Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Teachers’ professional status
It is important to note the observation made by Hargreaves (2003:4) that due to the multidimensional and ambiguous nature of teaching, it tends not to be a fully fledged profession and that it has remained and confined to what he describes as “belonging to a pre-professional age” that is, a profession that has not yet matured to a full status.
Furthermore, at times the teachers‟ professional status and judgement is questioned and their expert knowledge is subject to public scrutiny with regard to what and how they teach as well as their overall character. Wotherspoon (2004:124) concludes that teaching is a“contradictory occupation.” Similarly, Ball (1994) argues that while teachers are highly regarded as professionals like doctors or lawyers they tend not to have the autonomy and authority as well as status that is accorded these other professionals.
Though teachers are experts in their own right, their performance tends to be always under scrutiny, something that is rare in other professions. For example, teachers are subordinate to principals and other senior administrators in educational hierarchies, hence making their authority and autonomy to be subject to scrutiny by those in higher echelons of education including even society as a whole. Similarly, Calderhead (1984) observes that the teachers‟ autonomy to determine what takes place in the classroom is limited though they are held responsible for whatever happens in their classrooms. For example, teachers are expected to conform to school policies and practices which might frequently “reflect external influences and constraints and be at odds with their preferred practice” (Calderhead, 1984:91). According to Falk and Drayton (2004) teachers experience the most intense conflicts within the school especially the classroom, which although it is the smallest unit spatially, it is the place where a lot of events take place. It is in the classroom where teachers are continually reminded of what the Education Officers, parents and the community expects of them. At times teachers have little choice on what and how to teach because they are subject to the whims of politicians, administrators and even parents. They also tend to have little control, for example, over how the school principal decides how to run the school, hence a teacher can be what Meighan and Siraj-Blatchford (2003:33) refer to as being “a victim of a head-teacher‟s ideology of education”. Crowther (2002) notes that at times principals stand on the way as teachers attempt to implement a curriculum reform. This is an unfortunate situation since teachers have to be subordinate to their principals, because when they join a school, they enter into a contractual agreement in which they promise to obey commands, and that they will automatically accept the authority of their superiors (Crowther, 2002). Davies (2004) says that at times administrators use their powers and position to frighten, harass and intimidate teachers. For example, administrators may want teachers to implement techniques that have never been used before in the classroom.
She further says that administrators can be incredibly rude, saucy and insolent hence can easily make the school workplace a hostile environment for a teacher, since they do not appreciate the teachers‟ efforts. When school administrators behave in this manner, they do not threaten the autonomy of the teachers because they largely disrespect the teachers‟ professional status. She further observes that at times, administrators sorely criticise teachers and barely acknowledge their efforts. Davies (2004) says that both the teachers‟ superiors or administrators and society rarely appreciate the teachers‟ efforts largely because they view the teachers‟ work as effortless. She notes that even though that is the situation, by all accounts teaching is one of the jobs that can emotionally, mentally and physically drain a person‟s energy. According to Davies (2004), teachers are “besieged” from all sides – school administrators, parents and even politicians because all these people do not think that teachers work hard enough. Even though teachers are always held in low esteem, they are always held responsible for problems in society. Davies (2004) observes that of every profession one can think of, it is always the teachers that are publicly humiliated, made spectacle of, and condemned for the declining standards in schools. Even though that is the case, teachers are always expected to be the epitome of virtue so that their very presence will awe their students so that they become respectful to everyone and especially to those in authority (Davies, 2004).
Critical pedagogy and multi-faith RE
It is important to note that public schools are political institutions of the state hence educational policy, curriculum and even classroom teaching are highly regulated state activities (Laurian & Miron, 2005). For example, “through the curriculum, particular forms of knowledge are selected over others and implemented. The curriculum is related to issues of class, culture and power” (Laurian & Miron, 2005:20). Giroux (1983:257) disagrees with the claim made by liberal theorists and historians that public education gives its recipients, who are students, equal opportunities for “individual development, social mobility, political and economic power [because] the main function of schools are the reproduction of the dominant ideology, its forms of knowledge, and the distribution of skills needed to reproduce the social division of labour.” Giroux (1983) contends that in a radical perspective, schools can only be understood in their relationship to the state and the economy. Schools can only be understood as “agencies of social and cultural reproduction that is how they legitimated capitalist rationality and sustained dominant social practices” (Giroux, 1983:258). From a liberal perspective, schools are said to exist as impartial and neutral in relation to the transmission of values whereas in reality they promote values of a dominant culture.
Schools are presented as fair and objective while in actual fact, they serve the interests of the powerful under the guise of independence, fairness and neutrality, and while they disconfirm the values, cultures and interests of other groups. Giroux (1983:268) says that according to the reproduction theory, “… schools … legitimise certain forms of knowledge, ways of speaking, and ways of relating to the world.” The legitimated knowledge is offered as different and superior to other forms of knowledge hence possessing some power and high status. The schools usually exclude the history of the poor. For example, educational institutions can celebrate the history and especially the achievement of the powerful class whilst downplaying and ignoring the history and contributions of the marginalised. When this happens, a false consciousness is created, where individuals refuse to recognise and accept historical truth as well as social reality – but only believe what those controlling social institutions say and dictate (Giroux, 1983).
CHAPTER 1
1. The slippery road of Religious Education
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Exploring the meaning of the Multi-faith Religious Education
1.2 Studies done on multi-faith Religious Education curriculum
1.3 Religious Education as understood and practiced in different countries
1.4 Tolerance in the Religious Education curriculum
1.5 Limitations of tolerance
1.6 The capability of education in changing students’ attitudes and behaviour
1.7 Religious Education and diversity in the classroom
1.8 Empowering teachers to teach about diversity
1.9 Learning from and learning about Religious Education
1.10 Religious Education in Southern Africa
1.10.1 Studies done on the multi-faith Religious Education curriculum in Botswana
1.11 The Phenomenological Approach in multi-faith Religious Education
1.12 Critique of the Phenomenological Approach in Religious Education
Conclusion
CHAPTER 2
2. The teachers’ professional landscape
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Teachers’ professional landscape: a conceptual landscape
2.2 Involving teachers on the occasion of a reform
2.3 Teachers’ autonomy and their multiple identities
2.4 Teachers’ professional status
2.5 Critical pedagogy and multi-faith Religious Education
Conclusion
CHAPTER 3
3. Sitting, watching and talking to teachers
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Qualitative methodology
3.2 Case studies
3.3 Design of setting
3.4 Gaining access
3.5 Permission
3.6 Ethical considerations
3.7 Sampling
3.8 Profile of the students
3.9 Participants at Makala Junior Secondary School
3.10 Participants at Togal Junior Secondary School
3.11 Data collection procedures
3.12 Validation of data
3.13 Reflexivity
3.14 Methodological limitations
Conclusion
CHAPTER 4
Students have to treat different religions equally
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Teachers’ understanding of the multi-faith RE curriculum
4.2 Religious Education teachers’ content knowledge
4.3 Religious Education teachers’ pedagogical knowledge
4.4 Religious Education teachers’ main teaching technique – group work
4.5 Classroom management and discipline in Religious Education classes
4.6 Teachers’ faith and their classroom practices
Conclusion
CHAPTER 5
5. I am concerned about my students passing Religious Education
5.0 Introduction
5.1 Assessing a multi-faith RE curriculum
5.2 Access to official documents
5.3 Resources in the two schools
5.4 Teaching Religious Education in a diverse classroom environment
5.5 Mentoring and collaboration in ReligiousEducation
5.6 Religious Education teachers collaborating with the community
5.7 In-service professional development
Conclusion
CHAPTER 6
6. Discussions, recommendations, implications for educational practice and research
6.0 Introduction
6.1 The philosophy of the multi-faith Religious Education
6.2 Pedagogy
6.3 Assessment
6.4 Collaboration, professional development and record keeping
6.5 Resources
6.6 How teachers view the students’ backgrounds
6.7 Recommendations
6.8 Implications on policy formulation, curriculum development and interpretation and further research
Conclusion
References
