Kolegiální vztahy a zapojení učitelů do rozvoje školy

Variant title
Collegial relations and teacher involvement in school development
Source document: Studia paedagogica. 2009, vol. 14, iss. 1, pp. [53]-66
Extent
[53]-66
  • ISSN
    1803-7437 (print)
    2336-4521 (online)
Type
Article
Language
Czech
License: Not specified license
Abstract(s)
Z literatury o rozvoji a zdokonalení školy plyne, že zvýšená kvalita se dostaví jedině na základě skutečně participativního procesu. Znamená to, že nejen ředitel nebo rada školy jsou povoláni k tvorbě vize školy, identifikaci problémů a plánování rozvoje. Odpovědnost za rozvoj a zdokonalení práce školy a její vedení se dělí mezi různé další lidi ve škole i mimo ni. Úroveň zapojení učitelů do procesů rozvoje školy je dána různými podmínkami – od stabilnějších faktorů, jako jsou osobnostní charakteristiky, ke kontextuálním proměnným, jako jsou normy spolupráce mezi učiteli. Provedli jsme výzkum v 51 základních školách v Srbsku za účasti 385 učitelů s cílem identifikovat faktory a cesty individuálních preferencí při plánování rozvoje školy. Analýza shromážděných dat ukazuje, že vazby mezi učiteli mohou projektům ke zdokonalení práce školy překážet, nebo mohou v průběhu jejich realizace naopak zvyšovat jejich význam a naději na úspěch. Podle výpovědí učitelů tyto projekty především prospěly rozvoji spolupráce a týmové práce, zatímco náznaků, že vedly k další separaci a fragmentaci, bylo relativně málo.
It seems well established in the school development/improvement literature that improvement may only take place if based on a truly participative process. It means that not only the headteacher or the school boards are entitled to create the school vision, identify problems and plan the development, but that responsibility is distributed to many more people within and beyond the school. Teacher participation in school development is determined by multiple conditions from rather stable factors, like personal characteristics, to contextual variables, such as the norms of teacher collaboration. A research was carried out in 51 basic schools in Serbia, involving 385 teachers, in order to identify the background of individual preferences of those who participate in school development planning. The analysis shows that relations among teachers may be a burden to improvement projects once they are in progress, or, on the other hand, may increase their importance and the chances of success. Yet, most school improvement projects have improved collaboration and team work in schools, while indications that they led to further fragmentation of the staff were sporadic.
Document
References:
[1] BALL, S. J. The Micro-politics of the School: Towards a Theory of School Organization . New York: Methuen, 1987.

[2] BARTH, R. S. Improving Schools from Within . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.

[3] COSTA, P. T. & McCRAE, R. R. The NEO Personality Inventory Manual . Odessa. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1985.

[4] DEAN, J. Improving the Primary School . London: Routledge, 1999.

[5] DuFOUR, R. What is a "Professional Learning Community"? , Educational Leadership, 2004, roč. 61, č. 8, s. 6–11.

[6] EURYDICE. School Autonomy in Europe: Policies and Measures . Brussels, 2007.

[7] EVANS, R. The Human Side of School Change: Reform, Resistance, and the Real-Life Problems of Innovation . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996.

[8] FULLAN, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change 3rd Edition . New York: Teachers College Press, 2001.

[9] FULLAN, M. & HARGREAVES, A. Whats' Worth Fighting for in Your School . New York: Teachers College Press, 1996.

[10] HOPKINS, D. School Improvement for Real . London: Routledge Falmer, 2001.

[11] JOYCE, B. R. The Doors to School Improvement . Educational Leadership, 1991, roč. 48, č. 8, s. 59–62.

[12] KOVAČ CEROVIĆ, T. National Report – Serbia . In P. Zgaga(ed). The Prospects of Teacher Education in South-east Europe. Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta, 2006, s. 487–526.

[13] KUZMANOVIĆ, B. Motivaciono-vrednosna osnova odnosa prema samoupravljanju i učešća u samoupravljanju , Psihološka istraživanja 1984, č. 3, s. 465–546.

[14] KUZMANOVIĆ, B. Društvene promene i promene vrednosnih orijentacija učenika , Psihološka istraživanja 1995, č. 7, s. 17–47.

[15] LORTIE, D. Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002/1975.

[16] LITTLE, J. W. The Persistence of Privacy: Autonomy and Inititative in Teachers' Professional Relations , Teachers College Record, 1990, roč. 91, č. 4, s. 509–536.

[17] MASLOWSKI, R. School Culture and School Performance . Twente: Twente University Press, 2001.

[18] MILES, M. B., & HUBERMAN, A. M. Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new methods . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984.

[19] NIAS, J. Why Teachers need their Colleagues: A Developmental Perspective . In D. Hopkins (ed.). The Practice and Theory of School Improvement, Netherlands: Springer, 2005, s. 223–237.

[20] OECD. New School Management Approaches . Paris, 2001.

[21] OECD. Education policy analysis 2003 . Paris, 2003.

[22] PONT, B., NUSCHE, D. & MOORMAN, H. Improving School Leadership. Volume 1: Policy and Practice . Paris: OECD, 2008.

[23] ROSENHOLTZ, S. Teachers' Workplace . New York: Longman, 1989.

[24] SCHWILLE, J. & DEMBELE, M. Global Perspectives on Teacher Learning. Improving Policy and Practice . Paris: UNESCO, IIEP, 2007.

[25] STANKOVIĆ, D. & PAVLOVIĆ, B. Nove uloge i profesionalni razvoj nastavnika u vremenu promena . In S. Gašić Pavišić & S. Maksić (eds). Na putu ka društvu znanja. Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja, 2007, s. 119–132.

[26] SYLVIA, R. D., HUTCHISON, T. What Makes Ms. Johnson Teach? A Study of Teacher Motivation , Human Relations, 1985, roč. 38, č. 9, s. 841–856. | DOI 10.1177/001872678503800902

[27] UNICEF. Sveobuhvatna analiza sistema osnovnog obrazovanja u SRJ . Beograd, 2001.

[28] WÖSSMANN, L., LÜDEMANN, E., SCHÜTZ, G. & West, M. R. School Accountability, Autonomy, Choice, and the Level of Student Achievement: International Evidence from PISA 2003 . Paris: OECD, 2007.