Professionalism and Partnership:
A Development Dilemma for Schools?
Thillanayakam Velayutham
There is an increasing trend for school professionals, the members of their
school managements and governing boards to formally meet together.
These meetings are designed to exchange ideas, to acknowledge each
others' contributions and to examine ways in which they could perform
even better. Such occasions bring together the parties involved in the
management of educational enterprises. They signify the ongoing process of
a collaborative approach to educational development at the community level
as well as at the level of a cluster of schools. It shows that such a cluster of
schools and their community representatives at the management level could
work together cooperatively and collaboratively to provide quality
education. This is possible even if initial difficulties arise in such emerging
relationships. With commitment to collaborate for the common good of the
community, one not only overcomes the initial impediments, but also turns
them to one's advantage. In the development of schools and the high level
of quality education that they are able to deliver, one can very well see that
the partnership is in fact working well and bearing fruit. This shows that
partnership between professionals and the community is not merely a
strategy but a process leading to and paving the way for development - a
development that is meaningful and satisfying to all concerned.
Partnership to stakeholdership
We should not allow ourselves to be deluded by the belief that some formal
structures and mechanisms alone would serve to run our schools on a
partnership basis. For partnership to be enduring and productive it has to be
continually reviewed, carefully cultivated and necessary changes instituted
as and when required. One of these changes should be to move from the
concept of partnership to the concept of stakeholdership. With the kind of
experience and maturity that school communities have gained, it is an
84
opportune time to make this shift in perception and action. As a
stakeholder, one takes the relationship even more enthusiastically and with
a greater sense of responsibility. A kind of mutuality and symbiosis
develops in this new arrangement. As a result, the tendency to find
'scapegoats' and to shift the blame for inaction or a wrong initiative to
others is considerably reduced. Unlike in partnership, in stakeholdership
there are possibilities to enlarge relationships by co-opting or incorporating
other groups such as Parent Teachers' Associations, and Ex-Students'
Associations, institutions and organisations such as Jaycees, Rotary, the
Local Chamber of Commerce, etc. Some of these organisations have a
legitimate role to play and others have a moral right to exercise. Still others
may have an obligatory or a mandatory duty to perfonn in an educational
enterprise.
The concept and practice of stakeholdership, calls for changes in some of
our traditional beliefs, entrenched value positions, and configurations of
roles and relationships. Although easily said, these are not easy to achieve.
Mutual trust among and acceptance of complementarity of contributions of
each of the stakeholder groups are necessary. Tolerance of some 'teething
troubles', initial shortcomings and some 'messiness' are inevitable during
the early stages of development of this new pattern of working together.
These cannot be remedied overnight. They call for constant stock-taking,
careful nurturing and inspiring support. The school management and school
professionals are the logical and appropriate points of contact for this to be
translated into reality. Now that school professionals and school
managements have an ongoing forum such as this, they should seriously
consider embarking on a dialogue, a consensus-building exercise and a
programme of reaching out into the community. In the course of time,
other groups and organisations concerned with, and those able to contribute
to educational development, could also be incorporated. These require more
non-conventional approaches to working together. Even the prevailing
concept of professionalism may have to be reconsidered.
85
Re-examining professionalism
Traditionally, professionalism has been viewed as identifying with a
professional group, a belief in self-regulation, a feeling of autonomy, a
sense of 'calling' and a commitment to providing service (Hall, 1968). This
view is still valid, but it needs further clarification and amplification.
Professional autonomy is neither an open licence nor a blank cheque. It
cannot entirely ignore humanity and society, nor their aspirations, problems,
basic needs and human rights. Unfortunately, some professions over-
emphasise their autonomy and rights and undervalue their duties and
obligations. They tend to narrowly conceive the scope of their service and
restrictively define their 'sense of calling'. They may also be too exclusive
in not targeting some potentially valuable clients on the one hand, and in
not providing their professional service to certain deserving as well as
disadvantaged beneficiaries on the other. In order to counteract these
restrictive practices of professionalism it is necessary to enlarge their
vision, extend their mission and re-examine their priorities as professionals.
For want of a more appropriate and yet an inclusive term that could
encapsulate all these expectations, the term extended professionalism has
been proposed (Velayutham, 1986).
Schools as learning organisations
For long, schools have served as teaching organisations, and less as
learning organisations. More has been said of teaching and teachers, than of
learning and learners. Admittedly, teaching and learning are reciprocal,
interactive and interdependent processes. In this sense, learning takes place
in schools in the usual curricula and co-curricula areas, as far as individuals
and groups of students are concerned. But we should be alert to the fact
that organisations like schools could also be learning (Schon, 1987). They
can learn from past mistakes, experiences and successes. This is possible
when we find time to reflect not only individually, but also collectively as
a school staff (Smyth, 1991), and even more productively when school staff
and school management engage in collective reflection. In such situations,
the participants are able to interact, exchange views and collectively reflect
on and take stock of past accomplishments and plan future developments.
86
Thus fellowship and socialisation on special school occasions could be
combined with some kind of 'collective introspection'. This could be
valuable for jointly planning future developments.
Redesigning teachers' work
Educational literature in recent times is replete with calls for redesigning
teachers' work. The underlying assumption seems to be that if teachers'
work is redesigned for them by someone other than the teacher (Smylie,
1994), the teaching-learning process would be improved. By implication,
the products resulting from such a process would also be improved. This
could very well be a too simplistic and mistaken assumption. It is based on
a technocratic model that could even be viewed by some as manipulative in
intent.
It is proposed that if teachers are to perform effectively we should not
redesign their work as such. Instead, ways and means should be found to
redesign their work environment which could create those kinds of
enabling, conducive and facilitative organisational conditions in which the
desired changes could occur. In such organisational settings teachers would
be able to act as transformative intellectuals (Giroux and McLaren, 1986)
and not as mere functionaries and purveyors of knowledge. It is then that a
society can expect its teachers to contribute to the process of social
reconstruction and emancipation. However, these worthwhile ideas cannot
be translated into reality where teachers are expected to produce
standardised products, to base their teaching on unimaginative and often
uninspiring prescriptions and to reward and reinforce conforming learning
behaviour. On the other hand, teachers should have the benefit of a
professional environment where they could continually review and redesign
their work. Such educational contexts could be expected to promote
dialogue and encourage critical examination of issues in teaching - learning.
Thus, approaches to teaching and solutions to problems in teaching contexts
and processes would considerably differ from those of a tradition where a
teacher's work is redesigned for him/her by others who are only remotely
involved in the classroom processes.
87
A new role for school management
Traditionally, school managements have been playing a controlling role that
was based on an accountability model of governance. This was quite
appropriate at a time when schools that were established through
community initiatives had to conform to central direction and had to be
subjected to departmental inspection. However, school systems have come a
long way towards carrying out their initial task of 'maintenance'. Now they
are not only able to consolidate, but are also ready to develop further, forge
ahead and collaborate in social reconstruction in collaboration with the
communities they serve. These are possible only when managements are
able to augment the accountability model with an appropriate mix of
advisory, supportive and mediating models of school governance
(Packwood, 1988).
For this to happen I have argued elsewhere for the need for a paradigm
shift from the concept of ownership to trusteeship (Velayutham, 1994). A
more sensitive and responsive handling of societal and community demands
would be necessary in the years to come if this paradigm shift were to be
made effective. How creatively and constructively these demands are met
and responded to may determine the continued role of this important
intermediary level of community representation, exercised through school
boards and management committees.
Conclusion
If these suggested reforms and adaptations are considered by the schools
and their managing and governing bodies, one could be optimistic that a
productive partnership between the school professionals and school
management would be strengthened. It would also eventually evolve into a
more viable and adaptive stakeholdership. Thus schools, in collaboration
with and support from their managing authorities, would be in a position to
face the challenges of the future and engage in imaginative planned
development.
88
References
Giroux, H. Mc Laren, P. (1986). Teacher education policies and engagement : The
case for democratic schooling. Harvard Education Review. (56) : 213-238.
Hall, R. H. (1968). Professionalization and Bureaucratization. American
Sociological Review. (33): 92-104.
Packwood, T. (1988). Models of governing bodies. In Ron Glatter et al (Eds.).
Understanding school management. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflectivepractitioner. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.
Smylie, Mark A. (1994). Redesigning teachers' work connections in the
classroom. Review of Research in Education. : 129-163.
Smyth, J. (1991). Professional development and restructuring teachers' work.
Unicorn. (17) : 224-232.
Velayutham, T. (1986). School organisation and management. Suva: The University
of the South Pacific Extension Services.
Velayutham, T. (1994). Enhancing the quality of teaching and learning in schools :
Role of school management. Paper presented at a Seminar for Teachers,
Principals and Management Board Members of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha of Fiji
held on 22 October 1994.
89
|
