledge. Perhaps a critical engagement with benchmarking by the education community can make that knowledge public. Benchmarking and teacher education One of the lasting images which we have had in our discussions on quality and benchmarking is a simple illustration given by Evans (1994: 56), in which she relates the example of CSR and its ready-mix concrete operation comparing itself with a pizza home delivery business, which guaranteed delivery in thirty minutes. As a consequence, we have recognised that benchmarking calls attention primarily to the multi-dimensional results of human action. In benchmarking pre-service teacher education, then our concern, of course, is the professional readiness of our graduates, which opens the question of what we mean by professional readiness and generally what we mean by success in education. That is more than a matter of an agreement about best content and organisation. Fundamentally it will be concerned with the social practices of life in the course and the nature of the professional and moral relationships between student teachers, mentor teachers in schools and teacher educators. The discourse of `quality' in education contains two other prominent words: `outcome' and `competence', both of which describe the concrete consequences expected of an educational `expert system'. An educational outcome is now defined as `learning outcome' the building block of the National Curriculum Statements and Profiles (199 ). And competence is described as the possession of specified `competencies' of the kind contained in the Draft National Beginning Teacher Competencies. And we should note the commitment made by the teacher unions (1994) to the Federal Government to forms of teaching which are `outcomes focused'. A conventional response to a negative evaluation of an educational program is to undertake a review of curriculum and assessment. In teacher education, two very recent examples of that practice are found in Walker, Hughes, Mitchell and Traill (1995) and Kennedy and Preston (1995). The former in applying the typology of teachers' knowledge and skill proposed by Lee Shulman (1987) and the latter in its analysis of the Draft National Teaching Competencies are hinting at the formulation of teacher education as an `expert system', with certainties of outcome commonly associated with expertise and `inputs'. That is not an undesirable goal. But in the light of Giddens' analysis, both proposals will be retreats to the `ontological security' if they become implicated in the construction of an `essential' curriculum by ignoring questions of course practices and social relationships. The secure path is to be concerned with inputs, whereas the trajectory of reflexive modernity should lead to a grappling with the risky question of outcomes. If benchmarking were to be applied in an `essential' curriculum of teacher education environment, we would be faced with the`functionalist and reductionist systems' of control argued by Kenway (1995) as likely to fail in education. But in a context of reflexive modernity, to use Giddens words, education is not a mechanistic application of rules but is properly conceived as a complex of structural engagements, practices and discourses. Benchmarking as applied to teacher education draws our attention to the practices and discourses of graduating teachers as the primary outcomes of pre-service teacher education programs. How those practices and discourses are connected to the structural emphases of teacher education courses in the words of Connell, Ashenden, Dowsett and Kessler (1982: 100) `are matters for investigation and not assumption'. Benchmarking then is a question of the participants in teacher education opening-up their practices and discourses to inquiry, more than it is a technical matter of getting the curriculum and assessment right. `Outcome', as Grundy (1992) has hinted need not be only conceived as pre-specified, but as the result of the unpredictability of even the most structured of environments. `Outcome' and `competence', if they are to be usable concepts, should be experientally plastic, to borrow from Giddens (1992). Benchmark Practices, Benchmark Discourses Benchmarking teacher education implies comparison between the outcomes, curriculum, practices and relationships in teacher education courses, and possibly between teacher education and other related locations. At Victoria University we have begun to investigate benchmarking by establishing how aspects of our courses might be accessible to comparative study. The starting point for our investigation was our concern that our graduating teachers were ready to join the teaching profession, that is their competence. We have identified two general components of competence consistent with an approach to teacher education constructed through the reflexive accomplishment of graduating teachers, mentor teachers in schools and teacher educators: 1.competence in practices and relationships as perceived by relating graduating teacher's practices to agreed frameworks of interpretation such as the Draft National Teaching Competencies; the competencies enable an explicit if possibly contested understanding about what constitutes benchmark teaching practices. 2.competence is not only a matter of practice, it has a discursive dimension in which are represented teachers' thoughts and theorising about practice; again the Draft National Teaching Competencies are a structure for the recognition in graduating teachers' texts of benchmark teaching discourses. Perhaps we might consider that a third area of teaching competence is literary/symbolic skill with which teachers represent practices; how well they write. We have not yet considered that matter. We submit that a discursive portrayal of personal teaching practice by a graduating teacher can be an reliable and valid representation of practice if two conditions are present: 1.that a third person, for example a mentor teacher familiar with the teaching context, can verify the practice and the interpretations of action (teaching and learning for example) represented; and 2.that graduating teacher and mentor teacher employ an agreed conceptual structure for description and interpretation. The former implies the presence of an open and responsive relationship between school and teacher education program (partnership) which we have attempted to foster (Hooley 1995). Our work with mentor teachers is at an early stage and we are not yet able to propose systematic insights about the nature of benchmark teaching practices. The latter condition suggests an agreement about a framework such as the Draft National Teaching Competencies. We have asked our graduating teachers to complete five pieces of Case Writing, one in each of the broad Draft National Teaching Competencies (Cherednichenko 1995). We have selected Case Writing (Shulman 1992) because it requires the writer to make explicit choices about what to include so as to convey a concise description and interpretation of practice. Our preference for Case Writing over say the use of a journal results in part from our concern about the power imbalance inherent in any teacher education program. The journal may hold confidential insights whose publication places the writer at risk. Case Writing allows the writer to restrain an assessor from invading private interpretive domains. For the last two years we have collected the Case Writing written by teachers graduating from our undergraduate course. For each year we have 80,000 - 100,000 words of description and interpretation which confirm each writer's developing competence but which we have also recognised contains a reflection of the course from the teachers who have graduated. And to further, our inquiry we have participated (Mulraney 1995) in our own Case Writing exercise, in which we have written about our teacher education practices. We argue that both sets of Case Writing constitute the referents for a comparison with other programs. An acknowledgment that a sample of practice represented in text constitutes a `benchmark' is an interpretive claim. It can be contested. But those claims and attempts to construct a plastic typology of `benchmark practices and discourses' are windows into a teacher education course's emphases and practices. Benchmarking in teacher education will be an intensely political exercise as stakeholders present the evidence they regard as powerful. Teachers' Benchmark Discourses: In surveying our collection of Cases written by graduating teachers we have identified a set of characteristics which we consider marked the writing which best represented practice. The following list is speculative and is proposed as the basis of future examinations of Case writing. We hope too it will provide colleagues from other teacher education programs an insight into the qualities we value and thus serve as the basis for benchmarking. The Case which follows is one that impressed us, as did the example which introduced this paper. Draft National Teaching Competency Area 1 Children learn `best' in a holistic, rather than a compartmentalised fashion. As Dewey noted, when children learn, they seek `wholes': they aim to make sense of their experiences. Language acquisition is a case in point. Children learn language by using it. It is, and has to be, firmly based on each child's own experiences of the world. However in the process of learning about language, children also learn more about the world in which they live. This is the essence of holistic learning. It enables children to make connections between their prior and new experiences: it allows them to begin to make `wholes'. Armed with this knowledge, i decided to use the `ZAR' lesson as a means of introducing Prep/1 children to the `AR' word family rather than merely giving them a list of words to learn. It required children to create an imaginary character called a ZAR and to think about how the ZAR might look, move, feel and so on. As ZARs like `AR' things they also had to list as many things as they could, thereby developing their own word list. Drama and music were used to promote creative thinking while discussion, movement and art allowed children to express their thoughts and use `AR' words in `real' ways. Thus, the lesson not only provided a context for learning about language and extending children's learning, but an opportunity to learn in a holistic fashion. By exciting their imagination, children were motivated to learn. Furthermore, they weer able to create their own context based on their own experiences, increasing the likelihood that the words they were learning about, and using, would be remembered in the future. Opportunities for discussion and observation were also provided in order that the children could share ideas, and subsequently, learn from each other. As the children were very young, they did require some direction. However the open-endedness of the task meant that each child was able to achieve success, yet be challenged, with minimal interference from me, as the teacher. And the resultant drawings? There were green ZARs, a ZAR with two heads, scary ZARs, funny ZARs, but there was none the same as another. In our examination of Case Writing, such as in the above example, we have discerned that graduating teacher's benchmark discourse will contain the following qualities: The teacher in writing the case ensures that it is descriptively rich, enabling the reader to `experience' the event. The reader recognises that the writer has recalled the words and actions of teacher and learners and uses them as evidence in interpretation, explanation and forming proposals for future action. The teacher in case writing makes sure to give a human face to the events described, attending to the personal characteristics of teacher and learners and the patterns of social relations in which teachers and learners are located. The ages of students, their learning histories, whether or not they are ESB or NESB, their gender relations and socioeconomic background may or may not be important. The case however should indicate that the teacher who is writing has considered such matters. The teacher makes an explicit connection between teaching practices and students' learning; ie is `outcomes focused'. A case gives a sense of the social formation of learning, describing the interactions between teacher and learners and between learners. We read hints about what teachers thought, what they said, what they did; what students said and did; and how the teacher interpreted those signs of agency. Given that graduating teachers should be familiar with current curriculum documents, we might identify that learning is described in ways compatible with the National Curriculum Statements and Profiles, for example. The teacher employs an explicit conceptual framework in interpretation, explanation and forming proposals for the future. In case writing the teacher uses a professionally and publicly recognised language of teaching and learning. For example, when the teacher uses a word such as `development' s/he makes clear whether the reference is to a generalised `change' or more specifically to a learner's progress through stages in a model of learning. The teacher in the case represents teachers and learners as knowledgeable agents who reflectively and reflexively respond the each other in teaching and learning. The case represents teaching and learning as interactive and not as the predictable result of an unproblematic strategy. The case employs an explicit conceptual framework in the interpretation of a classroom event. The representation of the event in the case indicates that the teacher has asked her/himself questions about the described event opening up the possibility for different interpretations. In case writing, the teacher takes care not to make uncomplicated decisions based on superficial judgements of the success or failure of a teaching strategy, dissatisfaction with the learners' responses or general lack of professional expertise. In writing about practice, the teacher conveys a sense of struggle and doubt about expertise. While the development of effective teaching strategies is important, case writing enables the teacher to demonstrate that her/his effectiveness is the result of each particular teaching/learning episode. The case shows how the teacher has employed professional judgement based on evidence of teacher's and students' practices. The case provides an indication of the teacher's personal theorising about educational questions. While case writing is intended to represent the teacher's practical thinking and agency, the case allows the teacher to make connections between observations, to speculate on causes, argue about meanings, hint at generalisations on which future action can be based. In the case the teacher demonstrates clear commitment to action based on the evidence from and understandings of teaching and learning practices, personal and professional knowledge and moral principles. Even if the case writing describes an unresolved dilemma or contradiction, the teacher impresses the reader that s/he is searching for a for a resolution which is learning-centred. We are uncertain if any cases we have read possess all of the characteristics which constitute such a benchmark discourse. That is a sufficient reason why we see value in the possibility of benchmarking. Our own course may not yet be fulfilling our intentions. Does any course? How do we know? We are sufficiently convinced of our approach to continue and to invite colleagues in other teacher education courses to work with us. The connection between practice and discourse, which Case Writing makes, presents competence as the achievement of the graduating teacher. But it also provides for the kind of `consequential validity' (Darling-Hammond 1994) from which reflexive course improvement can commence. Let's have a go at benchmarking ... with caution! Connecting `benchmarking' with Giddens' notion of `institutional reflexivity' is not making an argument, but setting the terms of reference of an inquiry which can only be worked out in practice. In our work at Victoria University, we have not benchmarked against any other institution, teacher education or other organisation. What we have done is an attempt to set out ways in which our program might be compared with other teacher education courses. Our concern has been to define the outcomes of our courses in terms of teachers' practices, discursively represented. Emphasising discourse as well as practice in defining competence focuses attention on the importance of interpretation in valuing practice and opens up the structural basis of the evaluation for critique. Thus we are proposing an essentially dialogically `plastic' view of benchmarking, which questions the relationships between course features and practices, especially the nature of school-university partnerships, and the national policy framework for teacher education. Benchmarking is a different starting point for `quality' in teacher education from the conventional concern with manipulating curriculum and other inputs. An example of the `traditional' approach to course quality would the establishment of a national `accreditation' organisation whose responsibility might be course monitoring and approval. It is a `quality' measure common in the professions. Benchmarking teahcers practices and discourses is an alternative to the `inspectorial' power of the professional body; and it is likely to be more open, more tolerant of diversity and more politically dialogic than the most benign of centralised authorities. We propose three courses of action: *we invite colleagues in Australian teacher education programs to work with us in benchmarking teacher education, using strategies such as Case Writing; *we urge colleagues to explore and report other means of benchmarking; and * our final proposal, advanced to initiate discussion on action, is for the holding of a National Benchmarking Conference possibly in conjunction with the AARE conference each year. One possible format is the intensive workshop format of the Professional Development Schools established by the Australian Teaching Council (ATC) and the National Schools Network (NSN). Those organisations, together with the Australian Teacher Education Association (ATEA) and the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE), might sponsor the conference with participants inclusive of the education community. We should expect teacher education courses to sponsor the participation by graduating teacher representatives, their mentor teachers and teacher educators. Others who might participate will include teacher union and employer representatives, parent and community organisation representatives, Australian Council of Deans of Education, ATC, NSN, AARE, ATEA and representatives from government and business. The conference would be best based on the practical `texts' of teacher education programs `written' primarily by graduating teachers, mentor teachers and teacher educators. `Texts' may include case writing and other forms of documenting practice such as photography and video. And given the developing field, the conference might be able to explore the application of multimedia technology by teachers to the discursive representation of practice. REFERENCES Angus, L. (1994) Educational Organisation: Technical/Managerial and Participative/Professional Perspectives, Discourse, vol 14, no 2, April, pp 30 -44. Australian Education Union and the Australian Independent Education Union (1994) Agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the Teaching Profession through their Unions Providing for an Accord to Advance the Quality of Teaching and Learning. Bates, R. (1994) Markets and Schools Unicorn, vol 20, no 1, March, pp 43- 47. Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (1994) Reflexive Modernization, Cambridge: Polity Press Cherednichenko, B. (1995), Competence and Case Writing, paper presented in a symposium on Benchmarking, Competencies and Teacher Education, at the 25th National Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Hobart, November. Connell, R,W., Ashenden, D., Dowsett, G. and Kessler, S. (1982) Making the Difference), Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Connell, R.W. (1995) Masculinities, St Leonards NSW: Allen and Unwin. Curriculum Corporation (1994) National Curriculum Statements and Profiles, Carlton Vic.: Curriculum Corporation Darling Hammond, L. (1994), Performance-Based Assessment and Educational Equity, Harvard Educational Review, vol 64, no 1, Spring, pp 5 - 30. Dwyer, P. (1994) The New Managerialism and the Rhetoric of Outcomes in Post Compulsory Education Policy, Discourse, vol 15, no 2, December, pp 13 - 21. Evans, A. (1994) Benchmarking: taking your organisation towards best practice, Melbourne: The Business Library. Game, A. (199-) Undoing the Social, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press (1990) The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity, Stanford: Stanford University Press (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy, Cambridge: Polity Press. (1994) Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics, Cambridge: Polity Press Grundy, S. (1992) Beyond Guaranteed Outcomes: Creating a Discourse for Educational Practice, Australian Journal of Education, vol 36, no 2, pp 157 - 169. Hooley, N. (1995), Benchmarking Partnerships in Teacher Education, paper presented in a symposium on Benchmarking, Competencies and Teacher Education, at the 25th National Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Hobart, November. Kenway, J. (1995) Educational Benchmarking: Some Words of Caution, Invited address to the College of education (Victoria) Conference on Performance Indicators in Schools Education - Benchmarking. March. Louden, W. (1993) Research Project 1 - Portraying Competent teaching: Can Competency- Based Standards Help, Unicorn, vol 19, no 3, September, pp 13 -23. Louden, W. and Wallace, J. (1993) Competency Standards in teaching: Exploring the case, Unicorn, vol 19, no 3, September, pp 65 -74. McGaw, B. (1995) Benchmarking for accountability or for improvement, Unicorn, vol 21, no 2, June, pp 7 - 12. See also companion papers in this volume. Mulraney, R. (1995), Benchmarking, Case Writing and Teacher Education, paper presented in a symposium on Benchmarking, Competencies and Teacher Education, at the 25th National Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Hobart, November. NPQTL (National Project on the Quality of Teaching and Learning) (1993) Draft Competency Framework for Beginning Teaching, Department of Employment, Education and Training, Canberra. Perl, S. (1994) Composing Texts, Composing Lives, Harvard Educational Review, vol 64, no 4, Winter, pp 427 - 449. Preston, B. and Kennedy, K. (1995) The National Competency Framework for Beginning Teaching: A Radical Approach To Initial Teacher Education?, The Australian Educational Researcher, vol. 22, no. 2, August, pp 27 - 62. Schon, D. (ed) (1991) The Reflective Turn: Case Studies in and on Educational Practice, Columbia University: Teachers' College Press. Shulman, J. (ed) (1992) Case Methods in Teacher Education, Columbia University: Teachers College Press. Shulman, L. (1987) Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the new reform, Harvard Educational Review, vol 57, no 1, February, pp 1 - 22. Walker, J., Hughes, J., Mitchell, J. and Traill, R. (1995) Teachers' Knowledge Base in Australian Teacher Education: Development of a Content Analysis Methodology , The Australian Educational Researcher, vol. 22, no. 2, August, pp 13 -25. Watkins, P. (1993) Workers, Skill and Teachers, Unicorn, vol 19, no 3, September, pp 65 -74. Willis, P. (1979) Learning to Labour, London: Saxon House. 1Referred to from this point as the Draft National Teaching Competencies. 2See the contributions by Cherednichenko (1995), Hooley (1995) and Mulraney (1995) also presented at this symposium. Benchmarking, Competencies and Teacher Education Symposium Paper Australian Association for Research in Education Conference 26-30 November 1995, Hobart, Australia Benchmarking Partnerships In Teacher Education Neil Hooley Department of Education Victoria University of Technology Melbourne, Australia 1. Features of partnership According to Goodlad (1986), a symbiotic partnership between schools and a university must involve the following three features: 1. Complementary dissimilarity between or among partners ie an element lacked by one is present in another 2. Overlapping self-interests and the recognition of such by all partners 3. Commitment among all partners to the belief that the potential gains in satisfying self-interests are worth the efforts and inevitable sacrifices of close collaboration. Based on this general philosophical direction and in response to both national and international trends (Cairns, 1995; Gore, 1995; Victoria, 1995), a number of major ideas have guided the development of partnership arrangements between schools and Victoria University of Technology, Melbourne, throughout 1995. These are: * That a partnership between schools and the university is an ongoing democratic and collaborative program constituted as an essential means of improving teaching and learning outcomes for each * That the initial preparation of teachers should involve as much school-based time as is appropriate to integrate the practice of teaching with the theory of learning * That while in schools, the beginning teacher should be involved in a fluid combination of curriculum development work, classroom teaching and general school experience * That the beginning teacher should be working closely with a mentor teacher throughout initial preparation * That partnership arrangements should emphasise enquiry processes of teaching and learning at both the school and university, comprise partners of equal status, be supported by all partners and have a research orientation. A pilot program was conducted during 1995, involving the fourth year of the Bachelor of Education and the Graduate Diploma in Secondary Education, with approximately forty five participants in each course. Within the Bachelor of Education, partnership teams were placed in schools for fifty two days spread throughout the year ie on average, two days per week of the university semester and were involved in two main research and development programs. First, partnership teams assisted the school in curriculum development work, generally but not always arising from priorities identified in the school charter. A minority of time was allocated to this responsibility at the beginning of the placement resulting in a number of materials being produced of use to the schools concerned. Examples of curriculum outcomes from across schools include development of a computer policy, drafting of camping and excursion procedures, investigation and application of computer software, implementation of a comprehensive thematic curriculum program, work in the area of equal opportunity. Such outcomes prompted one mentor teacher to remark: 'Over the years, I have had about thirty beginning teachers, but this is the first time I have felt the school received something of significance in return' (personal communication). Second, a combined process of mentoring and supervised practice teaching, where participants were given as much control as possible in the classroom, over the majority period of time in schools. While both aspects were successful, the latter feature was particularly appreciated by participants, enabling them to confront the daily life of a classroom teacher for an extensive period and, for many, 'helping me feel like a teacher for the first time.' While the process of mentoring has yet to be developed fully in practice, it is intended that the central directional elements of partnership mentoring move beyond that of teaching supervision, to include regular team meetings with a mentor so that collective reflection on practice can occur, to isolate possible common understandings and principles of teaching and learning flowing across the curriculum and to design a school-based ongoing action research program to investigate classroom changes for improvement. A combination of curriculum work, team-teaching and full-control teaching, practical reflection and action research, may evolve into a more integrated program of professional development, of benefit to all partners. In 1996, it is hoped that the notion of partnership will be extended to other year levels of the Bachelor of Education in both formal and informal ways, so that partnership becomes a major feature of the conduct of courses. Whether or not partnership entirely replaces supervision remains to be seen. 2. Implementation experience of partnership Evaluation of the pilot partnership program showed that all partnership groups expressed positive support for the continuation and extension of the program. There was a commonly felt need for more communication between partners, particularly on key aspects of the program such as expectations and the process of mentoring. Overall, the school responses were very supportive, with a few commenting on the lack of practical classroom preparation of the fourth year Bachelor of Education group. The collaborative nature of partnerships was seen to be a distinct advantage, with the beginning teacher bringing new ideas into the school, exposing children to different teaching styles and approaches and contributing to curriculum development. Regular classroom teachers then have a new group of colleagues with whom to share the workload, to bounce ideas off and are provided with the opportunity to reflect on their own teaching practice. Such collegiality, whereby experience is subject to ongoing sharing and review, provides a significant form of in-house professional development and strengthens both the professional and personal links between the school and university. Specific comments received during the evaluation in relation to mentoring, directly or indirectly, indicated that partnerships can construct much more respectful and familiar relationships which is providing the beginning teacher with a more comfortable and open position from which to work: 'We have equal roles within the project; in fact, I've been the 'student' more than not' was one response provided. Because of this, mentor teachers need to have a clear understanding of the mentoring expectations the university has of both the mentor and the beginning teacher. On the other hand, the evaluation revealed that mentor teachers would like more support and time with university staff and receive more feedback regarding whether or not they are providing appropriate guidance and assistance for the beginning teacher. Concern was expressed by teachers regarding the lack of time they can spend with the beginning teacher outside the classroom and that they would appreciate receiving more personal information regarding beginning teachers such as their backgrounds, teaching experience and expectations. To assist with this perceived weakness in the program, it was suggested that meetings and negotiations need to be held much earlier in the partnership process, that consideration should be given to beginning teachers and schools negotiating arrangements the previous year and beginning teachers having experience of their schools during the first week/s of the school term, rather than waiting for the first semester of the university to begin. Information regarding the impact of financial support for partnership schools, together with the amount required, is inconclusive at this stage and requires further detailed study. However, it is known that financial assistance was used in a variety of ways including professional development, in support of beginning teacher curriculum projects within the school, replacement time to allow participants to discuss partnership issues and for writing and discussing university requirements. One school recommended that funds for specific projects is a vital support. This could be made after schools submit a relevant project for the beginning teachers to work on, rather than a blanket contribution from the university. Beginning teacher comment regarding their time in schools was remarkably similar and positive throughout the group. The extensive period of time in schools during fourth year was seen as valuable and enjoyable, sorting out many personal issues and enabled the development of longer-term relationships between all participants including children. Like the mentor teachers, the beginning teachers suggested more and earlier communication between all partners, but were supportive of the flexibility and authority accorded to partners to work out the details of the program, as appropriate for each individual school circumstance. A longer time in schools, particularly when working on curriculum development projects, generates more reflective comment from beginning teachers, in part due to the beginning practitioner becoming more accepted in the school and the development of closer working relationship between the school and university personnel. The evaluation was not able to examine this particular aspect of the partnership relationship in depth, to provide evidence of explicit teacher theorising arising from a greater extent of collaborative professionalism between partners. However, it appears that the pilot program so conducted during 1995, is in general accord with Young's (1995) observation that 'For many preservice students, decontextualised educational theory without practice amounts to little more than prattle. Without clear notions of what they should be practising, their applied work in schools becomes mere experience, more of the same, lacking direction or purpose.' 3. Purpose of benchmarking partnership At this early stage of considering the application of benchmarking in Australian education, a generally agreed definition of the concept has not yet emerged. However, McGaw (1995) has pointed out that benchmarking in industry and commerce usually has two purposes, accountability and improvement. He suggests that, in the private sector, the benchmarking of outcomes often occurs from concern with accountability, whereas the benchmarking of process results from an emphasis on improvement. In order to assist improvements in initial teacher preparation in Australia, a working definition could describe educational benchmarking as: An ongoing, long-term democratic and collaborative program researching both process and outcomes designed to improve teaching and learning and which identifies best practice of an individual, group, or organisation, for adaptation by another individual, group, or organisation within teacher education. In regard to initial teacher preparation, such a definition provides educational benchmarking with the following eight-part purpose: * To identify Australian and/or world's best practice regarding teaching and learning at both the university and school; all aspects of school-university partnerships and the practicum including mentoring; the process of teacher reflection and practical theorising; the features of classroom-based research and evaluation * To clarify and establish the language of professional practice and judgement * To make explicit the characteristics underpinning the three pedagogical and epistemological transformations of disorganised activity into systematic teaching practice, of classroom dialogue into regular patterns of discourse and of casual reflection into preliminary theorising * To describe quality teaching and learning for change and improvement * To document exemplary programs of curriculum evaluation procedures * To monitor the efficient allocation of resources * To strengthen relationships between school and university * To advantage graduates in terms of employment prospects across the nation and internationally. 4. Possible benchmarking procedures The above purpose can be suitably pursued through partnership arrangements between a university and local schools. A qualitative methodology for investigating each of the seven aspects is broadly outlined below: * Ongoing description and development of mentoring through journal documentation of mentor group meetings of partnership project teams in schools * Action research projects involving case writing of teaching moments or critical incidents to identify teacher competence, as part of the contribution towards and monitoring of progress in teaching practice * Comparison and cross-checking of written work based on quality criteria submitted for university requirements by beginning teachers * Structured interviews with experienced and beginning classroom teachers, with identification and analysis of discourses, particularly reflection and theorising * Ongoing case study classroom descriptions of teaching and learning * Recording and analysis of practitioner dialogue both mentor and beginning teacher regarding curriculum development and classroom teaching, to describe the nature and levels of teacher discourse * Description of a range of formal and informal colloquia, presentations and peer discussions, as evidence of engagement in comprehensive professional discourse for final year beginning teachers * Evaluation of curriculum programs highlighting quality teaching and learning * Documentation of the staffing and resources used to support partnerships at both the school and university, including the proportion of time taken from university programs and devolved to the school. The definition, purpose and application of school-university partnerships as sketched above, together with a program of ongoing research and evaluation, constitutes a means of benchmarking Australian teacher education for change and improvement, nationally and internationally. This is of significance for improving the intellectual and practical rigour of education as a field of enquiry in its own right, but more particularly so given the philosophical and political pressures on education during the current historical period of economic, cultural, technological and moral discontinuities. References Cairns, L. et al (1995) An Exercise In Partnership: The Monash Primary School-Based Teacher Education Program, paper presented at a Symposium at the 25th Annual Conference of the Australian Teacher Education Association Inc, Sydney, 5-8 July. Goodlad, J. (1986) Linking Schools and Universities: Symbiotic Partnerships, Occasional Paper No 1, Institute for the Study of Educational Policy, University of Washington: Seattle. Gore, J.M. (1985) Emerging issues in teacher education, paper prepared for the Innovative Links program, August. McGaw, B. (1995) Benchmarking for accountability or for improvement, Unicorn, Vol 21 No 2, June. Young, W. (1995) Internship: Integrating theory and practice, South Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, Vol 23, No 1. Victoria. (1995) Partnerships in Teacher Education, Standards Council of the Teaching Profession, Directorate of School Education. 7