Raising the Bar for Teacher Professional Learning and Development? Or Just Cruel Optimism? Dianne Smardon & Jennifer Charteris Commentary New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies. Post peer review version Received: 21 August 2016 / Accepted: 16 January 2017 New Zealand Association for Research in Education 2017 The final publication is available at Springer via DOI: 10.1007/s40841-017-0075-2 Abstract The political schooling emphasis on fixed fiscal input and improved student outcomes constitutes a significant challenge for practitioners who are held accountable for the quality of education provision. Professional learning and development (PLD) is a key policy lever for shifting practice in schools and driving philosophical change. In recent years, there have been moves to increase control of both PLD funding directions (the what) and the nature of the service provision (the who), with providers requiring accreditation. This article provides brief commentary on the history of PLD provision and a consideration of whether moves to regulate providers could be another form of ‘cruel optimism’, a good idea at the time yet in actuality, an obstacle to flourishing. Keywords Professional learning, Professional development, Education policy There is a space between a rock and a hard place that professional learning and development (PLD) providers, teacher leaders and school principals inhabit (Smardon and Charteris 2012). This contentious space between school funding and mandated student outcomes is currently under transformation in Aotearoa/New Zealand with new changes to the Ministry of Education PLD policy (MoE 2016a). Professional development can be seen as a functional approach to development that is usually attained through imposition (Evans 2008). In a similar vein, Sachs (2011) considers that a training oriented approach, associated with the notion of development, focuses on improving instruction without consideration of social and cultural factors which influence the design and delivery of teaching and learning. Mockler (2005) describes such superficiality as ‘spray on’ professional development. In contrast, professional learning has been positioned as ‘‘highly political’’ in that it ‘‘serves to advocate and support change from a variety of perspectives’’ and is therefore ‘‘transformative in its intent and practice’’ (Sachs 2016, p. 420). Professional learning ‘‘implies an internal process through which individuals create professional knowledge’’ (Timperley et al. 2007, p. 3). Like AITSL and The Innovation Unit (2014), we draw a distinction between professional learning, and performance and development yet use these terms together as PLD to describe when both aspects are conflated in approaches to professional growth and organisational change. It is important to note that ongoing PLD provision is required at the various layers of the education system and this provision is instigated to support the work of teacher aides, teachers, Principals and Boards of Trustees. Further, there is a need for system-level PLD provision for understanding the documents [for instance, the New Zealand Curriculum (MoE 2007)] that mould the directions of Education and shape the work of practitioners. In order to contextualise the changes underway, it is relevant to acknowledge the political currents that have influenced the milieu. After the New Zealand Department of Education was divided into policy, implementation and regulatory agencies under the Education Act in 1989, in the interests to building a competitive market state, professional learning in Aotearoa became increasingly privatised (O’Neill 2015). As O’Neill points out, state schools became ‘‘self-managing ‘enterprises’ competing for parent clients under Tomorrow’s Schools’’ (p. 836). When Department Boards were dissolved in 1989, it was government policy that boards of trustees were provided greater autonomy to make decisions regarding the