CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
2.3 Proposed models of Professional Development
2.4.2 Democratic discourse
41 of the time the problem with the programmes is that they are not informed by the needs of the teachers and so do not address the problem. Hargreaves and Daw (1990) note that historically PD has been permitted chiefly by outside professionals and teachers have hardly had a say in contributing to the discussions in what takes place during collective learning. According to Burbank and Kauchak (2003, p. 500), one of the major limitations of the managerial approach is “the passive role imposed upon teachers, who find it difficult to implement ideas that are often conceptually and practically far removed from their classrooms. Specifically, professional development opportunities are often limited in the degree to which teachers can work actively and collaboratively”.
42 approach long-term collegial relations are encouraged and are described as much more activist in outlook (Sachs, 2003). Teachers gain new knowledge, re-assess preceding competencies and judgement and build on their colleagues’ ideas and experiences (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006). According to De Clercq (2013), this approach encourages a collegial reflection by the teachers which results to the improvement of the learner’s accomplishments; this can be done by mirroring and contrasting their practices in a real classroom situation and by reassessing explicitly areas that should be left as they are and those that need to be reviewed. Berman (1996) argues that this approach submit that the teacher has a far- reaching obligation than the individual classroom and covers committing to the school, the system and the community and their broader professionalism (Brennan, 1996).
Democratic discourse is the better option as teachers and the Department of Education are involved in the project of professionally developing the teachers;
teachers share best practices to deliver on what has been prescribed to them through policies.
According to Sachs & Day (2004, p. 7), the two discourses should be viewed as forms that teachers choose, “regarding which one they subscribe to”. The teachers unfortunately do not have a choice between the two discourses (in the case of the MDoE set up) as the one discourse that is guaranteed to achieve its objectives is managerial discourse. It is in this discourse that the “professional space of the teachers is being constructed and policed in ways that often limit rather than enhance the scope for teacher professional judgement” (Biesta, 2015, p. 81). Is it the kind of professional learning that the teachers should undergo? Should teachers not be playing a key role in deciding how and what they should learn, instead of the department deciding on what needs to be done? Perhaps the feeling on the part of the Department of Education is the fact that this is an effective way of developing teachers. Biesta (2015, p.80) argues that “effectiveness is a value and refers to the degree to which a particular course of action is able to bring about the desired result, but it does not say anything about the desirability of the result”. The question would be whether the desired results are benefiting the teacher or the Department of Education. It is funded by the Department and all its activities will be honoured. It is used as a tool to among other things implement the objectives of CAPS. Fataar
43 (2015) argues that CAPS dominates current educational developments and has eroded teacher autonomy and as such teacher-initiated activities are restricted.
Feldman (2017) posits that the PLCs (the MDoE is in the process of facilitating the establishment of the structures) may bring about a much needed platform of meaningful educational engagement. The Department is under pressure to ensure that teachers are trained so that the Grade 12 results are good at the end of the year. On the other side the teachers are in competition to produce good results and enhance the chances of getting promotional jobs like being appointed as subject advisors. Regardless of how they are used in the professional development of teachers, what characterises the two it is the fact that they both desire to enhance the achievement and proficiency of teachers in schools and thereby improve student learning results; however, they use different strategies to achieve the same objective, which is a competent teacher that is knowledgeable in their field.
Through the above mentioned discourses professional identities are created. These professional identities identify groups and individuals according to shared values, attributes and other related characteristics. Sachs (2001) describes professional identity as a set of attributes that are imposed on teachers by outsiders or the teachers themselves. One example of a given identity is that of cluster leaders who are viewed by their colleagues as being so good at Life Sciences that they are always identified with being knowledgeable when it comes to subject content.
Another discourse that is brought up by Biesta (2015) is Learnification which focuses on the purpose of education. Biesta (2015, p. 2) describes learnification as
“encompassing the impact of the rising of a new language of learning on education”.
This discourse advocates the promotion of learning organisations and learning that is directed and focused on lifelong learning, i.e., a learning environment where there is abundant creation of learning opportunities. In addressing the purpose of education, Biesta (2015) suggests that there are three domains, namely Qualification, Socialisation and Subjectification.
44
Figure 2. The three functions of education and the three domains of educational purpose (Biesta, 2015, p.4).
Qualification entails the “transmission and acquisition of knowledge, skills and dispositions” (ibid, p. 2). The focus is on imparting skills so that those who qualify are more knowledgeable in those fields. They are prepared for global demands. The purpose of the Socialisation domain is to socialise learners into the culture and ways of being in that education system. It is controlled by human beings who “have the capacity to think, which means that they can alter behaviour on the basis of their interpretations and understandings, rather than only the result of physical push and pull” (Biesta, 2010, p. 497). As they socialise, the individuals learn new habits (teachers would learn new habits in delivering the curriculum), values (associated with professional learning) and beliefs of the groups or communities that they are associated with. The social systems are characterised by meaning and interpretation. Aligning this to professional development, the purpose of education should be to promote a learning environment where participants interpret what they learn into something meaningful. The third domain is Subjectification which entails education’s impact on the development of the individual learner, which may be
Qualification Socialisation
Subjectification
45 negative or positive. This depends on how the purpose of education was delivered or received by the recipient; the results may be good or bad.