8. Over the years, I have heard such statements repeatedly.

It’s the beginning of the school

year and too many principals and teachers face parents expressing concerns about the
teachers their children are assigned. For a variety of reasons, these parents believe their
children would have been better off in another teacher’s classroom. They fear their children may
learn less, experience less joy in learning, or feel less motivation to succeed. Empathetic
principals and teachers listen and try to offer reassurance that the children will have a great
year. They tell the parents that all teachers in their school will welcome their children; students
will have a great year no matter which classroom they have been assigned. And yet, savvy
parents are getting smarter — they know there is no proof to back up this statement. Some
parents know that there is research that suggests the single most important determinant of a
student’s success is the classroom teacher. When parents raise this concern, few principals or
teachers have anything substantive to say in response. My hope is for more principals and
teachers to be able to respond to these parents’ concerns by assuring them that within their
school, teachers share collective responsibility for the success of each student. The most
important phrase in Learning Forward’s definition of professional learning is collective
responsibility. Schoolwide and team-based professional learning embedded in the daily work of
educators is essential when professionals commit to sharing responsibility for the success of all
students. When a school fully understands and commits to collective responsibility for student
success, educators are prepared to answer parents’ concerns in a profound way. A deep
understanding of what collective responsibility means for schools will not only reassure parents
about their own children’s educations but can also enlist them as advocates for job-embedded,
collaborative professional learning. I am hopeful that in the near future more teachers and
principals will use some of the following points to describe collective responsibility in their
schools. Over the years, I have heard such statements repeatedly. It’s the beginning of the
school year and too many principals and teachers face parents expressing concerns about the
teachers their children are assigned. For a variety of reasons, these parents believe their
children would have been better off in another teacher’s classroom. They fear their children may
learn less, experience less joy in learning, or feel less motivation to succeed. Empathetic
principals and teachers listen and try to offer reassurance that the children will have a great
year. They tell the parents that all teachers in their school will welcome their children; students
will have a great year no matter which classroom they have been assigned. And yet, savvy
parents are getting smarter — they know there is no proof to back up this statement. Some
parents know that there is research that suggests the single most important determinant of a
student’s success is the classroom teacher. When parents raise this concern, few principals or
teachers have anything substantive to say in response. My hope is for more principals and
teachers to be able to respond to these parents’ concerns by assuring them that within their
school, teachers share collective responsibility for the success of each student. The most
important phrase in Learning Forward’s definition of professional learning is collective
responsibility. Schoolwide and team-based professional learning embedded in the daily work of
educators is essential when professionals commit to sharing responsibility for the success of all
students. When a school fully understands and commits to collective responsibility for student
success, educators are prepared to answer parents’ concerns in a profound way. A deep
understanding of what collective responsibility means for schools will not only reassure parents
about their own children’s educations but can also enlist them as advocates for job-embedded,
collaborative professional learning. I am hopeful that in the near future more teachers and
principals will use some of the following points to describe collective responsibility in their
schools.
• Collective responsibility means that all staff members share a commitment to the success of
each student. Our teachers take pride in getting to know all the students in their grade level or
particular course first, and after that they do their best to get to know the students in the grades
they will serve next. When our teachers learn that any teacher or student is struggling and they
have information or strategies that can help, they feel a responsibility to share it. They celebrate
with their colleagues when things go well, and commit to changes when things do not go the
way they had anticipated. • Collective responsibility means we do not allow any single teacher to
fail in an attempt to ensure success of any one student. Teachers in our school understand and
appreciate the benefits of working collaboratively. Our teachers ensure their colleagues
understand they are all members of the same team; whenever one teacher has a problem, the
team is there for support. They use collaborative learning and planning to quickly target
students experiencing learning challenges. They focus their combined attention to ensure no
child falls between the cracks. • Collective responsibility means our students benefit from the
wisdom and expertise of all teachers in a grade level or subject, rather than just their own
teachers. In our school, regular time is scheduled for teams of teachers to follow a cycle of
improvement designed to support the development of powerful lessons and assessments that
ensure higher levels of learning for all students in a particular grade or subject (see box at left).
As a result, every student experiences the same lesson and is graded by the same standard as
all other students in the same grade level or subject course. • Collective responsibility means
our teachers feel a responsibility to share what is working in their classrooms with their
colleagues. In our school, best practices spread from classroom to classroom. Teachers do not
hide their most successful strategies from their colleagues. Data are transparent and teachers
experiencing success are easily identified. Teachers have different strengths and areas of
expertise; they are celebrated when they have success and eager to praise and learn from
colleagues who experience success in other areas. This collaboration enables our teachers to
observe and understand a variety of strategies they can then use to serve the individual needs
of their students. • Collective responsibility means teachers with less experience realize that
other teachers are invested in their success and the success of all students. In our school, new
and less experienced teachers are assigned buddies, mentors, and grade-level or subject-
based teams. Buddies, mentors, and team members serve new teachers in a variety of ways.
One may provide emotional support for overcoming the challenges teachers face early in their
career. One might COVER STORY Collective responsibility Designing a Cycle of Improvement
Cycles of improvement support the development of lessons and assessments that ensure
higher levels of learning for all students in a particular grade or subject. 1. A team of teachers
examines student performance data to determine where students may struggle in relation to the
next set of objectives they must master. 2. The team clarifies the knowledge and skills they
need in order to successfully teach the standards. 3. The team shares their previous experience
with the objectives. Those who did not achieve the desired results learn from those who had
demonstrated greater success. If no one on the team experienced the desired level of success,
the group agrees to seek expertise from beyond the group. Repeat this cycle throughout the
year to build a powerful set of lessons and assessments that are used by all teachers on the
team. To view this process in action, see the Stults Road Elementary: Professional
Development in Action video on Learning Forward’s web site. an invitation I invite you to share
this description of collective responsibility with your colleagues. Enter into a discussion with the
educators in your building. The tools on pp. 4-5 will help you examine together your reflections
on the current state of your school regarding collective responsibility and your aspirations for
how to grow in this area. When teams build the school’s collective capacity, I’m certain that next
fall you will have a much more powerful answer for any parent concerned about a class
assignment. You’ll also build a supportive group of parents who won’t let anyone touch the time
you have established for important team-based professional learning. — Stephanie Hirsh 2 •

teach the ropes of the school. One may support planning for all the big firsts of a new teacher,
including first days, first parent conferences, and first assessments. And one might ensure the
new teachers feel supported year-round with access to great lessons, assessments, and
expertise. From day one, all teachers know that their responsibility goes beyond the walls of the
classroom they are assigned. • Collective responsibility means our teachers learn and work
together systematically on a regular basis to collectively ensure higher quality instruction in all
classrooms and better results for all students. In our schools, teachers look forward to the time
they have for collaborative learning and problem solving. They are deliberate in establishing
their learning agenda and develop together the knowledge and skills they need to promote
student success. As they gain powerful new evidence-based strategies, they design new
lessons and assessments to be used in all classrooms. They make plans for visiting and
observing as time permits, and they commit to future sessions focused on reflecting on the
strengths and areas for improvement in each lesson they develop together. Over time they
develop a rich bank of lessons and strategies that enable them to address individual student
needs as they surface. • Collective responsibility means our principals have a strong rationale
for advocating for team-based professional learning embedded in teachers’ work schedule.
Authentic collective responsibility cannot be achieved through mandate. Teachers need time to
achieve this goal. They need time to conduct the work essential to the intended outcomes of
collective responsibility. As a result of spending consistent time together, they build trust, learn
to take risks, and recognize the value of reflecting on mistakes. At our school, time is scheduled
during the workday for teams to meet to do this important work. Teacher leaders use the cycle
of continuous improvement to guide the work of the team. They ensure the team takes
advantage of every second it is allotted. In addition to scheduled workday time for team
meetings, our school faculty meetings are used for learning as well. Each meeting is led by a
different team where they seek help with a particular challenge they are facing or share an
instructional strategy that has been successful. In addition, the early release days on our
schedule are used for cross grade-level teams to build and implement plans that continue to
promote a successful education experience for all students. Establishing collective responsibility
is not easy, but it is essential if we believe that our responsibility is to the success of every
student in the school. This is how we achieve this goal in our school.
It is often heard that two brains are better than one. And the idea of such makes perfect sense.
One would suppose that by working together, more will be accomplished. But does this apply to
a school, its administrators and teachers, and its students? As stated in this article, data was
provided, hypotheses were assumed, and studies were completed to see if, in fact, collective
responsibility does have promising impacts. Throughout the course of this essay, the
importance of collective responsibility within a school and its effects on gains in achievement for
early secondary school students will be examined, tested, and discussed.

What is collective responsibility? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy refers to collective

responsibility as a shared responsibility (Smiley, 2005). This definition is displayed similarly in a
school. Collective responsibility is all members of the school (including but not limited to
administrators, teachers, counselors) accepting responsibility for the students’ success or lack
thereof. Authors Valerie E. Lee (an associate professor of education at the University of
Michigan) and Julia B. Smith (an assistant professor of education administration and school
reform at the University of Rochester) conducted an experiment to determine if the organization
of teachers’ work influences students. (Lee and Smith, 1996). This study focused on three
theories: the before mentioned collective responsibility for student learning, staff cooperation,
and control over classroom and school work conditions (Lee and Smith, 1996). The article
states that it is important for a secondary school to bureaucratically distribute knowledge into
partitions with each group having its own set of experts. For example, teachers would undertake
the role of “knowledge experts”. With this, teachers will be cooperating amongst one another in
order to improve upon past teaching methods in hopes gaining student achievement. These
educators will not only benefit from face to face interaction with their colleagues, but they will
also take part in teamwork. (Lee and Smith, 1996). Lastly, the authors of this article believe that
distributing control will produce more effective decision makers as teachers. This idea of
empowerment suggests that decision making over resources, technical skills, and curriculum
knowledge be handled properly by administrators and teachers. While there is no known
relationship between teacher control and student outcome, there is a connection between
teacher control and his or her attitude about his or her efficiency in the classroom. (Lee and
Smith, 1996). The article states, “empowering teachers would induce commitment, and
commitment would in turn influence student learning” (Lee and Smith, 1996). To understand
more about collective responsibility, a study was completed to focus on the shared boundary
between teachers, students, and schools (Lee and Smith, 1996).

The purpose of this research was to study the correlation between teachers’ work lives and the
extent to which their students learn. Three hypotheses were presumed relating to the following
subjects: responsibility and demographics, the teacher and his or her work life, and the
teacher’s work life and equity. (Lee and Smith, 1996). The first hypothesis suggested that
“schools where teachers assume responsibility for learning enroll students who typically do
better in school” (Lee and Smith, 1996). These schools are said to be those with more privileged
students according to their race, social class, or ability. Understandably, teachers would be
more likely to accept acknowledgment for their students’ achievements if they are learning well.
Conversely, teachers would be less like to accept blame for their students’ failures and pass the
responsibility onto the children and their families. (Lee and Smith, 1996). The second
hypothesis theorized that “in schools where teachers take more responsibility for the results of
the teaching students learn more. In schools characterized by high levels of staff collaboration
and teacher control, students also learn more”. (Lee and Smith, 1996). And the third hypothesis
suggested that “features of teachers’ work live may either facilitate or debilitate the learning of
disadvantaged students. Specifically… high levels of responsibility for learning are associated
with learning that is equitably distributed within the school according to students’ social
background.” (Lee and Smith, 1996). These hypotheses were tested.

Following are detailed descriptions of the method used to conduct this study. The sampling
design was derived from a sample used in the “first and second waves of the National
Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88)” (Lee and Smith, 1996). NELS:88 was
sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and is an all-purpose analysis
of United States students and schools. The article discloses that one thousand middle grade
schools (about 25 students in the eighth grade from each school) were tested in 1988. These
same students (tracked through questionnaires) were tested again in 1990. (Lee and Smith,
1996). This sample included all NELS sophomores the fit the following criteria:

Students must have full cognitive test data from the base year and the first follow up,

Data must be available from their high schools and their teachers,

Students had to be enrolled in public, Catholic, or elite private high schools, and

Students must have been attending high school with at least four other NELS sampled students.
(Lee and Smith, 1996).

After the conditions were applied, 11,692 students from 820 different schools were studied.
These schools consisted of 650 public schools, 68 Catholic schools, and 47 independent
schools. (Lee and Smith, 1996). There were also certain criteria for the teachers of the students.
In the base year the teacher sample was comprised of “either the eighth grader’s mathematics
or science teacher and either the English or social studies teacher” (Lee and Smith, 1996). The
teachers were subject-matched when the students reached the tenth grade in the first follow up
according to the base year. Below is a pie chart of how the subjects mathematics, science,
English, and social studies were distributed as a major subject area amongst the teachers.

(Lee and Smith, 1996). Four measures were assessed as part of the teachers’ professional
community. They are 1) collective responsibility for student learning, 2) the standard deviation of
teachers responsibility for student learning, 3) cooperation and support among teachers and
administrators, and 4) teacher control. (Lee and Smith, 1996). The outcomes from the base test
and the follow up test were altered with item response theory (IRT) methods and ultimately
compared to see the difference between the two tests. This difference was referred to as the
gain score.. In science and social studies, the outcomes were equal from the base test to the
follow up test. However, in mathematics and English, the follow up tests had to be adjusted to fit
the students’ capabilities. Demographic measures included the students’ social class, minority
status, and gender and the schools’ average social class, minority concentration, ability level,
academic emphasis, and sector. (Lee and Smith, 1996). The analytic approach provided a
descriptive analysis of teachers’ work lives. The schools were grouped into three categories: 1)
high levels of collective responsibility for learning, 2) average levels of collective responsibility
for learning, and 3) low levels of collective responsibilities for learning, based on the standard
deviation above, within, or below the mean. (Lee and Smith, 1996). After the research had been
completed, the results were presented.

To understand the results, one must observe the tables presented in the article. When
considering the descriptive differences among students in schools with differing levels of
collective responsibility for student learning, note that the students are categorized into three
groups based upon the levels of collective responsibility structure throughout the school they
are attending: high-responsibility, average responsibility, and low responsibility (Lee and Smith,
1996). The students attending high responsibility schools calculate to a total of 1,226 students,
or 10.5%, while the students attending average responsibility schools is a much greater total of
8,801 students, or 75.3%. Lastly, students attending low responsibility schools fall between high
responsibility schools and average responsibility schools with 1,665 students, or 14.2%. (Lee
and Smith, 1996). These outcomes can be found in table one in the article. Table two in the
article display information regarding descriptive differences among schools with differing levels
of collective responsibility for learning (Lee and Smith, 1996). Again, the levels of collective
responsibility are sorted into three groups: schools with high levels of collective responsibility,
schools with average levels of collective responsibility, and schools with low levels of collective
responsibility. The number of schools filed in the high levels of collective responsibility is 134, or
16.3%, whereas the number of schools sorted into the average levels of collective responsibility
is a significantly larger number of 548 schools, or 66.9%. The schools with low levels of
collective responsibility rest slightly higher than those with high levels but considerably lower
than those with average levels of collective responsibility at 138 schools, or 16.8%. The tables
go on to show that

6. My own opinion is that academic freedom for those individualssatisfying the criteria cannot be
restricted by the institution, except fornon-academic matters (such as punctuality, attendance,
submission ofgrades on time, wearing of uniforms). Inside the classroom, academicallyfree professors
should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it is inthe area of their expertise.Why? Because
that is the whole point of academic freedom. Thereshould be individuals allowed to think unthinkable
thoughts, teachunteachable things, and publish unpublishable ideas. These are theindividuals that
really are at the cutting edge of knowledge. Without them,the human race is doomed. Without them,
we will stagnate, unable toproduce ideas that change the world.

RIGHT OF NON TEACHING ACADEMIC AND NON ACADEMIC PERSONNEL

Article XIII, Sec. 3The constitution expressly declared that they shall enjoy the protection of the state.
While such right isalready covered by the provision under Social Justice mandating the State to afford full
protection tolabor a separate guarantee is necessary to stress that the special concern of the Constitution
is notconfined to the welfare of the teachers alone.
STATE TO ASSIGN THE HIGHEST BUDGETARY PRIORITY TO EDUCATION
Sec. 5[5]The Constitution has restored education as a primary concern of the state in the provision
whichrequires the state to
“ assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will
attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and
other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.”
Many previous studies have solely focused on measuring job satisfaction in one category only either
among academic or non-academic staff. However, in an educational institution, the two categories of
workforce work hard in developing the university. Hence, it is crucial to measure the level of
satisfaction in these jobs. Taking this into account, this study intends to identify the factors that
contribute to job satisfaction among academic and non-academic staff in public universities. This
study adapts the research frameworks from Lacy and Sheehan (1997), and Smerek and Peterson
(2006) to measure job satisfaction among academic and non-academic staff, respectively

2. UNICEF has developed a framework for rights-based, child-friendly educational systems and schools that are
characterized as "inclusive, healthy and protective for all children, effective with children, and involved with families
and communities - and children" (Shaeffer, 1999). Within this framework:

 The school is a significant personal and social environment in the lives of its students. A child-friendly shool
ensures every child an environment that is physically safe, emotionally secure and psychologically enabling.
 Teachers are the single most important factor in creating an effective and inclusive classroom.
 Children are natural learners, but this capacity to learn can be undermined and sometimes destroyed. A child-
friendly school recognizes, encourages and supports children's growing capacities as learners by providing a
school culture, teaching behaviours and curriculum content that are focused on learning and the learner.
 The ability of a school to be and to call itself child-friendly is directly linked to the support, participation and
collaboration it receives from families.
 Child-friendly schools aim to develop a learning environment in which children are motivated and able to learn.
Staff members are friendly and welcoming to children and attend to all their health and safety needs.
A framework for rights-based, child-friendly schools

All social systems and agencies which affect children should be based on the principles of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child. This is particularly true for schools which, despite disparities in access across much of the world,
serve a large percentage of children of primary school age.

Such rights-based — or child-friendly — schools not only must help children realize their right to a basic education of
good quality. They are also needed to do many other things — help children learn what they need to learn to face the
challenges of the new century; enhance their health and well-being; guarantee them safe and protective spaces for
learning, free from violence and abuse; raise teacher morale and motivation; and mobilize community support for
education.

A rights-based, child-friendly school has two basic characteristics:

 It is a child-seeking school — actively identifying excluded children to get them enrolled in school and included in
learning, treating children as subjects with rights and State as duty-bearers with obligations to fulfill these rights,
and demonstrating, promoting, and helping to monitor the rights and well-being of all children in the community.
 It is a child-centred school — acting in the best interests of the child, leading to the realisation of the childés full
potential, and concerned both about the "whole" child (including her health, nutritional status, and well-being)
and about what happens to children — in their families and communities - before they enter school and after
they leave it.
Above all, a rights-based, child-friendly school must reflect an environment of good quality characterized by several
essential aspects:

It is inclusive of children — it:

 Does not exclude, discriminate, or stereotype on the basis of difference.

 Provides education that is free and compulsory, affordable and accessible, especially to families and children at
risk.
 Respects diversity and ensures equality of learning for all children (e.g., girls, working children, children of ethnic
minorities and affected by HIV/AIDS, children with disabilities, victims of exploitation and violence).
 Responds to diversity by meeting the differing circumstances and needs of children (e.g., based on gender,
social class, ethnicity, and ability level).
It is effective for learning — it:

 Promotes good quality teaching and learning processes with individualizd instruction appropriate to each child's
developmental level, abilities, and learning style and with active, cooperative, and democratic learning methods.
 Provides structured content and good quality materials and resources.
 Enhances teacher capacity, morale, commitment, status, and income — and their own recognition of child rights.
 Promotes quality learning outcomes by defining and helping children learn what they need to learn and teaching
them how to learn.
It is healthy and protective of children — it:

 Ensures a healthy, hygienic, and safe learning environment, with adequate water and sanitation facilities and
healthy classrooms, healthy policies and practices (e.g., a school free of drugs, corporal punishment, and
harassment), and the provision of health services such as nutritional supplementation and counseling.
 Provides life skills-based health education.
 Promotes both the physical and the psycho-socio-emotional health of teachers and learners.
 Helps to defend and protect all children from abuse and harm.
 Provides positive experiences for children.
It is gender-sensitive — it:

 Promotes gender equality in enrolment and achievement.

 Eliminates gender stereotypes.
 Guarantees girl-friendly facilities, curricula, textbooks, and teaching-learning processes.
socializes girls and boys in a non-violent environment.
 Encourages respect for each others' rights, dignity, and equality.
It is involved with children, families, and communities — it is:

 Child-centred - promoting child participation in all aspects of school life.

 Family-focused — working to strengthen families as the child's primary caregivers and educators and helping
children, parents, and teachers establish harmonious relationships.
 Community-based - encouraging local partnership in education, acting in the community for the sake of children,
and working with other actors to ensure the fulfillment of childrens' rights.
Experience is now showing that a framework of rights-based, child-friendly schools can be a powerful tool for both
helping to fulfill the rights of children and providing them an education of good quality. At the national level, for
ministries, development agencies, and civil society organizations, the framework can be used as a normative goal for
policies and programmes leading to child-friendly systems and environments, as a focus for collaborative
programming leading to greater resource allocations for education, and as a component of staff training. At the
community level, for school staff, parents, and other community members, the framework can serve as both a goal
and a tool of quality improvement through localized self-assessment, planning, and management and as a means for
mobilizing the community around education and child rights.

4. Education can, in fact, liberate in many ways. However, it requires effort in

order for this to happen. This is because education builds, within a person,
fortifications they would not otherwise have. It creates character as well as
expands their existing knowledge base. It can’t, however, liberate anyone
unless that person seeks to be liberated. Education requires sacrifice and hard
work. It gives you the tools you need, but it is up to you to use them once you
have acquired them. People can free themselves using these tools. They can
gain independence, knowledge and, ultimately, become self-sufficient and
productive members of society.

So what exactly does education free you from? It frees you from ignorance. It
frees you from not knowing how things are and how things work. It gives you
an edge over those who would seek to use their knowledge to harm you or
otherwise hinder your growth and your well-being. Knowing prevents you
from being taken advantage of; it also protects you from being deceived and
swindled. This is how education sets you free. It allows you to follow your
own path and make your own decisions so that you may live as you want.

Now that we are on the same page, what does it all mean in terms of
teaching? Teachers need to be critical of what they do, how they act, what
they tell their students. We need to remember that we are there to educate, to
guide, not oppress. We need to learn from our students and yet not be afraid
that by opening ourselves up to such learning we are somehow losing that
authority in the classroom. Learning, for the student, is a journey. We, as
teachers, need to be there for them and to help them on their journey. Telling
them what to think or how to do things the way we would like to see it done
is not helping them on THEIR journey. It is THEIR journey, not ours: their
liberation; not our oppression. We just have to remember that.