The Alberta Teachers’ Association

Jean-Claude Couture

In a recent groundbreaking book, Teachers' Work in a Globalizing Economy, the authors conclude that control over schools is achieved both through "power from above" (regulations, sanctions, rewards and punishments) but, more important, through subtler means such as re-representing teaching in the public imagination. Key strategies in this effort include positioning teachers as an interest group (and the government as the neutral referee) and denying the contradictions between the policies as implemented and policies as experienced (Smyth et al, 2000, 170). These mechanisms of control are clearly apparent when one considers the current Alberta Learning Business Plan in relation to the current realities faced by Alberta teachers' access to professional development.

Consider this excerpt from the Business Plan presented to the Alberta legislature in February 2000.

Vision
Optimizing human potential.
Mission
Alberta Learning's leadership and work with partners build a globally recognized lifelong learning community that enables Albertans to be responsible, caring, creative, self-reliant and contributing members of a knowledge-based and prosperous society.(http://www.treas.gov.ab.ca/publications/budget/budget2000/learn.html )

The Business Plan goes further by identifying the need to "enhance access to learning opportunities through alternative delivery mechanisms" and to work with the western provinces and territories "to provide print and electronic resources to support core curricula." How will Albertans know that all this activity will improve education? Predictably the Business Plan trumpets "Core Performance Measures," code words for Provincial Achievement tests in Grades 3, 6 and 9, and Diploma Examinations in Grade 12, as the key determiner of success.

Of course there is little in the Business Plan that surprises Alberta teachers. Increasing class sizes, the increased use of teacher assistants rather than Certificated teachers and chronic underfunding remain the order of the day. Rather than adequate funding, Alberta schools get the cold comfort of performance outcomes and strategic business plans.

None of this is unique to Alberta teachers. Like other teachers across North America, they have for some time found themselves caught between the demands for accountability from the New Right and declining resources. Darling-Hammond (1997) evocatively describes the context of teachers' predicament:

Standards must be higher and more exacting, outcomes must be measurable and comparable, accountability must be hard-edged and punitive, and sanctions must be applied almost everywhere—to students and teachers, especially—although not to those whose decisions determine the possibilities for learning in schools (p 5).

There is no denying that teachers' work is being transformed by the "new ruthless economy of globalization" (Head, 1996, 2). In Canada, Heather-jane Robertson (1999) described how globalization and corporatization are undermining the goal of maintaining equal access to public education for all students. Initially teachers were told that education cuts were designed to help deal with the debt. Now that Alberta's debt is well on the way to being eliminated by 2003, one might expect a commitment to reinvest in education. Instead we see a scramble to cut taxes with little outward sign that the government is the least bit interested in dealing with the issues facing schools.

The systematic effort to wring more effort from teachers while denying them the very tools they need to do their work is no more apparent than in the current state of professional development in Alberta's schools. Part of the government's legislated restructuring scheme has been the move toward site-based management and flattened organization. At its simplest level this approach to school financing promised to get financial resources directly into the hands of those most connected with their school communities: administrators and teachers. Although many administrators regarded this as a positive move, there can be little doubt that there have been some wrinkles. Certainly, funding for professional development for teachers should have been more effectively managed in this new fiscal regime. However, this has not been the case in many school jurisdictions in Alberta.

In a survey completed in the spring of 2000, it was apparent that both tracking and accounting for the professional development opportunities for Alberta teachers speaks a different reality than that promised by the government's Business Plan and the new era of flattened organization. The survey of the 51 locals and 60 school jurisdictions across the province was completed with the assistance of Professional Development chairs and their committees. The PD survey provided detailed data on each school district in the province with respect to days allocated for professional development, school and district time arrangements, local and district budgets, access to sabbatical leaves, as well as profiles of the activities carried on by PD committees in coordinating and advocating for professional development. A key assumption in the survey was that the most effective professional development should be linked to a teacher's everyday work with students, should take a variety of forms and should occur throughout the shool year. (For further information on the PD Survey results relevant to your school district, contact your local PD committee. A complete copy of the PD Survey, including the provincial summary and district data, is available from the Association. Contact J-C Couture, executive assistant, Professional Development, for further information. In Edmonton, call 447-9462; from elsewhere in Alberta, call toll-free at 1-800-232-7208.)

While many of the questions in the survey focused on time and money devoted to professional development, a large number of questions attempted to determine teachers' perceptions of professional development opportunities and the degree of autonomy they felt in determining their professional development. Unfortunately, as the PD Survey found, there is a wide gap between what we know about professional development and what is actually happening in the 1,800 schools across the province. As the survey indicated, Alberta teachers are generally limited to workshops, typically after school or on their own time, and conferences (though these are increasingly less common because of tight PD budgets). Alternative PD activities (for example, study groups, mentorships, inter-school visitations) are relatively uncommon. Despite the wealth of research that supports these types of PD opportunities, there is little indication that these are in place in Alberta schools. As one PD Chair commented:

Study groups and action research? In most schools just getting time to read a journal article would be a major step.

The survey confirmed what most teachers could tell you about the current busy schedules kept by teachers. Another PD Chair noted:

Getting money for PD is almost a fruitless exercise when you actually think about it. This is seen as an "extra" expense that is hard to justify given current funding. In some ways maybe we need to re-organize our own schedules to make the most of the money available. But you know what is odd—sometimes we do it to ourselves. The sad irony is that we do have time in the day. For example when I think about the one and a half hours of supervision I do every week—couldn't that be done by a paid supervisor? But I'm told there is no money for that either. So I wonder . . . what is the point? To argue that teachers' time is better spent doing lunch room duty rather than sharing and reflecting on their practice is inane. Could you imagine walking into a hospital and finding doctors greeting you at the door and asking you to clean the snow off your shoes? Well in my school that's a reality . . .

Across the province, time for professional development is tight while modest suggestions, like freeing teachers from supervision, are considered unrealistic or pie-in-sky. It is no surprise that trends in the PD Survey indicate the continuing wide variations in access to non-instructional days devoted to PD. While 10 jurisdictions had five or more days outside of teachers' convention days, 13 provide two or fewer days. That 13 school jurisdictions in Alberta provide only two or fewer days for PD stands in stark contrast to the Business Plan's commitment to building a knowledge-based economy. One first step for the government may be to figure out why teachers in 20 locals rated their districts support for PD as high while 10 locals rated this as low. (These figures refer to PD days provided outside of the two days offered for teachers' conventions)

What about financial resources committed to professional development? While data collected by PD chairs are estimates at best, the survey shows a consistent pattern of reduced expenditures across the province over the last two year. There is little doubt that the majority of Alberta school boards are devoting fewer resources to professional development. Across the province the average expenditure on professional development activities has dropped from $351 to $305 per teacher. In fact, the survey concludes that professional development expenditures currently represent about 0.34 percent of school operating budgets in Alberta. This situation stands in contrast to the recommendation by the National Staff Development Council that 10 percent of school district budgets be dedicated to professional development.

Here again we need to consider the Business Plan's stated commitment to invest in technology and alternative delivery methods. As several PD chairs commented, one need only compare the budgets of most school districts for computer hardware purchases to funding for technology-related professional development to appreciate how staff development often becomes a low priority or an afterthought. In the U.S., the department of education has recommended that school districts set aside 30 percent of their technology budgets for staff training and staff development. Many state departments of education require that districts devote between 20 and 30 percent of their state technology grant money to staff development. Another model, developed by Integrated Technology Education Group, LLC for the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, calls for a minimum of five days of training per year per teacher and two days per year per administrator, as well as an additional six days per year of informal peer-to-peer training. The model advocates 30 percent of the budget for staff training as the goal to which districts should aspire, but considers 15 percent to be the minimum acceptable. (For more research to back up your advocacy for PD resources check out this website http://www.cosn.org/tco/checklist/prof_dev.html ).

How does one reconcile these standards for professional development against the reality that less than half a percent of school operating budgets in Alberta are devoted to professional development? The answer is complicated but probably includes two key elements. A cynical response is that platitudes are sometimes a substitute for action. I prefer a second option—one could argue that professional development has become an afterthought in so many districts simply through benign neglect. The years of tight funding and the movement towards site-based management have made it very difficult for schools to ensure that teachers have access to meaningful professional development.

Is there hard evidence to support this second option? Perhaps. Consider a poignant comment from one PD chair that captures the reality for a large number of Alberta teachers in the current realities of what is loosely called site-based management:

It is ironic that central office could tell me exactly what was spent on diesel fuel for the buses, but it had no idea what was spent on professional development for the district's teachers.

In fact, the trend toward disparity is growing given the decline across the province in expenditures on PD. Site-based management and the devolution of responsibility for professional development may work on paper but clearly there is a problem here. While teachers in a number of locals felt that their school districts are doing a fine job in providing professional development opportunities (for example, Rocky View, Lakeland Catholic and Evergreen), Teachers report that improving access to meaningful professional development remains a low priority for many school districts. The fact remains that only 20 of 51 locals feel that their districts place a high enough priority on PD.

Gee and Lankshear (1995) describe the paradox teachers face in their efforts to gain access to professional development supports. The buzzwords of participation, collaboration and flattened hierarchies serve to mask the profound cultural shift of workers who labour in "fast capitalism." Under fast capitalism work is intensely organized around three basic activities (103): tightly linking resources to outputs; sophisticated and precise surveillance; and, JIT delivery (getting the customer what is wanted when it is wanted). In a Business Plan driven by "core performance measures" (for example, test scores), professional development for teachers will remain an afterthought whose benefit will pale in comparison to the seduction of tax cuts.

What can teachers do?

To borrow a page from the government's own Business Plan, individually and collectively teachers and the broader school community need to take up the question, "whose business is professional development?" If schools are to accomplish their mission of educating all children well (Vision and Agenda for Public Education), then we all need to take responsibility for getting professional Development on the radar screen. A good start can be gleaned from strategies suggested in the concluding chapter of Teachers' Work in a Globalizing Economy (Smyth et al. 2000, p 185).

1. Name your condition
Just as completing a Professional Growth Plan is a professional responsibility, so too is asking questions about where the resources will come from to help you meet your PD goals. Find out how much of your school's budget is dedicated to PD. Compare your situation to others in your district and in the province. Ask why there is no time in your schedule to work with colleagues if critical reflection is a key part of professional growth. Or as one teacher put it: "I barely have time to eat lunch because I'm doing supervision, then my Board asks me to attend computer workshops after school? What's wrong with this picture?" Work with your colleagues to share your concerns.

2. Reflect
Ask yourself, "How did things get this way?" Keep things simple. Work with your colleagues to share your concerns. All ATA locals have PD Committees. Invite members of the PD Committee to speak to your school or at a local meeting about the PD Survey. Compare the quality of PD in your school district to PD efforts across the province. Why do some teachers in Alberta have access to over $800 per year and eight days of release time while others have one or no days and little if any funding?

3. Reconstruct
Ask yourself: Does it always have to be this way? How can I make a professional life possible for myself? Are there ways to build time into the school day? Make your reality real to those in charge of your school's resources. Pass your concerns on to your school's PD Committee. If you do not have one, make one.

As teachers, we have our greatest allies close at hand in our schools where we work: colleagues, parents and communities. Work together to build a learning community that lives beyond the platitudes of performance outcomes and the vacuity of business plans. Make professional development your business.

References

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The Right to Learn: A Blueprint for Creating Schools that Work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Head, S. (1996). "The new, ruthless economy." New York Review of Books, 29, 47–52.

Robertson, H-j. (1999) Public Education, Public Opinion and Technology in Schools: Spin City. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, June, 1999.

Smyth, J., A. Dow, R. Hattam, A. Reid, and G. Shacklock. (2000). Teachers' Work in a Globalizing Economy. NY: Falmer Press.