Studies in Teacher Education: Psychopedagogy © Copyright by Mariusz Misztal & Mariusz Trawiński, Kraków 2005
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Studies in Teacher Education: Psychopedagogy © Copyright by Mariusz Misztal & Mariusz Trawiński, Kraków 2005 ISBN 83–7271–355–3 Redakcja/Dział Promocji Wydawnictwo Naukowe AP 30-084 Kraków, ul. Podchorążych 2 tel./fax (012) 662–63–83 tel. (012) 662–67–56 e-mail: [email protected] Zapraszamy na stronę internetową: http://www.wydawnictwoap.pl Druk i oprawa Wydawnictwo Naukowe AP, zam. 57/05 Studies in Teacher Education: Psychopedagogy Edited by Mariusz Misztal Mariusz Trawiński Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej, Kraków 2005 Introduction The papers presented in the current volume discuss different psychopedagogical aspects of teacher education. The first are the papers which present a person of the teacher from different perspectives: his/her competence, the quality of his/her work, the teacher in the view of his/her students, and the possible solutions for a more successful teacher training. Further texts are devoted to the analysis of different systems of teacher education prevailing in different EU countries and the impact of the integration on the national systems of education. The final part of the volume is devoted to the pedagogical solutions designed for the specific groups of students requiring special attention of the teacher and also the pedagogical solutions designed for teaching highly specialised aspects of knowledge. Mariusz Misztal Mariusz Trawiński PART ONE Teacher Education Orison Carlile Waterford Institute of Technology The Weakest Links: Defining and Describing Teacher Incompetence Introduction This paper begins with a brief survey of the attempts to defineteacherincompetence and comes to a decision to use one based on chronic failure in five areas – personal, ethical, administrative, technical and productive. Secondary school principals were asked to use this definition to estimate the number of incompetent teachers in their schools and to complete a sort of ‘census form’ describing each incompetent teacher. The survey dealt with many other issues such as the response of the teacher and the management strategies used by the principal and their effectiveness. The results of the parts of the survey relating to the definition are then discussed and the definition is then evaluated in the light of these results. The paper concludes by proposing a mechanism describing the way teaching incompetence manifests itself. Attempts to define incompetence Teaching incompetence is very difficult to define. There are varying degrees and varying emphases. Some authors don’t define it at all. Others rely on the idea that incompetence can be taken to mean whatever administrators judge to be the case. Lavely et al (1992) performed an empirical assessment of the extent of the problem by examining previous research papers (Neil and Custis (1978), Elam 1979), Scholl 1988), Buellesfield (1915), Good & Grouws (1977), Gudridge (1980), Johnston (1984), Bridges (1986), Haney, Madaus and Kreitzer (1987) and found that these researchers used differing definitions or none. Several approaches to defining teaching incompetence have been tried. The legal route is one possibility. For example, ‘incompetence’ is specifically listed in the tenure/ dismissal statutes of 25 American States, while ‘inefficiency’ is listed in 10 (Munnelly, R.J. 1979, p. 223). However these legal statutes don’t actually define incompetence. They merely list incompetence as one of several reasons for dismissal. Another legal approach is to consider the actual results and judgements of court cases. Such case law arises where school boards have dismissed a teacher and the teacher then takes legal action and appeals the decision. Bridges (1985) makes the point that Judges generally accept the definition of incompetence presented by administrators. The 10 ORISON CARLILE courts generally accept the judgement of school administrators but the cases generally stand or fall on the issue of due process and fairness. So that leaves matters to the professional judgement of school administrators. However, as Ted Wragg of Exeter University put it, ‘One person’s “lazy incompetent” is another person’s “unsupported victim” […]’ (Smithers, 1999), so this does not seem to help the quest for a definition of teaching incompetence. In 1998 the General Secretary of the National Association of Head teachers in England was quoted as saying that “Most people would define incompetence as being incapable of standing in front of the class and beyond redemption, […]” (Carvel, 1998, The Guardian [online] p. 2). This is a somewhat circular definition since, if someone is incapable of standing in front of a class then he or she is incompetent, and if someone is incompetent then he or she is incapable of standing in front of a class. It doesn’t progress the search for a definition very far since it doesn’t say how one would know that someone was incapable of standing in front of a class. The idea of being ‘beyond redemption’ is interesting however. It suggests that incompetence is not simply a temporary condition such as might be precipitated by illness or personal problems such as marital disharmony. It suggests that incompetence is a condition arising out of some intractable series of problems or personality factors. This is an important point that will be developed later in the paper. If the legal route and the personal opinion of administrators are both unsatisfactory is there another approach? Yes, the idea of chronic failure has merit. Bridges’s (1990) approach is similar to that of Neil and Custis (1978) but he organises it differently. Bridges considers incompetence as involving different types of persistent failure for which tenured teachers had been dismissed. “Dismissal rarely stems from a single unforgivable, egregious error; rather, termination is based upon a pattern of mistakes and failure that persists over periods ranging from several months to several years.” (Bridges 1990, p. 7). He specifies technical failure, bureaucratic failure, ethical failure, productive failure and personal failure. This approach was the one eventually chosen for this research. Some slight changes in terminology were made and the idea of a ‘critical mass’ of these symptoms was included. The definition was as follows. Definition of incompetent teacher used in this research An incompetent teacher displays persistent failure in some or all of the following areas: Technical: the teacher is deficient in discipline, teaching method, subject-knowledge, organisation, and planning. Administrative: the teacher fails to comply with school rules and procedures (e.g. chronic absenteeism and tardiness) and possibly does not follow the curriculum in a sound manner. Ethical: the teacher violates standards expected of the teaching profession – e.g. having a negative attitude to students, which could range from indifference all the way to physical abuse. Productive: the teacher fails to produce desirable results in the classroom – e.g. there is little academic progress, students are not interested, they lack respect, and there is a poor climate in the classroom. Personal: the teacher is deficient in judgement, emotional stability, self-control and strength of character; the teacher is ‘difficult’ and uncooperative with management and colleagues. Clearly, most of us could be guilty of some of these failures at some point. I am interested in the cases where there is a sufficient and chronic amount of failure – a critical mass such that there is a persistent pattern of mistakes and failure. Carlile (2000) based on Bridges (1990) THE WEAKEST LINKS: DEFINING AND DESCRIBING TEACHER INCOMPETENCE 11 Having arrived at a working definition, a postal questionnaire was administered to every voluntary secondary school principal in the Republic of Ireland. The response of 325 represents a return rate of 75%. Principals were asked to accept the above strict definition of an incompetent teacher and then to estimate how many of their teaching staff fitted that description. Then they filled in a type of ‘census form’ describing the characteristics of each incompetent teacher, noting their effects and examining the attitudes and reactions of management and detailing the outcomes of interventions. The data were analysed using simple frequencies, descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, chi-squares, ANOVA and T-tests. Numbers Approximately 78% of schools (242) had at least one incompetent teacher. (N=319) Incompetent Number Percentage Cumulative Teachers of Schools of Schools Percent 0 71 22.3 22.3 1 69 21.6 43.9 2 87 27.3 71.2 3 38 11.9 83.1 4 24 7.5 90.6 Mean = 2.04 5 16 5.0 95.6 S.D. = 2.06 Mode = 2 6 4 1.3 96.9 Median = 2 7 1 0.3 97.2 8 5 1.6 98.7 9 2 0.6 99.4 12 1 0.3 99.7 18 1 0.3 100 Total 319 100 (Missing = 6) The total number of teachers in the schools of the responding principals was 10666. Of these, 652 were considered incompetent by their principals. Thus the overall percentage of incompetent teachers was 6.1%. This result is similar to the results for other professions and so would indicate that the definition of incompetent teacher was a reasonable one. 12 ORISON CARLILE Gender Although the gender of the general body of teachers in the survey breaks down at 62% female and 38% male, this order is reversed for incompetent teachers – 54% male and 46% female. Women Men Teachers in general 62% 38% Incompetent teachers 46% 54% This is a significant difference and there are several factors at play, but space does not permit discussion. Although it is not that simple, one is tempted to conclude that women are just naturally better teachers than men. Age Breakdown The ages of incompetent teachers are approximately the same as the ages of teachers in general. Cumulative Age Number Percentage Percentage 25–35 40 10.0 10.0 36–45 101 25.2 35.2 46–55 187 46.6 81.8 56–65 73 18.2 100 Total 401 100 This would suggest that it is not simply a matter of being young and inexperienced at the beginning of a career or being old and tired toward its end.