This part of the analysis focuses on the pressure that Agents R and G exerted to change the racial composition of the staff of their respective schools as part of their drive to
19 Charlyn Dyers evaluated the IiIwimi‟s Development Programme undertaken to foster more positive attitudes towards multilingual education among primary school teachers in the Western Cape. One of the main goals of the programme was to sensitise Afrikaans and English-speaking teachers to the need for them to acquire proficiency in Xhosa and Xhosa-speaking teachers to acquire proficiency in Afrikaans and to encourage the use of all three languages as languages of learning and teaching (Dyers 2004)
transform the language policies and practices in their schools. The data revealed a strong relationship between power and the ability to exert pressure to effect changes in the staff composition. Consequently, Agents R and G were in a position to exercise pressure to change the racial composition of their staff by virtue of the power they commanded as school principals. Not commanding this power, Agents L and S were unable to exercise pressure to effect changes in the staff composition of their schools. This part of the analysis also revealed that the motivation driving Agents R and G‟s intention in exerting pressure to have more Zulu-speaking educators appointed at their schools was largely to address the linguistic challenges faced by the large majority of their learners who were African learners.
According to the data both Agents G and R were committed to transforming the racial composition of their teaching staff and did not merely pay lip service to this priority of matching the racial composition of the educators with the racial composition of the learners. It would appear from the data that it was a foregone conclusion that should vacancies arise at their schools these vacancies would be filled by African educators not only to teach isiZulu as a subject but to teach across the curriculum. Furthermore, both agents had strongly recommended the appointment of African educators to vacant positions at their schools as these arose in the last four years without compromising the positions of existing educators at their schools. The stance of these two agents is reflected by the following responses by Agent G (first and second response) and Agent R (third response):
Basically it was the initiative of the principal. The SGB is not totally informed about the policies of the dept. but we‟ve been driving this change. As I said the opportunities were there, in fact when we did implement the position no teacher was dismissed and as vacancies arose these posts were declared isiZulu-speaking posts.
We would like to have teachers who are bilingual, to go along with these sort of learners, we have nearly 50% of the staff who are bilingual ie. literate in both official languages (referring to English and isiZulu). And you find that this provides support for the learners more readily than they can at the moment.
That‟s what we do here. We needed to employ them (African teachers) and now if we employ any teacher, that teacher must be fully conversant in isiZulu.
Evidently the main intention of Agents G and R in applying pressure to appoint African educators at their schools was to address the language issue and to meet their agenda of driving and sustaining language change in their schools. This was borne out by the need for English-isiZulu bilingual educators and educators who were fully conversant in isiZulu. While these agents strongly endorsed the need for their Indian teachers to become proficient in isiZulu, they were also conscious of the need for teachers to have native competence in isiZulu. Skutnabb-Kangas & Garcia (1995) identify this as one of the characteristics of bi- or multilingual teachers. According to these authors multilingual teachers should have native or very high levels of linguistic competence in the language in which they teach or that they teach.
This need for native competence in isiZulu expressed by both these agents was also demanded by African parents as illustrated by the following response from Agent G:
There were 4 non-isiZulu-speaking teachers who could speak the language and who would communicate in basic isiZulu but the parents of our Zulu children objected to that because they found that the teachers were not using proper pronunciation, proper expressions and they felt that they were disadvantaging the children and they asked the teachers not to teach isiZulu. I think that accelerated our move to get true isiZulu-speaking teachers in the classrooms.
Evidently the reaction of the parents was borne out by the need for educators to provide their children with rich linguistic input in isiZulu and thus exerted pressure on the school to appoint educators who had native competence in the language to teach the language.
While the main intention of Agents G and R in exerting pressure to have African teachers appointed at their schools was to address the language issue, the presence of African educators at their schools also had other positive spin-offs. It affirmed and empowered
African learners and allowed them to seek solidarity with such educators as was confirmed by the following response from an African educator at Agent R‟s school:
Just because sometimes these learners have difficulty to talk to the Indian teachers, maybe they are afraid, for those who are here in grade four because they are used to the African teachers. They don‟t know more about the Indian teachers, they are just afraid, some learners who were in my class they were crying very much because they don‟t want to go to that ma‟am. I said go so that you can learn.
You are here to learn, I‟m going to help you, if you have a problem you can come to me.
Although both Agents G and R strongly supported the appointment of African educators at their schools, the number of African educators varied significantly at their schools. In Agent G‟s school there were 10 permanent African educators and 3 substitutes out of a staff complement of 32 educators while in Agent R‟s school there were 3 African educators out of a staff complement of 20. The reason for the larger number of African educators in the former school is captured in the following response from Agent G:
Firstly, we have a large number of Zulu-speaking learners, over 90%
of them and secondly, as opportunities arose in terms of vacancies being created by increased PPN or by teachers resigning or terminating their services, these teachers were replaced by isiZulu- speaking teachers, with the result that we are able to accommodate at least one isiZulu-speaking teacher in each grade.
The main reason for the larger number of African educators at this school was the larger enrolment thereby increasing the school‟s PPN and creating new vacancies. Vacancies were also created by teachers resigning or terminating their services. These vacancies were then filled by African educators. While Agent R‟s school also has more than 90%
African learners, the learner enrolment is much lower and has not increased significantly in the last four years; hence its PPN had not increased significantly. In addition, there were fewer resignations or retirements at this school in the last four years. The position at his school was described by Agent R in the following response:
The point I was talking to you about change is slow, that is exactly the point G was raising. He was able to make a change at a much faster rate because he had a larger roll so there‟s more teachers but in other schools like my school now I have to wait for mortality rate to bring more teachers.
The pressure exerted by Agents R and G to facilitate the employment of more African educators at their schools was borne out not only by the imperative of demographics at their school but a genuine belief that this kind of change was vital; it was not just an act of goodwill to African learners and their parents. This was evident in the reaction against the appointment of increasing numbers of African educators especially at Willy Wonke Primary that Agent G had to contend with from his Indian educators but he was able to stand steadfast against this kind of opposition and persisted with his transformation agenda.
This part of section one examined how Agents R and G exercised pressure to change the racial composition of their staff to meet the goals of language policy and practice revision at their schools. In this sense it was evident that the intentions of Agents R and G were to acquire a large percentage of educators who were Zulu-English bilinguals and could speak isiZulu with native or near native competence to address the linguistic needs of the large number of African learners in their schools. In contemplating how pressure was exerted to initiate a change in the racial composition of a school‟s staff, the data also revealed, in full agreement with Douglas (1997), that change can be ordered or suggested by a person who has the requisite power to make or initiate the change. As opposed to Agents S and L who did not have this power, Agents R and G exercised their greater power and latitude of influence as school principals to recommend the appointment of African educators at their schools. In this respect, Fullan (2001) argues that the role of the principal is central to promoting or inhibiting change but cautions that principals should decide on the boundaries and occasions of autocracy versus democracy and that they should combine pressure and support in initiating school reform. The point is that principals should manage pressure effectively so as to encourage participation in and commitment to school reform rather than antagonizing educators and other stakeholders thereby increasing resistance to school reform initiatives.