Search results

Botswana enjoys the celebratory status of a shining example of a successful democracy in Africa. As such, one expects democracy to underpin policy formulation and the running of the education system. This chapter problematizes the relationship between democracy and education in Botswana. It focuses on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Conduct of the 2010 Examinations. The conduct of the examinations marked a crisis which resulted in a deadlock between the Botswana’s Ministry of Education and Skills Development (MoESD), Botswana Examination’s Council (BEC) on the one hand and teachers’ unions-Botswana Sectors of Educators Trade Union (BOSETU) and Botswana Teacher’s Union (BTU) on the other hand. Teachers’ unions complained about poor conditions of service and remunerations associated with the administration of national examinations. This action triggered a national strike in the public service in general and consequently revealed Botswana Government’s undemocratic response to what was a sensitive issue of national interest. When the examinations results were released, it became evident that students performed horribly BEC was persecuted for the poor performance. This chapter therefore registers that the 2010 Examinations crisis in Botswana is a classic indication that democracy and education are two worlds apart in Botswana’s education system.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the various ways in which a group of principals conceptualize the power basis of teachers within teacher–principal interactions.

The present study takes power as a potential to influence people as it was conceptualized in the taxonomy developed by French and Raven (1959/1968) and Raven (1993). This taxonomy was also used to discuss the conceptions emerged in the interview data. A total of 16 principals, 8 from public schools and 8 from private schools, were interviewed.

The phenomenographic analysis of the interviews with the 16 principals revealed five ways of understanding teachers’ power basis. These conceptions (in the form of categories of description) were: (a) the principal’s sense of reciprocity, (b) teachers’ field-specific knowledge, (c) teachers’ administrative experience, (d) teachers’ union affiliation and (e) teachers’ legal rights. Categories (a) and (b) were common to all the study’s participants. Category (c) was unique to participants from private schools, while categories (d) and (e) were unique to participants from public schools.

Three topics – the subtler forms of legitimate power, the issue of teacher tenure and the influence of unions on the educational system – appeared to have potential for interesting future studies in the field of educational management.

There is an apparent need to include social power as a course component in preparatory programs for educational administrators. The revised power taxonomy, which took its final form after the revisions made by Raven (1993), appeared to be an adequate explanatory theory to understand the teachers’ bases of power, and as such, it can be used to structure the content of the course about power interactions in school settings. In addition, the Turkish Ministry of National Education should handle the issue of unions’ improper influence over the educational system and take necessary measures in order to maintain the effective functioning of public schools.

To date, subordinates’ bases of power as a research subject has apparently been ignored. The present study is the first to reveal variations in the ways that school principals conceptualize teachers’ basis of power. Although the study data were collected in one city in Turkey, the research implications drawn from its findings can inspire interest in this neglected field of study all around the world.

Since the turn of the new millennia, governments have increasingly moved away from professional models of educational decision-making and turned toward a neoliberal production model in which markets and test scores drive educational decisions. In this “brave new world,” teachers have become “human capital,” and principals, the managers of their productivity rather than leaders of learning. As a result of this changing dynamic, teachers have increasingly turned to teacher unions or federations, and away from local school jurisdictions and governments to protect their salaries, working conditions and professionalism. Principals, in turn, have found themselves in a no-win situation – caught between top-down demands from big governments and local school districts for teacher compliance, and big unions' insistence on fair treatment for all teachers. This chapter, therefore, intends to explore this increasingly fragile role of principals in three international settings, in our rapidly changing world.

During the NEA’s early years, the higher education community formed the core of the organization’s leadership, and higher education issues in turn represented a key area of NEA policymaking. The late 19th and early 20th century Association was fundamentally a professional group with a large teacher membership but little teacher representation in its leadership. In fact, it was only after the first 100 years of the NEA’s existence that the organization made an effective transition toward becoming a labor union, led by teachers and faculty members and focusing its primary energies on collective bargaining – first in the K-12 arena and soon after in higher education. Most recently, the NEA has sought to synthesize the two roles – that of professional association and union.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the extent to which human resources (HR) decision making is influenced by the social context of school systems. More specifically, this study draws upon organizational theory focussed on the microfoundations of organizations as a lens identify key aspects of school HR decision making at the district and school level.

Interview data were collected from district-level HR directors and local union presidents across 11 districts in Michigan and Indiana. The interviews provided information on the formal and informal aspects HR management. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, and the constant comparative method was used to move from initial codes to higher levels of abstraction (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Multiple data collection methods were utilized to help validate the interview data that were collected (Stake, 2004).

The key findings show that social relationships, particularly at the school level, influence the distribution of teachers within a district. The findings support the need for closer attention to be given to the social dynamics of school systems and the impact this has on HR decision making, particular with regard to the influence of informal organizational structures and day-to-day interactions within systems.

The current body of research does not fully attend conceptually or empirically to the broader social context of a school system which shape HR decisions. Specifically, researchers and practitioners need to further address the ways that the social dynamics of school systems shape administrative decision making with regard to HR management.

FURTHER EDUCATION PAY AWARD: WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE MACHINERY AND PROCESS OF DISCUSSION THAT PRODUCES AWARDS LIKE THE RECENT TEN PER CENT? AND, DOES THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT OFFER HOPE OR THREAT FOR TEACHER UNIONS?

The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence from Ontario’s Teacher Learning and Leadership Program (TLLP) with goals to: support experienced teachers to undertake self-directed professional development; develop teachers’ leadership skills for sharing their professional learning and practices; and facilitate knowledge exchange.

The paper draws on four years of research including: analyses of TLLP project application proposals and final reports; observations and participant feedback for TLLP events; surveys of TLLP project leaders; vignettes by teacher leaders; interviews with teachers, government and union leaders; case studies of TLLP projects; and analyses of TLLP online networking activity.

TLLP provides an example of developing professional capital, involving: changes in the style and substance of policy making concerning government and unions’ approaches to teachers’ professional development; and the experiences of teachers developing their individual and collaborative professional learning and leadership with benefits for teachers and for students.

Five implications are highlighted: prioritizing teachers’ learning and leadership of, by and for teachers requires shifts in the substance and style of policy making for teachers’ work; professional collaboration benefits from appropriate partnerships and an enabling system with conditions and support for teachers’ learning and leadership; valuing and supporting teachers taking charge of their own professional learning is integral; developing teachers as leaders of their peers’ learning and educational improvements is vital; and enabling teachers as developers of actionable knowledge is powerful for sharing improvements in practices.

This chapter examines the initiation of educational change in post-Soviet Russia, using the eight-factor change framework developed by Michael Fullan. Interviews were conducted with 24 key individuals, including members of the Ministry of Education, teacher educators, university researchers, and members of advocacy and school reform organizations. Important primary (government, policy, and school) documents related to the change process of educational transformation were also examined. The format for the interviews involved a common, open-ended unstructured questionnaire, upon which the researchers elaborated with additional probes as the interview unfolded. The interviews ranged from 1–2 hours in length; approximately 50–55 hours of material were recorded. Data analyses involved examination of the transcribed interviews, extensive notes, and documents acquired by the principal researcher. With a specific focus on decentralization reforms, the Russian experience was matched against the initiation stage of Fullan”s framework in order to understand Russia”s transformation as a “change” process. The data show that Fullan”s conceptual framework does clearly have utility for helping us understand events in Russia. However, we propose a revised framework, which is more consistent with the revolutionary rather than the evolutionary transformation and, therefore, better accounts for the dynamic character of dramatic and sudden change typical of Russia and other former Soviet countries.