A Comparative Study On The2003and2011Versions Australia’s National Professional Standards For Teachers

The relationship among teacher development, quality of education and student achievements are one of the focuses of education researchers all over the world in the21th century. In order to promote teachers’professional development, meet China’s higher quality requirements of education, boost students’ development and find a reference method to improve China’s Teachers’ Professional Standard, this paper carries out a comparative research about National Professional Standards for Teachers Australian government revised the in2003(version2003) and in2011(version2011). According to the researches, several suggestions are proposed to improve China’s Teachers’ Professional Standard in the end of the paper.Introduction is devoted to the value of teachers’ professional standard, some problems on text and research level of our teachers’ professional standard and the definition of standard and teachers’ professional standard as well as the overview of studies on Australia’s National Professional Standards for Teachers and China’s Teachers’ Professional Standard from scholars at home and abroad. Based on why-what-how, many research ways are used here, such as literatures, historical analysis. Five chapters are going to be researched.The first chapter points out that the realistic need to improve Australia’s National Professional Standards for Teachers is the necessity to overall teachers’ professional standard at home and widespread attention at abroad, and the theoretical basis is teacher quality theory, teacher professional development theory and the theory of developmental evaluation of teacher. Meanwhile, the version2003and version2011elaborated.The second chapter elaborates the similarity and consistency between the two editions. The principles of setting standards are consistent. The theoretical basises all lay a high stress on educational quality and teachers’ professional standard. Two standards contain three fields and four developing processing.The third chapter establishes a comparative frame of two Standards from such aspects as aims, content, textual structure, the process of argumentation and evaluation, in order to compare the differences between version2011and version2013.The fourth chapter stresses on the analysis of the similarities and differences between two Standards in the comparative frame, pointing out that two Standards make points to making progresses of teachers’ quality and ensure developing processes are precise, scientific and democratic, but different in operability and the voluntary of teachers’ development. Pointed out that standard version2011is more operational and pay more attentions on voluntary of professional aspiration. It is more students’ oriented, more operational and more varied of assessment subjects. This chapter also analyzes that the root reason of shortcomings of the2003edition standard is the requirements of internal educational objectives and the transformation of educational value orientation.The fifth chapter, based on the analysis of the consistence and the difference between version2003standards and version2011standarts, points out that China’s Teachers’ Professional Standard and Australia’s National Professional Standards for Teachers are consistent objectively, have similary thoery basic and have precis consistence on developing progresses. Suggestions for the improvement of China’s Teachers’ Professional Standard are proposed, that is, highlighting the concept of lifelong learning, constructing Teachers’ Professional Standards system.