CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
2.3 Proposed models of Professional Development
2.4.1 Managerial discourse
There are two main discourses in professional development, which are democratic discourse and managerial discourse, and they both contribute to teacher identity (Clarke & Newman, 1997). Managerial discourse can be traced from the collective world of business, where competency, purpose, answerability are key in working organisations (Kennedy, 2007), as a result of this the teachers are expected to act on instructions from their seniors and become willing workforce (Smyth et al., 2000).
The systems would, generally, like this approach to facilitate enhanced performance among employees and optimise production. This thought process is informed by the fact that it is viewed as being “being universal: management is inherently good, managers are heroes, managers should be given the room and autonomy to manage
38 and other groups should accept their authority” (Pollitt, 1990, p. 54). The managers are always viewed as knowing better than their juniors, which is the reason why responsibility is always given to them.
Rees (1995) posits that managerial discourse makes two recognisable claims: that any problem can be solved through efficient management and that systems that are meant for private sector practices can be applicable to the public sector. This point talks to the claim that managerial discourse is universal. In view of its impact on teachers, Day and Sachs (2004) argue that managerial discourse has been more dominant compared to democratic discourse. Managerial discourse seems to be yielding positive results for the implementers. The results include “organisational change, imperatives for teachers in schools to be more accountable and for systems to be more efficient and economical in their studies” (Day & Sachs, 2004, p. 6). Most of the time teachers work better when they monitored, they rely on the department of education for ideas on continuous development, their upskilling and multiskilling.
They wait on the department to give direction on the intervention workshops that are going, they have contributed immensely in popularising the Managerial Discourse.
As a result schools that are regularly monitored are usually more efficient than those that are hardly visited. The efficient management approach is what is preached in CPTD workshops and formal and informal training for teachers (Opfer & Pedder, 2013). Approaches to PD which are underpinned by managerial discourse are usually centrally planned by the authorities who prescribe professional development with the intention of enhancing teachers’ skills, knowledge and abilities. This approach, according to Sachs (2001), leads to entrepreneurial character in which market issues of rapport, expertise and capability configure how teachers as individuals and a collective compose their professional character. The managerial angle focuses on capability, expertise and conformity to policy (Kennedy, 2007).
While this approach might assist towards ensuring effective schools, it kills creativity on the part of the teachers and encourages dependency. It can lead to the situation where teachers think that all workshops must come from the Department. They do not see the need to initiate their own professional learning.
According to Sachs (2003), managerial discourse has been dominant given the impact on the work of teachers. This discourse has a pre-determined way of
39 developing teachers which is controlled by the departmental officials and teachers would integrate those in their delivery of the curriculum. These beliefs are prevalent in the Department of Education, with officials seeing themselves as having responsibility in directing professional development activities for the teachers.
“Advocates of these kinds of professionalism are often at loggerheads with each other because unions and other professional bodies adopt democratic professionalism while systems and employers advocate managerial professionalism”
(Sachs, 2010, p. 152). The unions sometimes in the process of protecting their constituent members compromise the quality of education. The unions would complain about the instruments introduced as some form of establishing what is meant to be done has indeed happened. They complain about instruments being cumbersome; I am saying this based in my experience as a former teacher development coordinator.
The dominance of this discourse can be attributed to globalisation. The changes that are introduced are meant to ensure that the Department’s curriculum is in line with what is happening internationally. The Department, therefore, feels that the best way to implement it is to put together a policy, regardless of the contextual issues obtaining at school level. Most of these initiatives are implemented through the issuing of departmental circulars. Managers have a responsibility to ensure that teachers are trained in the implementation of these departmental policies. Sachs (2003) cautions that this approach serves to limit teacher’s reasoning capability to express their own conception of professionalism, claiming that:
managerialist professionalism is being reinforced by employing authorities through their policies on teacher professionalism development with their emphasis on accountability and effectiveness. The purpose of these is to shape the way teachers think, talk and act in relation to themselves as teachers individually and collectively. (Sachs, 2003, p. 122)
Sachs (2003) points to the fact that the managerialism approach is popular among authorities as it ensures accountability on the part of the teachers; when teachers account there is a level of efficiency in what is expected of the teachers .Political influence also plays a role in regards to the bias towards managerialism as it is noted
40 by Day and Sachs (2004) that this approach is structurally driven, concerning external supervision, undertaken for political ends, based on aggressiveness and market driven models and designed to advance a willing and manageable personnel that is easily guarded. Managerialism supports the popular top-down management style and teachers are expected to comply or be charged for insubordination. The political head responsible at that time would want to report on the achievements of their department while they are still in power. So all the changes brought must be implemented immediately. Politically that puts them in a favourable position for re- election and in the good books of the teacher unions. Day and Sachs (2004) contend that this practice demonstrates itself through workshops that are once-off and are focusing on policy initiatives assumed to be beneficial and credible by the government, regardless of the term of the government of the day. The workshops that teachers in isolation and do not consider the collective agents and they are aligned towards information circulation rather than knowledge creation. Such workshops treat teachers as individuals, rather than collaborative inquirers and are oriented towards information dissemination rather than knowledge generation (Hardy, 2008); hence, the dominance mechanism of PD, which is composed of teacher’s work and continues to be implemented as a kind of a training model (Zeichner, 2003). However Pickering (2007) is of the view that both approaches are focused on the management of performance of the personnel and the whole school development rather than encouraging moments for quality learning by the teachers.
I would argue that, the tension between managerial and democratic discourse is created by the fact that the MDoE has the responsibility of ensuring that teachers are professionally developed. The departmental officials would have their own understanding of what that means. Democratic discourse promotes teacher initiated development interventions which are not necessarily focused on policies, which is the interest of the MDoE. This is informed by the fact that the core business of the MDoE is curriculum delivery guided by the policies.
The Higher Education research community is working together with the bureaucrats in dictating the ways and means of developing the teachers (Gittin et al., 2000).
Institutions of higher learning have a culture of coming with interventions that are off- the-shelf and enrol teachers, with the aim of reskilling them or upgrading them. Most
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”.