DEDICATION
6.1 THE RHETORIC DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE TEACHING AND LEARNING PROCESSES LEARNING PROCESSES
6.1.1 The Rhetoric of Monitoring and Evaluation of Teachers’ Work and the Teaching Programmes
6.1 THE RHETORIC DIRECTLY LINKED TO THE TEACHING AND
therefore, that was the evidence she sought to find in her child’s workbooks. The rhetoric in this case was that the monitor (parent) should have the ability to identify a teacher who does professional work by checking whether the teacher gives feedback to the learners’
work. Moreover, the rhetoric was about the teacher’s effectiveness in doing his or her work. So, a teacher’s performance, in this case, was judged by what the parents saw in their children’s books.
Another level of monitoring and evaluation was where parents saw the Department of Education as having an important role in ensuring that teachers comply with particular standards as set out in various educational policies (dominant teaching discourse). This perspective on monitoring is evident in Zenith’s articulation:
Zenith: The Department of Education should do audits to check if teachers are doing exactly what they are supposed to do (ZP 10).
This parent suggested that the visibility of the employer was essential in order to monitor whether teachers were doing their work accordingly. The rhetoric seemed to be about the employer’s (department of education) active involvement in monitoring its employees (teachers) for the benefit of its clients (the learners). For Zenith, the involvement of the Department of Education in monitoring teachers’ work could minimise the laziness of teachers and ensure that teachers are performing at the required standards. This parent understood that schools operate within the dominant discourse of the employer (the Department of Education), hence expectation that teachers’ actions should be in accordance with the department’s stipulated policies (fixed meanings). In Laclau and Mouffe’s (2001) terms, Zenith’s articulation suggests that the official discourse on monitoring of teachers’ work is represented by the Department of Education.
There was also recognition by the same parent (Zenith) that the Department of Education was also responsible for monitoring teachers’ work and evaluating any new curricular innovations that they introduced. She seems suggested that when evaluations were done properly, people (the public) would know about the probable effects of the innovations on teachers’ work.
Zenith: So, whenever they (the department) make changes, they have to see to it (check beforehand) …like what exactly is going to be affected by the changes. It is a problem because some teachers who are teaching also do not comply with the system that they implement (ZP 23).
This parent observed that curricular changes or innovations were likely to bring some disruptions in the lives and work of teachers when teachers already had sound grounding on the subject content knowledge. Zenith noted that some teachers resist the implementation of new changes to their work, perhaps, as their way of not wanting to move out of their comfort zones; that is, not wanting to experience uncertainties regarding new strategies or learning subject-specific knowledge which is in line with the curricular innovations. According to her, the Department of Education needed to be proactive in ascertaining the kind of challenges that the new programmes likely brought. In her view, such proactivity was likely to lessen the disconnect between the programmes’ goals and what teachers actually did in their classrooms. The rhetoric here was about the whole programme evaluation and how teachers responded to the introduction of new programmes or curricula as opposed to monitoring of individual teacher’s work.
How teachers respond to the idea of being audited or monitored was perceived by Zenith as some kind of a linear path.
Zenith: If a person (teacher) knows that s/he will be audited, they encourage themselves to do better - they go an extra mile (ZP 10).
Zenith notes that teachers have a fear of being exposed for any lack in their practice. This fear, according to Zenith, causes teachers to be self-motivated to improve their work. The rhetoric that was espoused here was about the ‘cause-and-effect’ principle; that is, the relationship between actions. In this case, this parent assumes that the awareness by teachers that they are going to be audited/ monitored causes them to be willing to work hard or even take up extra workload in order to show commitment to their work through optimal performance. In essence, Zenith is suggesting that teachers have the ability to monitor themselves and the work that they do, particularly if, and when, they know that their work will be further monitored by the authorities (as a way of judging their competence). For this reason, teachers are perceived by Zenith to perform their work accordingly (as required by the dominant discourses of the department) in order to fare well in the auditing processes. The question then remains, do teachers need ulterior motives in order to do their work better?
The role of the government was also questioned by one of the parents in this study when she asked:
Barbara: Does the government make a follow-up to check if the teacher is a proper Maths teacher or just by name only (BP 28)?
This parent seemed concerned about the academic competence of teachers and whether or not the government had a strategy to monitor teachers’ professionalism in relation to the subjects that they taught. What Barbara was suggesting was that there should not be a mismatch between teachers’ qualifications and the subject/s that they are employed to teach. So, the rhetoric was really about the teachers’ ‘fitness’ to teach, particularly the Maths subject, which was one of the scarce skills that South Africa has a long history of poor learner performance in.
Seemingly, for the parent participants, monitoring and evaluation operates at four levels namely; teachers need to be monitored by the Department of Education officials; that teachers’ work needs to be ascertained by evidence in the children’s book; that teachers themselves are capable of monitoring their work; and that the government needs to evaluate the impact of new programmes on teachers’ work. What came out strongly in this rhetoric of monitoring was the need for surveillance as a way of ensuring compliance with the curriculum or the expectations by the DoE in order to increase productivity.