As a TL in Catholic primary schools we have a scope of role document that outlines the roles and responsibilities of specialist teachers - teacher librarians that was developed from the roles and responsibilities section of our Enterprise Bargaining IV agreement. This was then unpacked for us in regards to the expertise and value to the educational package, though is not exhaustive.
The four areas are: TLs partner teachers to develop, implement and evaluate a curriculum which facilitates student learning; TLs work collaboratively to provide opportunities for students to become discerning users of information (critical and cultural literacy); TLs advocate reading, promote literature for children and young people and offer reader guidance and; TLs manage a school's information resources and services.
The first aspect I noticed when comparing the two standards was that my own role was quite focused on collaborative work with teachers, collaborative teaching of the students, especially in ICTs, inquiry processes and literature promotion and resourcing the curriculum. This was on top of managing the system and service in place. Whereas ASLA had 3 main areas, each broken down into 4 bite sized components of understanding the role, which is then further broken down into specific statements.
In the first area of Professional Knowledge (ASLA 1) I feel that my own scope of role fulfils 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4. Most of 1.1 is covered although I feel that the theory side of the knowledge is an area that is not fully covered in the scope but there is some implied aspect to some of the descriptors that we need to have it to perform the statement.
ASLA 2 - 2.1 appears to be covered through my descriptors of the learning environment, 2.2 is covered by ensuring we are collaborating and planning with teachers through the year and being involved with resource discussions and further ICT development. 2.3 is our system managment statements. 2.4 of Evaluation requires more descriptors in my role although we do have to provide audit statements of resources and spending, stocktake reports, budget proposal and collection development plans and bring planning and lessons along to inservice/cluster days. The evidence side of student learning is not formally outlined in my role.
ASLA 3 - 3.1 lifelong learning is not directly referred to but the concept is apparent in our role, research is not detailed in our role, educational issues is not specifically an aspect although we are expected to be involved in our moderation processes; 3.2 Commitment is covered in our role; 3.3 Leadership - in certain areas we are meant to be leaders and it is often talked about at our cluster days. 3.4 Community repsonsiblities all are aspects that are expected from us as TLs and is often discussed through conferences and workshop days.
Looking at the IASL aspects of TLs I feel that my scope of role does fulfil the areas outlined the majority of the time. There may be a few areas that are not always maintained through the year such as cultural but this could be due to the lack of time that is give to TLs as it is linked to school size.
Overall I think that the scope fulfils those aspects outlined in other documents and it was great to be able to see that when comparing them. It was always daunting looking at ASLA's document as there are so many high level objectives but seeing them broken down for our role specifically was a great opportunity to match them up. Although it is still overwhelming how much a TL is meant to do in a school situation, especially as I am only there one day a week with an extra day every four weeks.
No comments:
Post a Comment