Malcolm Venter

Years ago, I came home with a delightful little book entitled Bureaucrats: How to Annoy Them. The author, who loathes bureaucrats with a deep, deep loathing , relates some hilarious tales about how he set out to annoy British bureaucrats – a sort of revenge saga. Knowing that I have similar sentiments about these people, my wife’s comment was, ‘You don’t need that book!’

There are many others who share our feelings. One such is Rick Bayan, who describes ‘bureaucracy’ and ‘bureaucrats’ in his Cynic’s Dictionary as follows:

Bureaucracy A stubborn clog in the sewer pipe of government.

Bureaucrat The mole-like creature who enjoys lifelong job security and a generous pension for making sure the pipe stays clogged.

To this should be added the fact that they have a penchant for being officious, demanding that things be done to suit themselves. In the context of teaching, this means that they expect teachers to work in such a way that it is easy to monitor what teachers do in terms of check-lists and piles of paperwork – rather than in terms of ensuring that they teach effectively and that their pupils learn effectively. All of this done, of course, in a meticulously prescriptive manner.

So they will demand that a school do things their way, even if the school is functioning perfectly. They will, for example, criticise a school which does not have a Finance Committee, even though the Governing Body, which acts as a Finance Committee, is doing a splendid job of managing the school’s finances.  They will berate the school for not have a Learner and Teacher Support Material (LTSM) Committee, despite the fact that it has a group of people who act as co-ordinators for textbooks, stationery, audio-visual equipment, all very efficient, but who commit the sin of not meeting together to say things like, ‘Hi, how’s it going with your textbooks?  I’m doing a great job with my stationery orders.’ They will rip teachers apart because they do not have ‘written reflection’ on their lessons – even though they are clearly great teachers, and despite the fact that nowhere is it written anywhere in policy that they have to reflect in writing (but, let’s face it, how else can the poor bureaucrats know otherwise? – they might have to observe the teacher properly!).  They expect teachers to list all sorts of things in their lesson plans; and, even if the lesson is great, they slam them for not doing the paper job ‘correctly’. Clearly, they have never of the saying that the proof of the pudding is in the eating!  Then they demand that all the assessment tasks are nicely assembled in portfolios – with an index indicating what is what (as if they can’t work out, for example, that, in a language portfolio, a letter is a letter is a letter).  Possibly the worst is that they prescribe certain teaching methods without any scientific grounds that they are the only ones that work. And so on, and so on ….

In an article by Lorna Bannantyne published in an earlier edition of The Teachers Monthly entitled ‘The Demise of Paperwork’, she portrays the mindset of the education bureaucrats perfectly – demand paper trails and compliance with the letter of the law– and to hell with whether you are doing anything worthwhile in the process!

Dr Richard Hayward, in his editorial to most recent edition of Quality Education News (which can be accessed at www.saqi.co.za), raises the question of how to attract ‘our finest young people to become teachers’. He comments as follows:

In Scandinavian countries teaching is a much-sought-after profession. Why? Salaries are good; the professional and academic training is thorough and teachers are highly regarded in society. Also, the profession is treated professionally. Teachers are given the freedom and space to teach the curriculum as they deem most suitable to the unique set of youngsters found in every class. Prescription to the smallest detail by education officials is out; professional autonomy is in.

So, yes, this can’t apply to all teachers or schools. The department needs to hound those who do not do what is required of them.  But why so the same when schools and teachers are producing the goods?

The Minister of Basic Education recently announced that, as a result of a review of the curriculum, some of the bureaucratic constraints are due to be abolished. The question, however, is whether those who clog the pipeline will take cognisance of this.  I’ve heard that one provincial representative who attended the meeting where the Minister announced the changes was very troubled. ‘But how will we be able monitor then?’ was her plaintive cry. Teachers will need to stand up against departmental officials – be they curriculum advisors or WSE supervisors – who continue to wear their bureaucratic caps with ever-misguided fervour.

Hey bureaucrat, leave them teachers alone!