R-E-S-P-E-C-T
March 2006
A quick glace around the room tells the whole story—some
stare off into nowhere, others struggle to stay awake, yet others busy
themselves grading papers, seemingly oblivious to their surroundings, while a
few make a valiant effort to appear attentive. The clock strikes four, and so
ends yet another faculty meeting.
Once a month teachers are duly informed of what could
just have easily been conveyed in a one page memo, spending the bulk of their
time pondering all that they
could
be
accomplishing were they actually given leave to. The above description could,
of course, be just as readily applied to department meetings and “staff
development”, which begs the question, “Is this the best possible use of our
time?” Since the obvious answer for most of us is an unqualified “NO”, it seems
appropriate to ask why we are spending so much of our time performing tasks that
are either a complete waste of our time, or that could be attended to in a far
more efficient manner.
The immediate answer is that these obligations are
contractually mandated. Building administration is just as bound by these
mandates as staff are. However, this does not preclude doing something more
directly relevant to our professional responsibilities during this time. While
this would require ascertaining what staff needs are, then designing meetings
accordingly, it would seem that the effort would be well-rewarded in terms of
both knowledge gained and morale boosted. This is especially true of staff
development, much of which seems cobbled together at the 11th hour to keep
teachers busy for two hours. While few would quibble with the general idea of
providing teachers an opportunity to broaden their professional horizons, the
unfocused way in which it is currently conducted leaves much to be desired.
The broader, and more troubling explanation for the
myriad obligations with which we are saddled is a mindset that sees teachers as
requiring compulsory
professionalism. Left to their own devises, the thinking goes, teachers
have so little dedication to their own profession, that they will never
voluntarily
engage in professionally enriching activities. Therefore the district must
compel them to act like professionals by mandating regular “professional
development”. This is an insult to the many dedicated professionals how make up
the GCTA, virtually all of whom spend untold hours honing their craft.
While some might argue that the district is simply
trying to provide faculty with opportunities for enrichment, the haphazard,
one-size-fits-all manner in which this is handled certainly undermines this
claim.
Instead of the top-down, we-know-what’s-best-for-you
model currently employed, the district should seriously consider granting
teachers the latitude to pursue opportunities which they themselves deem
beneficial, designating pre-approved institutions if necessary to ensure some
quality control. Maintaining the current approach, is not only of limited
benefit, it ultimately denigrates the tremendous effort and commitment to
excellence so clearly displayed by GCTA members.