6.6 The Positive Leadership Practices in the UCCZ Mission Schools
6.6.4 Adopting an Inclusive Leadership Practice
One of the major steps taken by the SMTs in the UCCZ mission schools was adopting a leadership practice that was inclusive in a way that included people. The distributive approach was used as a leadership practice that invests in others. Harris and Chapman (2002) state that “if schools are to become better at providing learning for students, then they must be better at providing opportunities for teachers to innovate, develop and learn
168 together” (Haris & Chapman, p. 10). Through the distributive leadership approach, tasks are not the sole responsibility of one person but are shared entirely among the staff (Harris, 2008; Grant, 2008; Gurr, 2005; Harris & Chapman, 2002). Muijs, et al., (2005), confirming that they did not find one particular leadership practice in improving schools in disadvantaged circumstances, but rather that there was shared decision-making and collegiality. Harris and Chapman (2001) reported that leaders adapt different styles to particular circumstances and external pressures to suit their circumstances. They acknowledged a move towards the realisation of distributed and democratic forms of leadership as factors that had led towards school transformation.
In line with this discourse, the findings from the study revealed that the sharing of leadership in the study schools depended on the quality of teachers present. The SMTs in School C claimed that they had properly qualified staff who executed delegated duties and were given opportunities to attend Synod meetings in order to understand the expectations of the UCCZ as the responsible authority. The UCCZ practice must be cascaded into all the mission schools, with emphasis on the participation of all believers in decision-making.
The SMTs in School C further reported that, as leaders, they tried to foster that spirit so that teachers, workers and students could participate in decision-making through consultation during meetings. In that way they have managed to come up with democratic decisions. It was noted that when decisions are forced on individuals they are normally doomed to failure and when many people participate in decision-making the resulting decisions are wholly owned by them.
Similar to this finding, Ryan (1999, p. 8), sees “shared decision making as the most concrete form of participation that would determine the extent to which stakeholders actually have any say in what happens in schools”. Further, Ryan (1999) agrees that involvement of educators in decision-making that affects their work towards improving student outcomes has been available for some time. For example, when educators are part of decision-making they feel empowered and take ownership of and responsibility for decisions taken. Schools become more effective places for learning when educators participate in activities which decrease their isolation and require them to assume responsibilities in addition to the day-to-day instruction of students. It can be assumed that lasting school improvement and enhanced learning opportunities for students arise when teachers become involved in professional decision-making at the school (Ryan, 1999). In
169 agreement with Ryan, Gehrke (1991) confirms that the concept of decentralisation of power and decision-making in schools enhances leadership and is necessary if educators are to come out as strong leaders and benefit their learning organisations. I agree with the above authors because educators need to continuously improve their teaching skills through professional development. Sometimes they feel less connected and inferior to their peers when engaging in leadership activities.
In a similar discourse, the HOD-School D revealed that the SMTs controlled the staff and make sure that everything they do was a collective decision. When meetings were convened, the SMTs shared the agenda and detected what needed to be included and deleted. As a mission school, they adhered to the responsible authority, which is the UCCZ. Any school head who came to the school with his/her own excessive ego could not stay, as the church called them in and the SMTs checked them out. Understanding the system and adhering to it was what the SMTs expected and did, making their leadership practice a mixed entity. The SMTs revealed that the H-School D was fortunate to have the strong SMTs helping to run the school on her behalf. The H-School D was said to be far away and yet so near, and most of the time she was found behind closed doors chatting with the parents and church people, and mixing school work and church business. It was observed that sometimes teachers took a word from the leader.
In connection with the foregoing accounts, Grant (2006) asserts that leading teaching and learning is not the sole responsibility of the school head, but of every teacher in every classroom. Further, Grant (2006) states that schools can no longer be led by a lone figure at the top of the hierarchy. The only way that schools will be able to meet the challenges is to tap the potential of all staff members and allow teachers to experience a sense of ownership and inclusivity and lead aspects of the change process. She adds that the scope is broad and may include leadership around curriculum issues, assessment, teaching and learning, community and parental participation, school vision building, networking, and the development of partnerships. It was worth noting that the school heads of all the UCCZ mission schools delegated most of their duties and responsibilities to the SMTs and staff.
Through delegation, the work was shared rather than being vested in one individual. This promoted the notion of a leader among leaders. Schools in the study revealed that the role of staff development was managed by the Ministry of Education and UCCZ as the responsible authority. Teacher development was a crucial matter in the UCCZ mission
170 schools, more so as research showed a lack of knowledge of subject content as the cause of poor performance. In line with this, David and Lazarus (1997, p. 67) maintain that “when people within the school work together with a shared vision, the school develops strength, focus and purpose in drawing on the unique contributions of each individual in the team”.