A study op inseryice educ a hon and classroom practices un azerbaijan: into

School #6, Xaemaz

In an interview with the Assistant Director of School #6, he was asked to compare local inservice education with that offered in Baku, which he had experienced as a teacher himself. He stated that the local courses were not as good, that the quality of trainers was low, and that most inservice education was characterized by lecture mode. Most were not professors, but local secondary teachers. He added that the many courses he had observed in his school were ,uniformly poor. He
28 Alan N.CRAWFORD
nıcııtioncd that topics listed as taught in the schedule of courses of the Azerbaijan Inservice Education Institute were not taught. Finally, he described the widespread problem of many teachers not bothering to attend required recertilication training, opting instead to pay the trainer to mark them present.

The Assistant Director of School #6 did post the school's copy of] the newspaper for teachers, Azarbaycan Muallimi, for all to read. This was not done in any other school visited.
School #3, Xaemaz

The four teachers invited to a group interview at School //3 were
very reluctant to participate. At the outset, they indicated that they
were very satisfied with the quality of inservice education provided to
them. They especially appreciated innovative methods and assistance
with the change from Cyrillic alphabet to Latin alphabet. They later her
indicated that they were generally exposed to instructional strategies that
they already knew because their trainers were local teachers, new
outstanding, but local. They stated that when staff members of the retl
Azerbaijan Inservice Fducation Institute did come to Xaemaz they effe
came to do retraining in new fields, not inservice education. Even in Na>
those cases, they found that teachers being refrained were approved and
after only one month of retraining, not the required one year. reci

stra