Dear Editor,
I fully endorse the caveats implied in the caption of the very penetrating editorial ‘Implementing professional teaching standards: A two-way obligation’ (SN, March 4), and their explication within the accompanying text. Most definitely much more is required of the state.
I sought and obtained a copy of the ‘Standards’ document, and I also attended the public consultation held at Queen’s College on Monday afternoon. It is an initiative that has been long overdue, and although I would have welcomed a more holistic approach to the professionalization of the teaching service, it is nevertheless one step in the right direction if teachers in Guyana are to attain bona fide professional status.
As I understand it, the inculcation of professional standards is to be initiated at the most appropriate strategic locus – the pre-service teacher education programmes within the teacher education institutions. This is as it should be, since a cardinal principle of quality control in any professional organization is the specification of quality standards at the point at which inputs enter the profession. My only reservation is whether teacher educators in the teacher education institutions have been afforded adequate opportunities to become role models.
I have been advocating for the relocation of the ‘Learning Channel’ from NCERD to the Turkeyen Campus where it would have greater potential to contribute to the continuing education of groups of workers, particularly teachers. Teaching is one of the most challenging and complex professions. Teachers are engaged in a continuous tug-of-war, or life and death struggle for the minds of young people amidst all of today’s modern distractions and gadgetry. Consequently, aspiring teachers need to be extremely intelligent, people oriented, creative, broadly educated, highly trained, exceedingly competent and well paid.
There are some concerns about the draft standards that I hope will be addressed as the professionalization process unfolds. However, I wish to comment on Monday’s consultation process, and also on the inadequate contextualization of the standards.
The facilitator of Monday’s proceedings at Queen’s College, Ms Jennifer Cumberbatch, Director, NCERD, exuded lots of enthusiasm in her task, but it was thirty or more minutes before any of the audience ventured to ask a question or make a comment. I asked a teacher whether she had the opportunity to study the draft document before attending the afternoon’s session, and her response was: “I read it at the beginning of the year, but I did not give it much thought.”
The Minister of Education did say that 10 000 copies of the document were distributed. I assumed that every teacher would have received a copy. But what guidelines, if any, accompanied the distribution of the document? Based upon the teacher’s response to my question, I wondered whether a tremendous opportunity for system-wide professional development had been missed. Were head teachers/principals briefed on what was expected of them? Were they encouraged to time-table for professional development sessions in which the document would have been given due attention and the serious study it deserved? Or did the Ministry of Education in collaboration with the Guyana Teachers’ Union sanction any system-wide professional development day(s)? Questions such as these illustrate the need for the establishment of enabling environments at the various administrative levels throughout the system and beyond. Since teachers will, eventually, have to embrace these standards, the ministry ought to have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the document would have been given the attention and serious study it deserved by the persons whose careers would be most affected by it. It is not too late to ensure that this most basic and crucial step is undertaken.
The inadequate contextualization of the standards is also an area of concern. The context is what will give real meaning or salience to the standards. The document asserts: “These standards… are informed by educational best practices in the Region and further afield.” But is this sufficient? Although Guyana shares many similarities with regional neighbours and even with some places further afield, the Guyanese environment/society is unique in many ways, and has many unique needs that need to be met. The decline and absence of many social institutions that contributed to the upbringing of youth means that the school system will have to fill the gap. The Guyanese teaching professional, therefore, will have to be adequately prepared for many new and non-traditional professional and social responsibilities.
For example, if it is accepted that the ultimate goal/purpose of education in Guyana must be to build a democratic and prosperous Guyanese nation with the capacity for sustainable growth and development, then the motto of the Guyana Teachers’ Union: “We mould the nation,” is of far greater significance now than it ever was in the history of this country. But nowhere in the list of guiding principles, in which the teaching standards are grounded, can any principle be found that speaks, even peripherally, to human development or nation building.
There are several other critical areas of concern that cannot be addressed here. Now that this extremely important document has been circulated, it would be far more fruitful than the present public consultation format if individuals and organizations were invited to submit written submissions, and to make presentations at public forums.
Yours faithfully,
Clarence O Perry
