Professional regulation & professional autonomy : benchmarks from across the professions - the New South Wales experience

A worldwide standards movement in teaching is leading to the development of new standards mechanisms and accountability procedures. So far this development has been uninformed by research on the operations of standards mechanisms and accountability processes and procedures are often in conflict with the professional autonomy that constitutes the core of professionalism, professional identity and professional practice. Moreover, research on the development of such mechanisms across a range of professions has raised issues of professional autonomy, freedom and the very meaning of professionalism. This research serves as a warning that the path to the professionalisation of teaching will be neither simple nor easy to negotiate. Using the conceptual model of deprofessionalisation, reprofessionalisation and professionalisation developed by Mahony and Hextall (2000), this paper reports on the relationships between professional disciplinary procedures and mechanisms in a range of professions. The findings of this research show that many professions have maintained aspects of professional autonomy by developing peer review as the basis of professional disciplinary mechanisms. Professionals accept that peer review remains the core professional discipline, and the basis of professional autonomy. Despite trends to question peer review, to widen the role of State regulatory agencies, and to support peer review with consumer and lay agencies, all professions except teaching have developed misconduct procedures which have judgement by professional colleagues at their core."Public perceptions of a profession will be governed by the way discipline is seen to be applied and enforce in a profession" Daniel 1995.