Just In: Motion to terminate GES’s Continuous Professional Development Allowance for Teaching Staff [Details Here]

I’m here to give a case for eliminating the teacher professional development allowance today. It is stressed in Section 16 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement that the grant must be used to promote teachers’ ongoing professional development.

It is urgent to reevaluate the allocation of such resources to better serve the interests of both educators and students, despite the fact that professional development is essential for improving the knowledge and skills of our educators. It is clear that many teachers do not use this additional funding for its intended purpose.

Let’s be clear that the teacher professional development allowance has little influence on actual classroom activities. Research has indicated that a sizable majority of teachers do not pursue higher education possibilities or attend professional development seminars or conferences, despite the fact that funding is available.

According to surveys, many teachers are unwilling to invest the necessary time or effort in these initiatives because they are more interested in using the money for their own benefit. Giving out allowances without adequate monitoring and accountability measures is a waste of money.

Another justification for the revocation of the payment is the misalignment of professional development opportunities with teachers’ requirements. Teachers frequently use the justification that the available seminars or courses don’t adequately meet their unique requirements and interests, which leaves them unmotivated to participate.

We can guarantee that teachers are utilizing the resources by reallocating these money to more specialized and individualized development opportunities.

The financial ramifications of the teacher professional development allowance must also be taken into account. In provision for the professional growth of teachers. Instead of directly aiding in professional development, these money may occasionally be used for personal needs or non-educational purposes.

ALSO READ: New Curriculum: NaCCA commences inspection of textbooks used in schools

The allowance’s intended use is compromised by this financial misuse, which also casts doubt on the policy’s overall efficacy.

By eliminating the allowance, we may allocate these funds to educational projects with a higher chance of success. Efforts that are more likely to have a favorable effect on student performance.

In conclusion, the teacher professional development allowance must be eliminated due to its minimal influence on instructional practices, complaints that the possibilities do not match educators’ requirements, and the potential for improper spending of funds.

The emphasis should be on creating a more targeted and accountable system, where professional development opportunities are customized to teachers’ needs and regularly evaluated to guarantee efficient resource usage. As an alternative, the money should be given to the company so that they can set up CPD programs for their staff.

By doing this, we can make sure that our teachers get the help they require to develop and enhance their instructional strategies throughout time, which will eventually benefit students and the educational system as a whole.

The emphasis should be on creating a more targeted and accountable system, where professional development opportunities are customized to teachers’ needs and regularly evaluated to guarantee efficient resource usage.

As an alternative, the money should be given to the employer so that they can set up CPD programs for their staff.

By doing this, we can make sure that our teachers get the help they require to develop and enhance their instructional strategies throughout time, which will eventually benefit students and the educational system as a whole.

Join our WHATSAPP GROUP and TELEGRAM CHANNEL to get all relevant teaching resources to make your lessons effective.

Subscribe to this blog and follow us on facebook