Summary of the “Research Report on the Standards for Teacher Competence in OtherCountries”

1. Purpose and Summary of the Research Study(1) Purpose of the research study
In order to cultivate the competencies required in the future era, there is a need to rethink theteaching content and methods, and in order to be able to achieve this, one pressing issue is to reformthe pre-service training, recruitment and in-service training of teachers who are to be responsible for
fostering these competencies, and therefore in response, the Education Rebuilding Council released“The Competencies Required in the New Era, and the Education and Teachers Needed to Foster theCompetencies” (Seventh Recommendations) (May 14, 2015). In response to these recommendations,the Central Council for Education set out in the “Report on Enhancing the Competencies of Teachers
Responsible for Future School Education – Towards Building a Teacher-Training Community to
Learn Together and Improve Together” (December 21, 2015) that with regard to the “teacher training
indicators” which are commonly expected of teachers in their role as highly-qualified professionals,“each prefecture, etc. should develop teaching training indicators in order for teachers to be able tohave an overall view of their entire teaching career in their role as a highly-qualified professional,and clarify the competencies that teachers should acquire according to the stage of their career”.
Meanwhile, in other countries, there are many places where standards for teacher competence arebeing developed, and these are being used as indicators for pre-service training, recruitment, and inservice training, etc.
Therefore, the purpose of this research study is to obtain ideas which will be useful when forming
teacher training indicators as standards for pre-service training, recruitment and in-service training
by means of conducting comparative research on the current state and issues of the standards forteacher competence in other countries.

(2) Summary of the research study
In examining the standards for teacher competence in other countries, we conducted comparison
and analysis utilizing the research studies of education experts in each country, and through study
groups and e-mails. There were nine countries which took part in our research: the UK, Germany,France, Finland, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea. We alsogave an outline of early childhood education (in the United States, the UK, Germany and China).

Research period: 2015 - 2016, Research Representative: Akihide Osugi (Director of the Department
for Elementary and Secondary Education Research)

2. Summary of the Research Outcomes(1) International trends of the standards for teacher competence
We conducted a study into what kind of standards for teacher competence had been establishedin other countries and how they were being utilized. Table 1 shows the presence or absence of teacher
competence standards in the target country. Competence standards had been developed for teachers
in eight countries excluding Finland, while competence standards had been developed for teachers inmanagerial posts in six countries except Germany, France and Finland. In addition, with regard to thecompetence standards, broadly speaking, there were some countries that established standards forteachers in general while other countries had established standards according to the level ofproficiency such as for novice teachers, ordinary teachers, and proficient teachers. Regarding
managerial posts, there were countries which only had principals, and countries which set standards
for each occupation rank or school type.
Table 1 Presence or absence of competence standards for teachers and managerial staff
Competence standards for teachers

Competence standards for managerial staff

UKTeachers

Principal

GermanyTeachers

No standards

FranceTeachers and staff

No standards

Finland

No standards

No standards

United States

Teachers

Principal, teachers’ leader

Australia

Teachers (new graduates, proficient teachers, highlyPrincipal

proficient teachers, position of leadership)
New Zealand

Teachers (pre-service training, teacher registration,Principal (primary, secondary), vice-principal etc.

novice teachers, teachers, proficient teachers)
Singapore

South Korea

Teachers (novice teachers – ordinary teachers [ranks],Principal, deputy principal, department head, subject /advanced, proficient teachers)

grade leader

Teachers (including head teachers, nutrition

Principal , vice-principal

instructors, health instructors, librarian teachers,
special school teachers, counseling teachers, etc.)

Regarding use of the standards for teacher competence, diverse use was seen depending on thecountry as shown in Table 2. At the pre-service training stage, the standards were used as the criteria
for teaching qualifications (UK, Australia, New Zealand), the criteria for teacher licenses (US), thecriteria for the formation of teacher training programs (Germany), and as the criteria for certification(UK and US). At the recruitment stage, the standards were used as criteria for the teacher recruitment
examination (France), and as criteria to determine skills at the time of completion of the examination(UK, Germany, New Zealand). At the in-service teacher stage, the standards were used as guidelinesof professional development (UK, US, New Zealand, Singapore, Korea), the criteria for teacher
evaluation (UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Korea), and other uses were for school
audits (UK), to identify unfit teachers (UK), teacher registration certification (New Zealand), andteacher registration renewal (Australia). In particular, in the United Kingdom and the United States,
standards are being developed which look over the entire teaching career from pre-service training,
recruitment to in-service teachers.

Table 2 The role and functions of the standards for teacher competenceStudent teacher and recruitment level
UKIn-service level

Acquisition of teaching qualifications, teacher

Professional development, teacher evaluation, school

training program certification, evaluation at the endaudits, identification of unfit teachersof an examination
Germany

Teacher training program formation, evaluation at theend of an examination

FranceTeacher recruitment examination

FinlandUS

Teacher training program certification, teacher'sProfessional development, teacher evaluation

licenseAustralia

Acquisition of teaching qualifications

Teacher evaluation, teacher registration renewal

New Zealand

Teacher registration certification, evaluation at theProfessional development

end of the examination
Singapore

Professional development, teacher evaluation

South Korea

Professional development, teacher evaluation(2) Form and content of the standards for teacher competence(i) Form of the standards for teacher competenceWith regard to the features in terms of the form, first of all, focusing on the number of competence
standards set for teachers, the number of standards which were set as 1, 2, 3 .... and had six to fourteen
items. Second, many countries indicated the standards for teacher competence divided into areas
according to the content groups such as 1) educational guidance, 2) daily living guidance (SouthKorea), and so on, and showed the corresponding relationships. Third, in addition to the standards forteacher competence, there were some countries that set subcategories for each standard and preparedrubrics (evaluation criteria tables).
(ii) Content of the standards for teacher competence
Regarding the contents, there were 1) educational guidance, 2) student guidance and daily living
guidance, and 3) attitudes and ethics as a teacher. 1) Educational guidance included learners andlearning, the contents of the subjects, etc., lesson planning and implementation, evaluations, etc. 2)
Student guidance and daily living guidance included character development, subjective decisions andjudgments, handling of tasks and needs, information provision, regular lifestyle habits, and preventionof problem behavior, etc. 3) Attitudes and ethics as a teacher included understanding the teaching
staff, obligations and responsibilities, performance of duties, participation in school-wide activities,
cooperation and collaboration with the parents and local communities, self-study and professional
development.

(3) Suggested examples of standards for teacher competence(i) Examples of setting standards to cover the entire teaching career
The standards for teacher competence in the United Kingdom and the United States were designed
to be widely used at the respective stages of pre-service training, recruitment, and in-service training
with a view to the entire teaching career. The InTASC (Interstate Teacher Assessment and SupportConsortium) standards in the United States give a concrete image of the path of proficiency of theteachers through an indication of “performances”, “knowledge”, “dispositions” and “learningdevelopment”. It can be said that it has been designed for broad use as a desired teacher image, criteria
for evaluation, and guidelines for professional growth overlooking the entire teaching career.
(ii) Examples showing standards divided into proficiency levels
Case examples indicating criteria where the teachers are classified into several levels ofproficiency include Australia (new graduates, proficient teachers, highly proficient teachers, positionsof leadership), New Zealand (novice teachers, teachers, proficient teachers), Singapore (novice toordinary teachers [3 ranks], advanced teachers, proficient teachers), and others. In this way, when thestandards are shown in stages, it is possible to know the goals at the next stage such as what is required
and to what degree in order to achieve proficiency at the higher levels, and the standards function asguidelines in terms of self-development and functional development.
(iii) Examples of revision to simplified standards
In the UK, the problem was that the original standards formulated in 2007 were far too detailed,and so the standards were revised in 2010 to create simplified standards. The standards
comprehensively describe the knowledge and skills absolutely necessary for teachers through thesetting of detailed items. However this tend tends to fall into elementalism, and therefore, it becomes
hard to grasp an overall image of the competencies, and moreover, limits the degree of freedom inthe teacher’s teaching practices narrowing down their range of discretion. In addition, due to the large
number of items, excessive labor and work are required to conduct the evaluation. Owing perhaps tosuch factors, the number of standards for teacher competence were generally kept to about 10 in thetarget countries.