Continuity in teacher profesiional development

Preferably, I used the term ‘continuing professional development’, because it differentiates between enhancing teachers’ teaching practice as they continue with their work from any development as completed during their teacher training. This includes the development of teachers during the induction, mentoring and coaching phases. This type of continuing development is required by most professions during pre-service, the initial stages of the professional and throughout the career. The possibility is that in order to master a particular level of achievement in one’s profession, development needs to be a continuing process. Ingersoll and Perda (2008) assert that, as technology continuously improves and upgrades, so should every profession strengthen the skills and knowledge of their employees.

59

According to the South African Schools Act (1996) (SASA), the DBE representatives and school principals are expected to visit schools and classes to observe and supervise teachers’ progress with regard to implementation of SBTPD programmes. The school principal’s responsibility is to ascertain that all teachers are involved in professional development activities on a regular basis throughout their service as teachers. These views are corroborated by Steyn (2013) who asserts that as teachers interact and collaborate in continuous engagements, that is when meaningful TPD occurs. However, Liu and Hallinger (2017) note, in contrast, that a dearth in quality leadership results in a lack of change, school development and innovation. This deficiency in leadership appears to contribute to poorer teacher confidence and a lack of commitment to continuity in SBTPD. The questions that this study investigated is how often circuit managers and other district officials visit schools for SBTPD monitoring and evaluation.

According to the Norms and Standards for Educators (Republic of South Africa, 2000), South African teachers are supposed to be lifelong learners their subjects and in other fields. The document further encourages teachers to conduct research and reflective studies in educational and professional matters to improve in their professional development. A qualitative study by Curwood (2014) on continuity and change within teacher professional development established that teachers seemed to cooperate and align themselves with school leadership directives because of their continuous involvement in TPD activities and continuous participation in PLCs. A study on the influence of incoherent practices on professional development on novice teachers by Fenwick and Weir (2010) revealed that TPD was highly dependent upon measures such as coaching, mentoring, induction and other related practical activities outside of the classroom. The study also found that a disrupted and disjointed teacher professional development programme resulted in loss of self- esteem in teachers and poor professional expertise. Supporting the notion of a continuous programme of SBTPD, Opfer and Pedder (2010), in their study on accessing continuous professional development by teachers in England, assert that teachers concur that continuous and rigorous professional development leads to more instructional change than shorter TPD programmes. A coherent programme of teacher learning for professional development is more probable in enhancing teachers’ skills and knowledge.

When TPD is incorporated into the daily school activities, it is more probable to augment teachers’ knowledge and skills and improve learner performance. In addition to this evidence on the

60

effectiveness of SBTPD through continuity, Hiebert (1999) hereby refers to the qualities of effective and productive learning opportunities for teachers in schools, which are:

 ongoing (measured in years) collaboration of teachers for purposes of planning with  the explicit goal of improving learners’ achievement of clear learning goals,

 anchored by attention to learners’ thinking, the curriculum, and pedagogy, with

 access to alternative ideas and methods and opportunities to observe these in action and to reflect on the reasons for their effectiveness (Hiebert, 1999, p. 15).

In contrast, Opfer and Pedder (2010) indicate that a number of professional development activities wherein teachers participate, remain as follows: outdated in form (lack of transformation), short (no continuity), focused on what teachers have to say more than what learners have to do in class (offers passive learning, less or no active learning), and lack of coherence with other aspects of learning (for example, performance measurement of teachers which culminates into some aspects of professional development). This study ought to investigate from teachers as to what qualities characterise the kind of SBTPD activities offered in their schools, how regular are SBTPD activities in the schools. When teachers conceive, prepare and implement their own TPD activities, they also realise the importance of what works for their learning. If teachers continue to participate in activities that do not work for their learning, questions arise about the efficiency of the activities offered to them. This would mean that there is a lack of high quality SBTPD programmes and activities in schools.

Having identified the issues with regard to continuity in the implementation of SBTPD, this study sought to investigate from the circuit manager, school principals as well as teachers, if the programmes offered for SBTPD ensured any continuity, and, if so, how. The study sought to investigate from teachers whether SBTPD allowed for development and provided opportunities for growth throughout their teaching careers.

61 2.5.5. Support

Studies such as Department of Education (2004a; 2008) and Wallin (2008) concur that, for the success of any teacher development process, any activity geared towards professional development must be practical, continuous, in-service and based on the reality of the classroom situation. Literature, for example, Prinsloo (2008) and Hişmanoğlu and Hişmanoğlu (2010) also highlight on-the-job support as another significant feature that impacts on the implementation of TPD in schools. The success of all SBTPD programmes is dependent on the support from the school principal, who also requires support from their circuit manager and other district officials. One of the findings in Postholm’s (2016) study on collaboration between lecturers and schools to enhance teacher development, is that the teacher educators felt that their duty was to render support to the school principals so that they, in turn, can support their teachers. One key condition for a teacher’s satisfaction on the job is support from their managers. This statement corroborates earlier studies which discovered that it is the role of school principals to support and encourage teachers in their professional learning (Timperley, Wilson, Barrar & Fung, 2007; Desimone, 2009; Kennedy, 2011; Thoonen et al., 2014), and, in addition, that school principals have a duty to create, develop and maintain a culture of support within the school for the benefit of all members of the school community, for the better implementation of SBTPD. This study had to investigate how support for SBTPD is demonstrated in the different levels of management, from circuit management to the school principals and to the teachers.

In Liu and Hallinger’s (2017) case study on the failure of ineffective school leadership to make a difference in rural China, one of the findings was that successful school principals indicated that modelling was one of the effective methods of displaying support and reassurance to teachers for their development. The successful school principals also articulated that clear visions of learning in their schools helped them to offer solid and substantial support towards teachers. Liu and Hallinger (2017) again indicate that lack of effective leadership and continuous support contributes to teachers’ lack of commitment, lack of confidence and reluctance to participate in collaboration for teacher development. It was compelling for this study to find out from school principals how they modelled teacher development in their capacity as school principals, and how their school vision assisted them to offer support for the teachers for the implementation of SBTPD.

62

South Africa’s Integrated Quality Management Systems (IQMS) provides an opportunity for teachers to identify the developmental needs for which they require support (Department of Education, 2003). One implication is that, for SBTPD, teachers will have to be responsible for their development. As long as teachers receive all the required support and resources from their supervisors, they learn to be accountable for their development. According to the National Professional Framework for Teacher Education Development (NPFTED) (2007), support is an important element in everyday school activity, which develops the school’s own capacity to respond to diversity (Republic of South Africa, 2007). However, according to Chisholm (2004), it is difficult for teachers to access and receive resources and support near their place of work. Support provided for SBTPD programmes needs to be structured. Guskey and Yoon (2009) concur that support for all TD programmes in schools must be structured and sustainable. The authors further argue that for effective implementation of SBTPD, support must be timely, consistent, and job-embedded. Hişmanoğlu and Hişmanoğlu (2010) assert that support given should consist of realistic ideas, techniques, and resources that teachers can use both in the classroom.

The SA school system has instituted structures which are made up of subject specialists who advise on particular subjects, and are in a position to execute that necessary support and follow-up process to assist school principals and teachers. Furthermore, subject advisors are also responsible for the training, developing and the support of teachers to implement curriculum change in order that they are able to identify their teacher developmental needs (Hoadley & Chisholm, 2005). Ajibade (2016) indicates that support for SBTPD is not limited to educational support but includes financial and administrative support. However, the author further asserts that the issues around financial support and resource materials are proving difficult for teachers to access. For example, Okeke and Mpahla’s (2016) study on CPTD in rural schools recommends that it would be appropriate if authorities put in place realistic means of transport to support teachers as they attend CPTD programmes outside of their workplace. This recommendation comes as a result of a complaint by teachers about transport funds to common venues, at which they had to attend workshops, which were far from their schools and imposed financial implications. There was not yet a policy in place on funding for out-of-school travel for CPTD workshops in South Africa, at the time of the study. Therefore, those who are in leadership should provide an array of financial and resource materials for specific programmes of SBTPD. Mathula (2004) argues that the DBE has the responsibility to

63

ensure that all resources required for teaching and learning are available in order to support, encourage and train teachers. Supporting this view, Leu and Ginsburg (2011) state that all SBTPD initiatives and programmes require considerable financial resources. It was compelling for this study to investigate how the availability of resources affects the implementation of SBTPD.