“Professional learning and preparation of Greek educators: inefficiency of the educational policy”

 

“Professional learning and preparation of Greek educators: inefficiency of the educational policy”

 

Kostas Kokogiannis

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki – Greece

 

In H. Bradbury, N. Frost, S. Kilminster and M. Zukas (Eds) Fourth Annual Conference: Critical perspectives on professional learning (pp.119-124), UK: University of Leeds.

 

 

 

Introduction: Professional knowledge, employment, and lifelong learning

Today, the professional knowledge is closely related to the technological explosion and the globalized economy, while the abundance of information influences and totally alters the forms of work and labour relations (E. U, 1996: 2-3).  Certainly, the increasing international competition dynamically prompts to the research and the promoted studies, particular regarding the developed countries, so that the modern research  leads up to patents and the new technologies are considered as the only parameters that can create new products and jobs in the future. On the contrary, anything old or traditional seems to be moved to the developing countries of Asia or even elsewhere so that the cost of production is being decreased (Lichtenberger, 2007: 55).

According to the above pointing out, we continuously encounter a plethora of semantic moving, as for example the moving from the “profession” to the “employment”, which implies that the labour relations and the type of work have already had ephemeral character.  Particularly, the significance “suitability for employment” comes to the fore, which impresses the way and the type of the employment on the grounds of the evolvable professional knowledge. In other words, the term implies that all should acquire the continuous capability in order to observe the speedy technological progress and, on one hand, to be able to use the technological implementations and, on the other, to produce continuously the renewed professional knowledge (Drucker P. F., 1996).

The term “suitability for employment” denotes two reference points for discussion: first, the social cohesion and citizenship and, second, the lifelong learning (Kennedy, 1994). The first point concerns the reduction of the social exclusion, as long as the observation of the technological unfoldment can protect us from the social and labour  marginalization and  the social exclusion. According to the second point, “suitability for employment” is considered that it should ensure the democratic function of the society through the development of the individual and social attitudes and ways of life in preparation for lifelong learning, which pays regard to the knowledge of an individual (not to the collective responsibility for the existence and function of the educational structures) and, consequently, to his/her preparedness for employment at every turn (Rifkin, 1996).

 

 

Professional learning as part of the role of an educator today: a critical approach

The above decisive knowledge and role of the individual seems to have been in force in the case of education since the middle of the previous decade regarding the educational changes and innovations. Particularly, the official educational policy rests on the regard that the quality of the educators determines the quality of the school too. Thus, the social dimension of the education is transformed into an individual effort. It is a very simplified perception of how the education might be improved, seeing it insolates the educator and the student from their structural social frame acquitting the social system (Maurogiorgos, 1999). According to many researchers, the specific theoretical approach constitutes  reformulation of the theory of the human capital on the grounds of the new ideological and economic conditions (the domination of the neo-liberalism and globalization) (Georgiadis, 2005, Salteris 2006),  while it rests on the economic theories  of management,  which apprehend  the educational system as whole and its partial institutions as organisms. Thus, the dominant scientific discourse on education, which has also been amplified by the dominant ideological directions (neo-liberalism), orientates to the search of effective ways of the improvement of the educational system on the strength of the professional learning and capability of the educator and also the changes/innovations occasionally – in contrast to the ambitious older reformatory plans  (Salteris, 2004),  which dominated the decades ’60 and  ’70 (in Greece,  during the period  1975-85)  and their characteristic was the central (centralized) political (from above)  planning.

Thus, according the contemporary theoretical approach, the educational changes need time, constitute complicated process, require good Leadership and cannot be promoted without the active involvement of those who work within the educational community (Myers, 2006). Certainly, we refer to the Intelligent schools, which are programmed, flexible and actually reconciled to their particular environment. These schools continuously “learn”, while they simultaneously realize the educational changes, on condition that the school address and the educators shoulder the role of the carriers of the educational innovations in a conscious, unbidden and active way, making known the central role of learning and developing in their organism the “conscious propensity” to this (Konidari, 2006). In other words, the  responsibility for the improvement of education is henceforth moved from the System (educational or political) to the Individual (educator), while at the same time the role of an educator regarding the improvement of the education is considered irreplaceable ideologically on the strength of the professional knowledge he/she has acquired.

Due to the above, representatives of the educators and intellectuals present critical observations and expound opponent theoretical positions. Thus, in various texts the necessity of development of the authentic and not bureaucratic collective action is being emphasized (Kotsifakis and Paulineri, 2006), and also the auxesis of the pressures of professional and scientific character exercised upon the educators within the developed countries the last decades is being pointed out (Apple, 2002, Day, 2003). In parallel,  the educators are called to increase their collective action following specific objectives: a) the examination of their educational practices (Carr  and  Kemmis, 1997), b) the development of the cultural activities aiming at the reduction of the inequalities that concern the possession of the “cultural capital” (Bourdieu, 2004), c) the appointment of the cases such as school failure and leakage, content of learning and professional development (Maurogiorgos, 2002), contributing at the same time in the acute criticism of the preponderant institutions for the less white-headed (Apple, 2002). Finally, many researchers attempt to give specific meaning to the role of an educator either as an intellectual (Noutsos, 1987) or as a re-thinker professional (Matsagouras, 1995, Salteris, 2006), so that his/her particular role could be defined in the complicated educational conjuncture.

However, despite the different ideological and epistemological starting point, it is very indistinguishable for everyone to understand whether the above educational practices that are realized emanate from intentions of immiscibly “managerial” rationality or come of alternative theoretical approaches.

We consider that this “paradox” happens mainly for two reasons. First, the dominant liberal discourse on education is legalized in the middle of the decade ’90 adopting arguments from the progressive educational movement of the beginning of the 20^th century (inter-thematic teaching method, autonomous action of the educators) and it rests on ideological and political positions that henceforth recognize the role of the state as coordinative  (Grollios, 2005). The second reason was related to the subsidence of the new-positivistic paradigm in the epistemological field, according to which the educator was exclusively performer of the conclusions of the theory and the dominance of the new approaches (Argyris and Schön, 1974), by which the educator has risen to prominence as autonomous, responsible and potential critical re-thinker professional, who could manage the complicated educational reality (Matsagouras, 1995, Salteris 2006).

 

 

Professional development and autonomy of a Greek educator: incompatible significances?

The professional development of an educator is an exceptionally complicated process. It does not keep to the acquisition or the broadening of the knowledge on a subject or the accession to teaching dexterities. It is the process through which the educators critically acquire and develop the knowledge, the dexterities and the emotional intelligence, which are necessary for the right way of the professional thought, the planning and the practical exercise with the children and the colleagues in every period of their professional life (Dimitropoulos, 1998).

According to Fullan and Hargreaves (1992), the professional development includes the accession to the knowledge and dexterities on new subjects, the completion of the knowledge that was acquired long ago, the promotion of the teaching dexterity, the aptitude for collaboration and the deeper awareness of the educator’s profession. However, despite any differences, the identification of the professional development, partly or concertedly, with the improvement of an educator being in practice is found at the centre of the available definitions (Maurogiorgos, 1999:143).

The professional development of the educators is necessary for the preservation of the interest for their profession. The “professional petrifaction” usually derives from the fact that the educator loses his interest for the job, although he feels secure due to his long previous service. Additionally, the professional development of the educators is necessary for the improvement of their position, when this development is related with the “exterior” inducement for the professional promotion. Finally, the promotion of the scientific education and preparation of the educators is closely related with the professional development, as long as the educational programs could not be changed if the educators had not dynamically participated in them (Dedouli, 1998).

We can ascertain that, despite the rhetoric about the professional status, the step up of the educators and the increase of their scientific power, the reality is very different. The every day life of the educators in the classroom, instead of orientating to the increased autonomy, becomes more controlled. At the same time, it is subject to the administrative rationale that seeks the complete control of the developmental course of teaching and the curriculum. Although, we refer to the development and collaboration of the educators we understand that there is a tendency towards the centralism, the standardization and the rationalism. The every day instructive action of the educators is full of examples that testify the double and contradictory situation they face: “although they are called to admit that their professional status is improved due to the basic education they attend, they are simultaneously called to work in classrooms upon which new forms of control are imposed (Maurogiorgos, 1998: 85).

It is a fact there are strategies that lead the educators to be incapable of judging, deciding, forming in common, keeping control over themselves. On that account, the downgrading of teaching, the intensifying of the work, the segregation between conception and performance, the lack of specialization, the mechanization and the standardization are consequential features of the educational labour conditions. The teachers tend to lose not only the control over the planning of the teaching and learning activities, but also over the academic evaluation process (regarding their own professional course) on the strength of the criteria that are formed by the administrative hierarchy (Apple, 2001). The educators are not encouraged but mainly excluded from forms of action that aim at the critical contestation of the social and political frame of the education, teaching and evaluation.

Certainly, the strict centralized control of the authorities produces opposite results according to the international experience: Instead of professionals that are interested in their teaching object and aim, alienated performers of planning that are directed by others are presented. According to Grollios (1999), the strict systems of administration and control “answer for” the loss of the dexterities, autonomy, capability and pride of the educators and this type of administration is responsible for the flattening uniformity of educators’ subjection. Besides, the most acceptable conclusions of the political theory regarding the Modern Greek state point to the domination of a character of patronage and also denote the prevalence of a perception that the state (its formal or informal mechanisms and the educational policy that flows from it) constitutes a “loot” on the strength of the aspirations of the governing party each time (Bergidis, 1995).

 

 

Inefficient educational policy and critical perspectives on professional learning of a Greek educator

Although, hypothetically at least, the state aims at the systematic scientific preparation of the educators who will undertake the education of the students in order to teach them the conditions of living in a fair and democratic society, the reproduction and legalization of the educational system and society that are determined by economical and social inequality are contrary to the initial aim of the state. In other words, the basic and further education are reproduced, reproduce and legalize the existing relations within the educational field and society (Maurogiorgos, 1982).

Indeed, the centralism and the bureaucratic structure of the Greek educational system are reflected on the further education policy, as long as the Greek educator does not participate in the planning, options and decisions on the educational policy generally (Papaprokopiou, 2002). The institutional frame for further education does not rest on relavant scientific research and systems of evaluation, and many times borrows theoretical models from the abroad, without taking into consideration the real needs of the educators. The programs of further education do not pay regard to the principles of the adult education and mainly do not take into consideration the self-determined and active participation of the adults in the recognition of their needs, in the planning, implementation and evaluation of the program (Papanaoum, 2003).

The programs of further education in Greece do not present multiformity and flexibility, the provided knowledge is not related with the school reality and the needs of the educators and the available educators do not constitute specialised scientific personnel in the Centres of Regional Further Education, so that these Centres can not progressively become intrinsic Centres of educational research and further education (Chatzipanagiotou, 2001). Apart from that, the institution for the Centres was proposed in 1981, was legislated in 1985 (law: 1566/85) and it was brought into force in 1992 for the first time. The 14 Centres of Regional Further Education needed twelve years of dialogue, negotiations, suspensions, falls back and suggestions in order to make a start (Maurogiorgos, 2005).

The characteristics of the further education policy in Greece may be summarized in the following: a) the aim of various further education programs is mainly the confrontation of the supposed needs of the existing system. In other words, the educators are called to attend these programs in order to become more effective to the loyal enforcement of the various educational measures b) the detailed organization of the Centres (aims, programs, content, orientation, definition of the introducers) remains under the supervision of the ministry of education, although basic and post graduate studies have been commended to the University (Andreou, 1999)  c) the further education programs are focused on issues of practical solutions and techniques, without laying stress on the search of the social and political-ideological dimensions that the proposed institutions, measures and various regulations present d) the educators are called to work in the Centres as employees and they come under the educational authority, which can engender desirable changes in the perception and practice of the educators (Andreou 2001).

It is fact that the most systematic professional preparation will not be sufficient in the current variant conditions, if it is not accompanied by continuous opportunities of professional learning. This means that further education must be reformed in the direction of the professional development of the educators regarding the philosophy and the practices (Hargreaves, 1997). To date, the opportunities of the professional learning that are offered during the working time of the educators have not been taken into consideration yet.

Thus, it is suggested the training of an educator can be accomplished in his working place: This recommends a program of organised activities aiming at the continuous professional improvement and development of the educators and directors in the schools. Another suggestion could be the self-education of an educator: It could activate the educators locally and encourage their educational initiatives voluntarily. It could be organized by the educators themselves. It creates cores for working groups, as writing of school books, preparation of a research, and conformation of lectures on various topics. In countries of particular geographic characteristics, as Greece, it is objectively difficult for the training programs to have long duration and broad effect (Papadakis and Fragoulis, 2005). Consequently, the information of the educators on questions that they consider important for their self-education could be easily realised by a specialised educational material or the use of software (Wegner, 2001). The self-further education concerns all educators, irrespective of speciality and previous service; it aims to the improvement of the school teaching and the upgrading. Organizations as National Council of Teacher Education and National Board for Ρrofessional Τeaching Standards (Riley, 1998) recognize the importance and the role of the self-further education on the grounds of the pedagogy.

Moreover, the open distance training is proposed: It does not underlie the permanent or direct supervision of the educators and it rests on the independent and autonomous learning. The interaction of the conventional teaching is replaced by the educational material.

 

 

Conclusion

The field of the professional development of the educators is education.  If the educational work is not systematically related with the personal and professional development of an educator, the choice of the sacrifice, loss, and alienation will dominate over. If the scientific discourse and the educational action are not related with the socio-political criticism and intervention for changing the school and society, the choice of the withdrawal and resignation will prevail.  The educators adopt social and political orders at the teaching process irrespective of realizing these orders or not (Gotovos, 1984). The theoretical angle that the specialized professional learning by itself will activate the initiatives and responsibilities of an educator is indeed simplified. On the contrary, we need a system of education of the educators that would rest on the analysis of the social and political frame of the education.

 

 

References

Andreou, A. (1999).  Subjects of educational administration and policy. Thessaloniki:

Aristotle University.

Andreou, A. (2001) Essays on the organization and administration of the education.

Thessaloniki: Aristotle University

Apple M.W. (2002) Modernization and conservatism in the education (trans. Μ. Deligianni)

Athens: Μetaichmio.

Argyris, C. & Schön, D. Α. (1974) Theory in practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness

1. York: Jossey-Bass.

Bergidis, D. (1995) “From the Training Schools to Centres of Regional Further Education:

Critical Review of the Educators’ Training” in the Greek Education. Perspectives of

          Training and Modernization Athens: Seirios, pp. 477- 487.

Bourdieu, P. (2004) On the education of future: the proposals of P. Bourdieu. Athens: Nisos.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, St. (1997) On a critical educational theory – Education, knowledge and

          action research  Thessaloniki: Kodikas

Day, Ch. (2003) The Development of the Educators. The challenges of Lifelong Learning

Athens: Tipothito-G. Dardanos.

Dedouli, M. (1998) The professional development of the educator. A program of a

          contemplative process  Athens: Greek Letters.

Dimitropoulos, E. (1998) The teachers and their profession. Contribution to the development

          of a professional psychology of the Greek teacher. Athens: Grigoris.

Drucker, P.F. (1996) Post-capitalist society Athens: Gutenberg.

European Union (1996)    White Book for the Education and Training – Teaching and

          Learning: towards the society of knowledge Luxemburg: European Union  

Fullan, M. & Hargreaves, A. (1992) The development of the educators (trans. P.

Chatzipadeli). Αthens: Patakis.

Georgiadis, N. (2005) “The educational reforms in Greece (1957- 1997) and the theory of

human capital” in  Modern Education  vol.141, pp. 19-37.

Grollios, G. (1999).  Ideology, Pedagogy and Educational Policy. Athens:  Gutenberg.

Grollios, G. (2005) Ideology, Pedagogy and Educational Policy. Discourse and Action of the

          European Programs on the Education  Athens: Gutenberg

Hargreaves, A. (1996). “Revisiting voice” in Educational Researcher, 25, 1, (Jan/Feb 1996)

19. 12-19.

Kennedy, P. (1994) Preparation for the 21^st century Athens: New Border – A. Libanis.

Konidari, B. (2006), “Management of the quality of schools via the transformation of the

school into an organization of learning” in G. Bagakis (ed.) Educational changes, the

          intervention of the teacher and school  Athens: Metaichmio.

Lichttenberger, Y. (2007) “L’enseignement supérieur à la recherche d’un modèle

universitaire : Leçons de Paris-Est”  in Esprit, Dec 2007, pp.49-60.

Matsagouras, H. (1995) “Thinker and Reviewer Educator” in A. Kazamias et al. (eds)

Greek Education: Perspectives of Reconstruction and Modernization Athens: Seirios,

476. 456-476.

Maurogiorgos, G. (1982) “The training of teachers: Reflections, Perspectives, Proposals” in

Modern Education vol. 10, pp. 37-52.

Maurogiorgos, G. (1998) “Pay attention to the educators” in Modern Education vol. 100, pp.

41-45.

Maurogiorgos, G. (1999) “Educational policy: Theoretical demarcations” in Athanasoula-

Reppa et al. (eds) Administration of Schools () Patra: Greek Open University, pp. 115

Maurogiorgos, G. (2005) “The School and the Educator: A relation of a relevant autonomy on

the case of the professional development in: Bagakis, G. (ed), Training and

          Professional  Development  of  the Teacher Athens: Metaichmio, pp. 348-354.

Myers Κ., (2006), “Working in the intelligent school” in G. Bagakis (ed.) Educational

          changes, the intervention of the teacher and school  Athens: Metaichmio.

Noutsos, M. (1987) “The educators as intellectuals. A Gramsian approach of the educators’

social function” in Citizen vol. 79, pp. 67-71.

Papadakis, P. & Fragoulis, I. (2005).  Training and professional development of the teacher 

          Athens: Metaichmio.

Papanaoum, Z. (2003) The profession of the teacher. Athens: G. Dardanos.

Papaprokopiou, N. (2002) “Interactions between academic community and educational

institutions. The role of the supervisor professor”  in the G. Bagakis, (ed) The educator

          as researcher Athens: Metaichmio.

Rifkin, J. (1996) The end of the job and its future: The decline of the global workforce and the

          dawn of the post-market period  Athens: New Border – A. Libanis.

Riley, R. (1998). Promising practices. New ways to improve teacher quality. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Salteris, N. (2004) “The course of the modernization in the education: from the reform to the

educational innovation” in  New Education, pp. 15-27.

Salteris, N. (2006) Lasting Education of the Educators. Searching the thinker professional Athens: Tachsideutis.

Wegner, E. (2001). Supporting communities of practice. A research and consulting report.

Retrieved from http://72.14.203.104.