Leidsin ühe huvitava uurimuse Rumeenia õpetajate identiteedist. Redefining professionalism: Romanian secondary education teachers and the private tutoring system - Simona Popa, and Clementina Acedo.
Arvan, et siin saab paralleele tõmmata ka meie õpetajate professionaalse identiteedi muutustega käimasolevates reformides. Siin on mõtlemisainet nii meie haridusuurijatele ja muidugi ka õpetajatele endile.
Popa(2010)" Many researchers have identified the tendency of de-professionalization or technicization of teachers’ work, which has become increasingly “intensified” (Apple, 1983; Robertson and Woock, 1991; etc.). Features of the process of “intensification” of their work include, among others: overloading the teachers’ schedules (Apple and Jungck, 1996); lack of control over their longer-term planning of their work (Hargreaves, 1992); and dependence of teachers on “external specialists” (Ballet et al., 2006). However, very often teachers accept the intensification of their own work, since it is “misrecognized as a symbol of their increased professionalism” (Apple, 1986, p. 45; Densmore, 1987)."
Popa (2010) kirjutab õpetajatöö proletiseerumisest ja deprofessionaliseerumisest , kus õpetajad on kaotanud võimu ja oskused muutudes teiste kujundatud ja kontrollitud poliitikate elluviijateks (Ginsburg, 1996; Ginsburg and Cooper, 1991).
"De-skiling is very often realized through a so-called “imposed surveillance” (Smyth et al., 2000, p. 172), whose elements include: standardized testing, evaluation by external “quality assurance” terms, outcomes-orientated curricula, site-based management, school development plans, etc. Key elements of the reform rhetoric, such as “collaboration” and “shared decision making” only give teachers the illusion of having their voices heard and enhancing their own professionalism. On the contrary, these concepts become a control mechanism aimed at manipulating teachers (Klette, 2000). As Ball (1994, p. 50) put it in the English context, “the teacher is increasingly an absent presence in the discourses of education policy, an object rather than a subject of discourse”."
In the Romanian context, the reforms started in the 1990s have accentuated a clear process of proletarianization of teachers’ work. One of its most important consequences has been the erosion of their own identity as “educators” (both on a professional and a social level), which has compelled them to identify intriguing ways of restoring their professional and social images.
Kuidas on olukord Eestis? Mida arvate õpetajad? Kas Eesti õpetaja on subjekt või jätkuvate poliitiliseeritud haridusreformide objekt? Räägime õpilasest kui subjektist...., aga võib-olla peaksime alustama hoopis meie õpetajast...