Staff resilience and work practices

A school that works effectively and efficiently must have a stable cohort of resilient staff at the interface, specifically the classroom, where the teaching is being done. Resilience in staff is developed through both empowerment at the ground level where staff have some degree of involvement in decisions that affect their teaching and having a sense of ownership where a teacher is able to either individually or collectively solve problems that matter to them, particularly those which have an impact on their classroom activity and subsequent student engagement.

In a similar way that it is important for the management structures of an organisation to not get in the way or retard desired work practices. Within an educational context the primacy of quality learning and teaching needs to be supported by appropriate leadership and school structures that empower teachers as facilitators of student learning and which do not impede practices.

A concern raised by Fullan (1992) is that micro-management approaches to supervision by a school's leadership can stifle teacher willingness to become more professionally engaged in a culture that is providing empowerment and devolved decision-making. In many respects the micro-management processes mirror some of the controlling and restrictive practices of many system approaches in respect to the school leadership. That same sense of frustration that is felt when school leaders are micro-managed is felt by teachers as well, particularly so when school practices and decision-making is seen as disenfranchising.

The problem is complicated by the paradox that while teachers and their associated pedagogy are the targets of school change (whether renewal or reform) they are also its implementers.

OUR BELIEF 15

Where empowerment is fostered, teamwork and collaboration thrive.

A key aspect of the process of engaging staff in reflective practice and pedagogical change is creating a culture that is purposeful and which encourages fellowship, and communities of practice through which teachers are empowered by an increased access to school decision-making. A transformational leadership style encourages an ethos of engagement among teachers. Such a style is underpinned by a leadership disposition that values and encourages the fairness, openness, honesty, loyalty and integrity in relationships across the school.

References

Alexander, R. (2004, March). Still no pedagogy? Principle, pragmatism, and compliance in primary education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 34(1), 7-33.

Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Danielewicz, J. (2001). Teaching selves: Identity, pedagogy, and teacher education. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: Routledge Falmer.

Downey, C.J., Steffy, B.E., English, F.W., Frase L.E., & Poston. W.K. (2004). The three-minute classroom walk-through: Changing school supervisory practice one teacher at time. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Dunleavy, P. Margetts. H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006, July). New Public Management is dead: Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467 494.

Evans, R. (1999). The pedagogic principal. Edmonton, Alberta: Qual Institute Press.

Fink. E.. & Resnick, L.B. (2001, April). Developing principals as instructional leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8), 598-606.

Fink, D., & Stoll, L. (2005). Educational change: Easier said than done. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Extending educational change. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Freire. P. (1977). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Press.

Fullan, M. (1992). Visions that blind. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 19-20.

Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces probing the depths of educational reform. London: The Falmer PressGoddard, T. (2003). Leadership in the (post)modern era. In N. Bennett & L. Anderson (Eds.), Rethinking educational leadership (pp. 11-26). London: Sage.

Halperin, R.H. (2006). Whose school is it? Women, children, memory and practice in the city. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Hamilton, D., & McWilliam, E. (2001). Ex-centric voices that frame research on teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 17-43) (9th edition). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.

Hargreaves, A. (1991). Contrived collegiality: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. In J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict and cooperation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ireson, J., Mortimore, P. & Hallam, S. (1999). The common strands of pedagogy and their implications. In P. Mortimore (Ed.), Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning (pp. 212-232). London: Paul Chapman.

Lingard, B., Hayes, D.. Mills, M., & Christie, P. (2003). Leading learning. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Loder, T. & Spillane, J. (2005, August). Is a principal still a teacher? US women administrators’ accounts of role conflict and role discontinuity. School Leadership and Management, 25(3), 263-279.

MetLife (2012). The MetLife survey of the American teacher: Challenges for school leadership, https://www.metlife.com/content/dam/microsites/about/corporate-profile/ MetLife-Teacher-Survey-2012.pdf

Moos, L. (1999). New dilemmas in school leadership. Leading & Managing, 5(1), 41-59.

Mortimore, P. (Ed.) (1999). Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Morton. D., & Zavarzadeh, M. (1991). Theory!Pedagogy!Politics: Texts for change. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Murphy, J., & Hallinger, P. (1992). The principalship in an era of transformation. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 77-89.

Murray, J., & Clark, R.M. (2013). Reframing leadership as a participative pedagogy: The working theories of early years professionals, Early Years, 33(3), 289-301. doi: 10.1080/09575146.2013.781135

Nevvmann, F.M., et al. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Nutbrown, C. (2012). Foundations for quality: Review of early education and childcare qualifications: Final Report. Department for Education Publication, www.education. gov.uk

Perez D.M.C., Fain, S.M., & Slater, J.J. (2004). Pedagogy of place: Seeing space as cultural education. New York: Peter Lange

Pusey, M. (1992). Economic rationalism in Canberra. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Resnick. L.B., & Glennan. T.K. (2002). Leadership for learning: A theory for action. In A.M. Hightower, M.S. Knapp, J.A. Marsh & M.W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 160-172). New York: Teachers College Press.

Shulman, L.S. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning and learning to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smyth, W.J. (1988). A "critical pedagogy" of teacher evaluation. Geelong: Deakin University.

Turner-Bisset, R. (2001). Expert teaching: Knowledge and pedagogy to lead the profession. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Van Manen, M. (1993). The tact of teaching: The pedagogical meaning of thoughtfulness. London, Ontario: The Althouse Press.

Van Manen, M. (1999). The language of pedagogy and the primacy of student experience. In J. Loughran (Ed.), Researching teaching: Methodologies and practices for understanding pedagogy (pp. 13-27). London: Falmer Press.

Zierer, K. (2011, Spring). Pedagogical eclecticism. The Journal of Educational Thought, 45(1), 3-19.

8 The pedagogic wars

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >