PROFESSIONAL ST AND ARDS AND IMPROVEMENT: HST A

Edward Nakano and Irene Zane

The teaching profession requires a high level of self-directed professional development and improvement in order to cope with changing curriculum and teaching methods. The professional organization has always played a significant part in promoting in-service education which aid teachers in developing or improving their teaching skills and in understanding the curriculum. With the advent of collective bargaining for public employees in 1970, the teachers' pursuit of professional development, however, has been overshadowed by efforts to improve salary and working conditions. As the bargaining agent representing teachers, the Hawaii State Teachers Association (HST A) has struggled to establish its role as teacher advocate and to lead the efforts to improve both salary and working conditions through contract negotiations.

The coming of collective bargaining brought a new impact on education in Hawaii as teachers began to shed their "traditional" image and initiated a fight for their rights. After a period of shaky relationships with the Hawaii State Board of Education-which included a stop-work meeting and a statewide teacher strike-the involvement of the organization in professional development activities has increased. Despite the labor strife which HST A has gone through as an organization, teachers in the public schools of Hawaii have still maintained a high level of professionalism.

A Historical Perspective The historical perspective of this young organization shows a pattern of professional development activities. The HST A was one of three public-sector unions which rose out of the Hawaii Education Association (HEA) with the advent of collective bargaining. With the educational profession divided into three units, the HEA found a need for a new organizational structure to represent each unit properly. The higher education personnel came under the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly (UHPA), the educational officers formed

the Hawaii State Educational Officers Association (HSEOA) and the teachers, the major portion of the HEA membership, became the HST A. The three organizations continue to be affiliated with the HEA and the National Education Association (NEA).

In initial representation elections, the HST A was the only one among the three to win the right to be an exclusive representative for its unit. The organization had to take on a new image as teacher advocate in order to win the representation election by a narrow margin over the rival Hawaii Federation of Teachers (HFT). In subsequent representation elections with the same rival union, HST A continued to win by narrow margins. As news of these representation elections and campaigns heated up, the question of which organization was the better teacher advocate was a critical issue. However, just as important to the election was the question of which organization would continue to promote a better "professional" image with the public. The fact that the HSTA was nationally-affiliated with the independent NEA as opposed to the HFT being affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers, a local of the AFL-CIO, may have influenced the more conservative members of the profession to vote HSTA.

The necessity of maintaining a professional image surfaced from time to time throughout the first few years of the organization. A teacher walkout to protest the delay in implementing the contract tested the teacher's stand on militancy as a union member. The first teacher strike in the state again tested the individual teacher; many who crossed picket lines during the strike did so on their belief in being "professionals." Despite these job-action activities-public opinion notwithstanding­teachers still sought out professional improvement activities individually through coursework and workshops. Even today, we find more teachers becoming involved in activities sponsored by the Department of Education (DOE) to increase their skills and curricular understanding.

3

HST A Efforts in In-Service Education The HSTA has maintained a teacher committee on professional standards since its beginnings. The Professional Standards and Improvement of Instruction (PSI) Committee serves as a standing committee to the HST A Board of Directors and is charged with conducting activities to maintain teacher standards and encourage professional improvement. The thrust of the PSI Committee over the years has been to set professional standards through the establishment of licensure of teachers. The proposals were met with great apprehension on the part of the teachers, mainly because of a lack of information and fears that the system could be used against them. The HST A, whose PSI Com­mittee has spearheaded the effort to establish the standards of licensure, postponed its efforts until a program for teacher awareness was completed. At the present time, the concept has not been pursued at the state level although it is still being advocated at the NEA level.

The efforts of the PSI Committee were turned in the direction of greater involvement in professional development and in-service activities. With the change in leadership in 1976, a new direction was set toward greater participation as a union in in-service training programs. The new direction was enhanced with the spirit of cooperation between the union and the DOE in non-contractual areas.

Over the years, the matter of in-service training participation has been a gray area in contractual interpretations. While the DOE realized that in-service workshops could not be mandated to teachers outside of working hours, the need for such activities still existed in order to implement new programs in the department. The position of the HST A has been that any workshop where teacher attendance is required would have to be conducted during the employees' working hours; the DOE could not coerce any teacher to attend a workshop on his own time. On workshops of a "voluntary" nature where the teacher seeks self­improvement, the teacher would attend outside of working hours.

As a result of these positions, teachers have been chided for their lack of "professonalism" by segments of the community and certain legislative bodies. This criticism, while not totally justified,

4

has caused a great deal of concern to the HSTA. The concern has reached each function of the organization, including negotiations and legislative efforts. Organization effort has stepped up to meet the criticism through public relations efforts and the new direction of the PSI Committee.

In 1976, activities of the PSI Committee were written into the program budget plans of the HST A to reflect the new direction in professional improvement. The charge to the PSI Committee was then to: (1) analyze the current DOE program in in-service education; (2) establish a working relationship with the DOE and University of Hawaii­Manoa to provide input into professional development, and (3) design a plan for the HST A's own in-service education program. During the 1977-78 year, the HST A undertook several activities to carry out its charge.

Federal Teacher Centers Program

The NEA, as part of its professional development and legislative activities, has sought federal legislation to establish teacher in-service centers throughout the United States. The Education Amendments of 1976 (P .L. 94-482) were enacted to establish the Federal Teacher Centers Program under the U.S. Office of Education. The NEA, through its state affiliates, provided testimony in regional meetings on the proposed rules to implement the law in June, 1977. The proposed rules were not finalized until January, 1978, by the U.S. Office of Education.

The Federal Teacher Centers legislation makes possible the establishment of in-service and curri­culum development centers governed by a policy board consisting of a majority membership of teachers from the classroom ranks. The center is governed by the policy board, which determines the kind of activities to be conducted by the center. The center not only makes possible the training of teachers, but also encourages the exchange of teaching materials and the development of new curriculum materials for use by classroom personnel.

The HST A saw the federal program as a means of providing meaningful in-service activities and the Board of Directors authorized its President to seek out the feasibility of such an operation. Early discussions with the Superintendent of the DOE and

the College of Education (COE) of the University of Hawaii-Manoa proved fruitful-with a high degree of interest expressed by both agencies. Upon receiving the positive report, the HST A Board of Directors further authorized the President to begin with the establishment of a provisional teacher center board to pursue a grant application. Again, both the DOE and COE were contacted and asked to participate in the formulation of the grant application and, with their assistance, the grant application was drawn up and submitted to the state agency, the Department of Education, in late March.

The Hawaii Teacher Center Program entitled, Improvement of Instruction Through Teacher Planning and Participation (ITP), requested $362,390 for three years to establish and implement the program. The center, if funded, will be located on Oahu in a school facility and will service all Oahu teachers in the four school districts. The policy board, the majority of which will be classroom teacher personnel, will determine the activities and direction of the center. A full-time coordinator will be hired to carry on the day-to-day operations of the center. The program will be conducted as part of the DOE program of in-service training. Once the center is funded, involvement of the HST A will be limited to providing appointments to the policy board.

Efforts in establishing the Federal Teacher Center Program have created a greater awareness of the HSTA's interest in providing direction in in-service training opportunities.

Contractual Provisions for In-Service Training As the HST A entered into re-negotiation of its successor contract in October, 1977, the word was about that the Board of Education (BOE) sought a longer working day and a longer working year for teachers without any salary increase. The justifi­cation for the longer day and year was to provide adequate time for in-service training activities for teachers. Other than the fact that the BOE desired longer hours with no compensation (which actually amounts to a salary cut if interpreted literally), there were several assumptions which HST A felt were misleading in the BOE proposal.

The first assumption made in the proposal was that every teacher required a set amount of

in-service training. The proposal did not recognize the fact that the needs of each teacher differed, as did the type of training required. The proposal would have required even the most experienced teacher to undergo the same hours of in-service training whether or not the teacher needed it. In-service training, when conducted under such a premise, becomes counter-productive and does not help the teacher.

The second assumption was that in-service training had to be manifested in workshops conducted by DOE personnel. The setting of rigid hours for in-service training would necessitate a workshop format for such training. Other activities, such as individual or team in-service activities, would be impossible to schedule with a rigid time requirement.

The third assumption was that there was such a great need for in-servicing time and activities amounting to over twenty hours per month. Such a proposal, if negotiated, would result in the department increasing personnel and resources to conduct in-service activities.

Through negotiations, the concern for providing time to conduct in-service training during the work day was resolved without increasing hours or the work year. The concept was termed "flexible time" and provided the department with the option of extending certain days during which mandatory training and evaluative conferences would be scheduled. The teacher's time spent in these activities would then be logged and the time "returned" by early release on a subsequent Wednesday in lieu of a faculty meeting. Thus, within a four-week period, the teacher still works the average of the presP.nt thirty-five-hour week.

Through this means, the HST A has recognized the need for in-service training time being provided to the employer. It also indicates the HST A's commitment to professional development as an important part of providing educational quality while maintaining teacher rights. The concept, more importantly, expressed a willingness of both parties to recognize a mutual problem and work out a settlement which would be acceptable to both labor and management.

HST A In-Service Education Plans One of the charges to the PSI Committee during

5

the 1977-78 year was to develop a plan for in-service education. The program budget for the year called for the committee to conduct a statewide needs assessment among its members and, based on the results, design an in-service education program. The needs assessment was conducted in November, 1977, and the plan was submitted to the HSTA Board of Directors the following January. The goals and activities of the plan have been incorporated into the 1978-79 program budget and will dictate the major activities of the PSI Committee in the coming year.

The conceptual framework of the in-service plan is based on the premise that a teacher's professional development needs are influenced by many factors. All of these factors are aimed at providing the best instruction for the individual student, thus, making the student the focal point of the teacher's in-service training. The factors indentified in the conceptual framework are: (1) student needs; (2) curriculum needs; and (3) teacher needs. Based on these needs, the teacher's in-service training program must be designed for professional development.

"Student Needs" are identified as those abilities required by the teacher to work effectively with the student and to motivate the student. Needs could be in areas such as understanding human behavior, relating to students, and responding to student's individual needs.

"Curriculum Needs" are those which are prescribed by the DOE's changing curriculum and practices. These needs would include updating curriculum content, changing emphasis in curricular areas due to new approaches or implementation of new curriculum mandated by the Department.

"Teacher Needs" are needs required to develop or improve skills or teaching methodology in the classroom. The needs would be based on the teacher's self-evaluation and direction or through the DOE's teacher evaluation process which prescribe skill building.

The HST A plan calls for a developmental process which would be carried out in phases. The first phase would be a thorough orientation to the conceptual framework of the program to assure that there is a clear understanding of that concept. Following the orientation, school-level leaders will be trained

6

in establishing in-service programs in each school. Chapter leaders will be trained in developing activities on a district level, using the "teacher center" concept. School level training will cover such activities as needs assessment, workshop designing, and resource identification. The peer leadership approach, with adequate resources, would provide meaningful participation for teachers and assure greater self-direction in in-service training at the school level.

Concurrently, the DOE's in-service program will

be analyzed to find areas where school-level activities could be worked into the program. Input into the DOE's in-service education program will be enhanced with the activity at the school level. The HSTA plans are designed to augment, rather than supplant, the DOE in-service education program.

Through the HST A program, in-service education will be made more meaningful to teachers with resultant benefits to students in the classroom. The placement of needs assessment at the school

level will make possible the identification and meeting of more specific needs rather than the general needs of a statewide assessment. Activities at the school level could be designed as formal­such as coursework or workshops, or as informal­such as individual or team conferences.

The resultant product of the HST A program would be meaningful in-service programs to the individual teacher. The teacher-developed/teacher­directed effort would enhance the value of training. Furthermore, the program would continue to express HST A's commitment to professional development.

Summary Over the last seven years (since its beginnings), HST A has matured to gain a rightful place among Hawaii's public employee unions. HST A has asserted itself as an effective bargaining agent representing 8,600 teachers and personnel. HST A is now an established part of the political and legislative force in Hawaii's educational system. The organization will soon be complete as the HSTA's professional development activities are manifested .

The HST A has come full circle since its separation from the Hawaii Education Assocation as an independent entity to becoming involved once again in the professional development of its members. As the HST A continues in its efforts to encourage its members toward professional development through its activities, the quality of education will continue to improve as the profession improves. The HST A, as a part of Hawaii's educational community, has that obligation and responsibility to the students of Hawaii.

Edward Nakano has strotd lht Hawaii Slalt Dtparlmtnl of Educalion as Ttachtr of Industrial Aris (Stcondary Education}. As PrtSidtnl, Hawaii Slalt Ttachtrs Assoctatton, from 1976 lo 1978, ht has pro111dnl lht impth1s and ltadmhip for tslablishing a strong rn·stroict compontnl within tht associalion.

lrtnt Zant is Ltbrarnin, M1/ilanr·Ul:a Eltmtntary School. Currtntly Chairman of tht Profmional Standards and lnstruclional lmpro11tmtnl Commrlltt f PSlJ of lht Hawaii 511111 Ttachtr Association, sht is also 11cli111ly in11ol11td '" othtr profmional organizations.

1