DEDICATION
4.5 CONCLUSION
5.1.2 The Rhetoric of the Laziness of Teachers
The rhetoric of laziness as perceived by the teachers in this study can be grouped around issues of what is not being done, influence on other teachers (workers) who want to work, getting others to do the work that they should be doing, and absenteeism. In some cases, it involves being at school but literally behaving as if they were absent, and in other cases, going on leave. Against the background of Laclau and Mouffe’s (2001) discourse theory, it appears evident that those teachers who are perceived by others as being “lazy” in all these different ways, are seen as acting in a way that is not consistent with the social or educational implications of the dominant educational discourse in question. Hence, it is not the discourse that is questioned rhetorically. Some teachers’ behaviour is questioned against the normative background of the discourse.
When the teachers in this study were talking about laziness, they were mainly referring to what their colleagues are doing or not doing. On the one hand Mercy talked about teachers who absent themselves from work for long periods of time:
Mercy: There are teachers that are literally lazy. Teachers that do not do their work. Teachers who are forever on leave…. A teacher takes sick leave, only to find that they are at home doing nothing. Teachers do that sometimes. I know somebody who was on leave for six months for no reason. She was seen all over town but not at school (MT 45).
Mercy seems to suggest that teacher absenteeism may not be for legitimate reasons, but mainly driven by laziness. So, when a teacher is forever on leave, may have negative effects on those teachers who would be present in school because they would have to take on extra loads of work to cover for the one who is absent. Being absent from work for a very long time may have lasting effects on learners as well who are not getting the service from the teachers who are not at work. The rhetoric in this case is that some teachers show their laziness by taking unnecessary leave from work thereby escaping doing their work.
On the other hand, Faith talked about teachers who would be present at school but not doing what they are supposed to do.
Faith: Those who give less are neither there to teach nor to educate. They are just there because they have to wake up and go to work so that they can get a pay cheque at the end of the month (FT 44).
What Faith is saying is that being present at school does not equate to work being done.
The rhetoric is about teachers who are present but at the same time absent. Because the expectation is that when teachers are at school they are supposed to do their work which is mainly to teach the learners, so when that expectation is not met, it is viewed as laziness.
Noah and Faith also commented:
Noah: Some teachers just do not want to go to class. They simply do not honour their teaching periods and practically leave learners unattended (NT 3).
Faith: Teachers not honouring their periods. Bodily they are there, but at the core they are not there. So, the vibe is transferred from them to those who want to do their work (FT 4).
Noah and Faith talk about how some teachers neglect to honour their teaching time in class. ‘Not honouring’ their time in class may be seen as lack of responsibility or lack of
care. The rhetoric seems to indicate that teachers who do not attend to learners in class lack honour and are not doing an honourable thing.
In the same vein, Grace talked about incidents of laziness that occur at her school:
Grace: Because there would be cases where a teacher doesn't go to class for weeks or a month but she will be in the premises. She will be sending some tasks through a learner to write on the board. She will be calling some learners to give work to the class, but she's not there (in the classroom) (GT 31).
What Grace is saying is that some teachers avoid doing their work even though they may be within the school premises and they shift their responsibilities to other people; in this case, the learners. Here the rhetoric is that teachers can camouflage laziness as delegation of work; because in this instance, the teacher is seen doing something, but not necessarily what she is supposed to be doing. The teacher’s physical presence in the classroom is a necessity in schools. So, when a teacher fails to present herself in the classroom, it is viewed by Grace as an act of laziness. Therefore, this teacher, according to Grace, is:
Grace: Lazy, just lazy, utter lazy!!!... This particular teacher, it's not because she doesn't know. The teacher is just lazy or she has been consumed by the culture whereby you "get away with murder" (GT 32).
Here, there is a belief that laziness in some instances does not emanate from teachers not knowing what to do in class nor from lack of subject content knowledge. Instead, laziness is seen as doing nothing.
Two of the teachers talked about how these different forms of laziness as displayed by some teachers influence other colleagues who want to do their work effectively.
Noah: You know it’s like you are in a packet of potatoes; the rotten ones rub on you and you slowly become rotten. It’s only my conscience that pushes me to go to class (NT 14).
Faith: Teachers not honouring their periods. Bodily they are there, but at the core they are not there; so, the vibe is transferred from them to those who want to do their work (FT 4).
These teachers observed that witnessing acts of laziness has demoralising effects to teachers who are keen on working. The teachers also suggest that they have some fears
about being infected by the laziness ‘virus’, especially as indicated by the packet of potatoes metaphor.
Two other teachers viewed laziness as something that in one way or another has to do with race.
Kadesh: Teachers in Black schools they don’t do their work. They sit in staffrooms and have their own conversations and do not go to class and teach. That is why they don’t send their kids to these schools and rather send them to semi-private schools because teachers in those schools do work (KT 26).
Kadesh had family and friends who taught in Black schools and, based on their views, he now had an opinion that teachers in Black schools do not do their work. It is ironic that Kadesh is himself a Black teacher (who does not teach in a Black school) who used hearsay to make statements which seemed discriminatory to a particular group of teachers. He was not talking about something that happens in his school. The rhetoric in this case, is that those teachers who do not teach well, send their own children to better schools. Kadesh views laziness as being located within the people of a particular race. In this case, the rhetoric seems to be revealing this teacher’s assumptions based on race.
Similarly, Mercy seems to locate laziness on race and work.
Mercy: The White teachers usually seem to be working more, so much so that most of us (teachers) send our children to White schools because they seem to be doing much better than us (MT 47).
Mercy indicates that work ethic is linked to race. Here, Mercy’s and Kadesh’s articulations, when contrasted, are similar in linking work ethics to race but differ in that Kadesh sees poor work ethics in Black school contexts while Mercy sees better work ethics in White teachers. While one attributes work ethic to a racial context (Kadesh), another links it to a particular racial group (Mercy). It seems that Mercy was suggesting that even at a school where there are both Black and White teachers, the latter have better work ethics and Kadesh says even if White teachers are at a Black school, they will exhibit poor work ethics because work ethics are tied to context. One is about race in terms of context and the other is about race in terms of racial group. In Mercy’s articulation, therefore, the rhetoric indicates that the race you belong to, determines how hard-working or how lazy you are.
Apart from race, some teachers suggested that laziness is occasioned by the fact that teachers normally do not teach their own children.
Noah: We fail to see learners as our own children because we take our children to former ‘better’ schools. It’s very rare that a teacher would bring his/her child to learn in the same school that they teach in (NT 13).
Noah suggested that when teachers are not teaching their own children, they seem not to care whether they render quality education or not. The rhetoric of lack of care came through in the data on laziness.
Laziness was depicted as repulsive by all teachers based on their experiences in their schools, except for Kadesh whose views were based on hearsay; even though he did not condone it. For this reason, ‘laziness’ exists as an empty signifier because each teacher made their own meaning or understanding of it. At the same time, ‘laziness’ can be regarded as a nodal point around which the various discourses / rhetoric about ‘lack of honour,’ influence, absenteeism, race, and so on, revolve.