What kind of Learner is in your head when you do your Planning?

A few days ago, I joined a group of District Management Team (DMT) members, on a walk up the Silvermines mountain range in Cape Town.  This group of people is a highly motivated and committed team in education, based on my engagement with education officials across the country.  What was so remarkable, is the sense that they allowed my in a deliberate way, to influence their thinking and understanding about education, their district, and their work in particular.  The brief was to 'take them to a higher level' in order to ensure greater success for their learners.  I am pleased to say that they must be the only DMT in the country who decided to make 100% success for their learners as their target (goal).  There will therefore be no deliberate planning for some to fail, even if is only 12%, as expressed when they started out the hike.

More specifically, during a conversation with the head of curriculum planning, my question to him was: What kind of learners and/or schools are you planning for?  Meaning, when you do your planning - What kind of learner is in your head when you do your planning?  At first, he responded that "all learners and/or schools are taking into account when he does his planning.  Well, that is actually not true, otherwise one will have to have at least four different kinds of planning - One for Chaotic schools (they have a COMMITMENT problem), another for Dysfunctional schools (they have an adhering to RULES and REGULATIONS problem), and another for Under-performing schools (they have a PEOPLE RELATIONS problem), and finally one for High Performing schools (they have SYSTEMS problems).  If you don't have four separate planning tools, you will end up 'choosing unconsciously' one of these.  Because PLANNING (the way you will do or implement things) only follows DECISION MAKING (what is important and how will you allocate your resources), which in turn will follow THINKING.  So, the question was never, 'What is your planning?, but rather 'What was your thinking?

Although this engagement took place with an education district official, it is equally important for all teachers as to the 'child in their head', since it sets the tone for what they will expect and what they will accept in your classroom.  If you HOPE that all your learners who walk through your door are 'top performers', then you will have very little tolerance and/or patience for those performing below a 'top performer'.  The REALITY is that not all our learners are 'top performers' when they enter our classroom.  But, we have to opportunity, every day, of every week, of every month, of every quarter and of every year, to move them along the pathway towards greatness, and therefore our job is to add value to their lives while being in our presence.

(Source: http://fulfilledcouple.com/blog)

In most of our schools, the 'chaos child' will enter our classroom.  And this is not a reflection of the child's ability, but rather the situation which they were born into, and often is still living in.  It is our privilege, as teachers, to 're-arrange' their live puzzle, since all the piece are there - they just need re-arrangement and good role models (good examples), and caring teachers.  Caring about what they can become, and not judging them based on what they are.

Democracy as a 'one-way' interpretation

As I was watching the news tonight, at the bottom they were scrolling some of the other news of the day.  To my surprise, one of these were the following: KZN teachers will go on strike to demand the reimbursement of money deducted during 2010 strike (the heading might not be 100% correct, but it certainly represents the sentiment in total).

Well, lets give some history to this matter.  Firstly, all workers, including teachers, have a right to strike as a last resort, in order to 'force the hand of the employers' to come to some settlement on matters pertaining to their conditions of service.  This right is enshrined in the Constitution of this country, as well as in the Labour Relations Act.  So, teachers have the right to strike BUT, that same right goes with a responsibility that the employer has the right to withhold payment for the duration of the strike, since no service has been rendered.  This second part of this previous sentence gives or creates the balance between the right of the teachers (employees) and the right of the provincial departments of education (employers), since they are the 'pay masters' and not the national education department.

The pattern in South Africa is - teachers will go on strike, some negotiations will go on to end the strike, and when teachers are back at school the department will inform them of the necessary clause that gives them the right to deduct their pay for no service rendered during the striking days.  Teachers will get upset that they will loose money, and will threaten to go on strike again, if the provincial department dares to deduct their salaries.  Most of the provincial departments will be influenced by this threat, and will then find some LOGISTICAL reasons why it is impossible to process this deduction.  Those provincial departments who have some sort of control systems will go ahead with the deductions, and will then be blamed that the 'EMPLOYER', which will be in this case the National Education Department, for not implementing the regulations in a consistent way.  From a legal point of view, this is an absolute correct approach from teacher representatives.  They are not arguing that the deductions are unlawful, but rather will focus on the 'flawed process' on the side of the employer.

How long will we see this uneven implementation of the right to strike, and the right not to be paid when services were not rendered.  And remember - when we talk about the "non rendering of service", it is in real terms that our teachers are not teaching of students for that period.  So the ones who are suffering are the children, not the adults.  Therefore, if the balance is not restored, then the right to strike is not a SACRIFICE (taking up a principle position, no matter what the personal material/financial implication), but rather a tool to force the hand of the opposition at any given time.  The 'employer of teachers', whether it is the National Education Department, or the collective of the nine Provincial Education Departments, must get their act together in order to restore the balance of power, otherwise the 'Elephant in the room' will continue with its current action pattern.