EVALUATION
4. DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
4.3 ANNEXURE C AND D: OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES
4.3.3 ACCOUNTABILITY VERSUS DEVELOPMENT
This debate highlights the fact that in the South African context, the use of the IQMS has actually intensified managerialism in education. Imperatives to schools to respond rapidly to imposed changes from the national Department of Education has markedly increased.
The introduction of IQMS from 2003 reflects the increased interest in the quality,
effectiveness and measured improvements of schools. Indeed the emphasis on
performance may have supplanted the need to improve the skill of individual educators in South Africa through professional development. This study reveals that the vast number of educators would prefer it if the IQMS focused on professional development.
60% of the respondents agreed that IQMS should be used for professional development.
The views of the majority can be summed in the following quotes:
With greater development of educators as the rationale behind IQMS, more educators will be willing to take ownership of IQMS. The IQMS, if instituted
in a careful and sensitive manner, can be a useful tool to improve the teaching profession. It should be used for professional development.
(Principal of an urban school)
Other principals agreed stating:
The fact that a peer is involved makes it abundantly clear that the instrument cannot be used for accountability. Principles and Deputy Principles are
excluded from the process. It should be used to develop the educator, that is if it is correctly applied.
(Principal of a combination-type school)
No. Professional development is neglected. If IQMS was used to develop staff professionally all areas of weaknesses will be recognized and through available
assistance be eradicated. Accountability will then be part of professional development.
(Principal of a rural school)
Principals in general are in agreement that because the IQMS is perceived by educators as an accountability tool with an emphasis on performance measures and performance- related pay, there is a lot of fabrication taking place to reach the expected scores and to window-dress. There is also a lot of collusion between colleagues. Educators appear to be aware that evaluation as a way of auditing achievement and checking improvement is now high on the political agenda and are finding means to safe-guard their own interests.
Over half the respondents stated that IQMS should not be linked to incentives as
linking it to incentives will marginalize its professional development purpose and
increase accountability by stressing performance measurement activities. Many principals echoed the sentiments of this principal from an urban school:
No. For rewards/incentives to be fairly administered you need a system that objectively measures performances. IQMS should not be linked to
performance-related pay as this increases competition between educators and they may be less willing to help each other improve. It is better to reward long service.
Having examined the data, the question of whether the IQMS leads to misguided practices and measurement attempts that distort its principles and purposes is raised . Principals and educator have shown a growing concern about the impact of the IQMS and the ways it may skew the focus on professional development. It appears that
accountability and professional development cannot be combined beneficially.
Professional development is more likely to be a ‘bolted onto’ exercise rather than an
‘integrated’ part of IQMS. The perception of teachers is that the professional development aspect of the IQMS (DA) is hijacked in favour of performance measurement.
This is ironic as professional development is potentially an important strategy for
achieving higher standards. However, it remains a matter of debate how far improvement and development can be ‘evaluated into’ schools. The researcher is of the view that there are processes that need to be followed in the implementation of the IQMS that will ensure professional development and that changes made to the IQMS policy may be deemed necessary for the appropriate pursuit of improving teaching and learning.
Perhaps one needs to dig a little deeper as to why the emphasis on accountability in our education system should be so strong. South African schools have adopted some of the characteristics of the culture of the private sector and are being viewed differently from the welfare state agencies they have replaced. Therefore, accountability and results appear to matter more than improved performance. It is necessary to clarify the type of accountability the flourishes under the IQMS. It is a sort of managerial accountability.
Educators are required to carry out agreed tasks according to agreed criteria of performance. Audit will be a good example of a mechanism designed to ensure such
managerial accountability in which quantified forms of control have increasingly replaced more traditional forms of control such as informal professional dialogue.
Individual appraisal offers another lever for assessing performance against an agreed set of tasks.
CMS proponents will argue that the dominance of managerialsim in the IQMS policy which tends toward ensuring compliance, accountability through performance
measurement and audit is harmful especially for the developing South African context, if not for any country, as it fails to challenge existing inequalities and chimes with
managerialist policies that further intensify existing inequality. South African schools have maintained egregious inequalities although some attempts have been made to address these. These inequalities, as well as inefficiencies, have been widely condemned but seldom corrected.Schools with the most disadvantaged and difficult students are also schools that are disappropriately staffed by inexperienced and unqualified teachers.