| Issue |
Teacher-librarians should not be deployed
as RFF (Release from face-to-face) teachers. |
|
|
| History |
Prior to 1984, primary teachers received no RFF. Benefiting
from good will, teachers used the library for release when appropriate,
(e.g. not at the beginning or end of the year). In 1984 staged employment
of RFF teachers commenced. Teachers began to accompany their classes to
the library, integrating the library into the curriculum. |
|
In April 1988 there was a change of government. In June
1988 the Liberal government announced budget cuts, one being that; Teachers
will no longer be required to be present with their class on every occasion
when the class is being taken for library and/or other activities (e.g.
Craft) by another teacher (normally a specialist). The time thus saved
(a maximum of one hour) will be used as part of a teacher’s face to face
release. |
|
|
| Impact |
-
There is an urgent call for students to develop information
literacy.
|
|
-
Information literacy and inquiry learning is now an integral
part of each new syllabus.
|
|
-
Research has shown that skills need to be developed in context.
|
|
-
Research shows that both the information process itself and
electronic information use are complex, difficult and time consuming. They
challenge both students and teachers.
|
|
-
Research shows that when teachers and teacher-librarians
work together, integrating information skills with subject learning, both
mastery of the information process and the subject material itself improve.
|
|
-
Using the library for RFF effectively closes the library
to all other use. i.e. Library time, space and personnel is consumed, rather
than being an extension of the classroom.
|
|
-
Teachers need access to their library, and to the teacher-librarian,
with their students.
|
|
-
Weekly lessons can achieve some things. However they cannot
meet the needs of a 'learning community'. Information quests require a
lot of time and support; at the point of need. This requires some flexibility
in scheduling.
|
|
-
Some classes can benefit from weekly book exchanges eg early
childhood K-2. However one hour per week, per class, is excessive. In addition,
most teachers would like to be involved.
|
|
-
'All that glitters is not gold.' Giving a teacher-librarian
a full teaching load does not ensure the library itself is being used.
|
|
-
A strange message is being sent to students, who never see
their teacher use the library, and who are only permitted themselves to
visit once a week.
|
|
-
The teacher-librarian cannot fulfill all aspects of their
role with a full teaching timetable.
e.g. 1. Administration 2. Provision of services
3. Seasonal variations, such as stocktake.
|
|
-
Research shows that teacher-librarians have a vital role
to play in planning, promoting, integrating, and supporting teachers in
information and communication technology.
|
|
-
Condoning the use of the library for RFF has paved the way
for escalating misuse.
|
|
-
This is deterring teachers from entering the profession.
|
|
-
Providing a choice between two valuable staffing options
is not a fair allocation.
|
|
-
1. It is not equitable for teachers to have to choose between
two forms of support.
|
|
-
2. It does not provide equal opportunity for students.
|
| Solution |
Restore the second hour of RFF staffing
allocation for teachers, that was cut in 1989. |
|
In the meantime
|
|
Request that the part-time teachers
provide the second hour of RFF. |