PRESENTATION OF DATA
4.5 DECISION-MAKING: A CONSULTATIVE PROCESS?
Literature has shown that the success or the failure of any educational organisational depends largely on the quality of decision-making (Everard, Morris & Wilson, 2004). In this section, indications from data revealed that there were various types of decisions taken by the principal of the case study school. In some cases, decisions were taken before consultation and later sold to teachers while, in another situation, decisions were taken through voting or through mutual agreement among the staff. Indications from across the data sets confirmed the fact that staff and briefing meetings of the case study school took place primarily for decision-making.
4.5.1 Varying degrees of decision-making
In this section, I discuss varying degrees of decision-making by the SMT of the case study school. For example, questionnaire data indicated that all the SMT members of the school agreed that they always tried to include one or more members in determining what to do, and how to do it; however, they maintained the final decision-making (SMT Q 9, p. 3). Still on decision-making result from data revealed that most of the SMT members agreed that they always voted whenever a major decision had to be taken during the staff meetings (SMT Q 10, p.3). However, indications from my observation notes were that participants, in some situations, unanimously agreed on major issues during staff meeting, but not through voting.
For example, in one of the staff meetings observed, when a decision was to be taken on
58 criteria for students’ promotion to the next class, it was observed that teachers brought forward suggestions and, after much argument, they eventually agreed on certain passes as criteria for promotion. My observation notes read “it was time for decision-making on the number of passes to be considered for promotion. There was an open invitation by the principal for them to determine the number of passes for promotion” (O, p. 3, 20/07/2012).
The observation note further indicated “later they all eventually agreed on X passing after a heated debate”.
In addition, the whole population of the SMT strongly agreed that they believed in consultation and sharing of ideas with their staff. This view was confirmed in the staff meeting conducted on 18 January, 2011. This quality was demonstrated by the principal when all the staff members of the case study school agreed on special arrangement on the coaching of the final year students. After all the staff had agreed, and the principal was consulted, he concurred with the wish and agreement of the majority. The secretary in her minute of the meetings book wrote that “Mrs X suggested the adjustment of the time table to one hour, Mrs Y supported the idea and that all students should be put together while the principal agreed to the special arrangement” (Do, p. 6,-18/01/2011).
Questionnaire data further indicated that most of the teachers agreed that decisions were taken through mutual agreement among staff members during staff and briefing meetings, while a few were of the view that decision-making was primarily the domain of the principal (T Q 4, P. 8). However, this belief by both the SMT members and teachers was contrary to the observation carried out. In the staff meeting I observed there was heated debate before they arrived at a particular decision (O, p. 3, 20/07/2012). This was not mutual. However, documentary evidence revealed that in another staff meeting on the promotion of students, mutual agreement prevailed. For example, the secretary noted in her minutes of staff meetings that “having gone through the table, the whole house agreed to X number of passes” (Do, p. 3, 21/09/2010).
4.5.2 Staff involvement in decision-making
Indications from the data revealed that many teachers were involved in decision-making in the case study school. The principal of the case study school supported the notion of teacher leadership and believed that teachers could and lead. This he demonstrated by involving his teachers in decision-making, For example, in one of the school staff meetings, a staff member suggested having a bank account for social issues and other social commitments. This
59 suggestion was equally unanimously supported. The secretary wrote in her minutes of school staff meeting that “…Mrs T was therefore asked as the chairperson of the social committee to go and open a bank savings account” (Do, p. 2, 15/04/2011). In another staff meeting, as already mentioned in section 4.5.1, one of the teachers suggested the extension of lesson period from 40 minutes to one hour for the final year students for them to be able to cope very well academically. This decision was unanimously accepted and ratified by the whole house including the principal of the school. The secretary noted in her minutes of meeting that “Mrs B suggested the adjustment of the school time table period to extend to one hour, Mrs X supported the idea and the whole house agreed including the principal” (Do, p. 6, 18/01/2010). I repeat this quotation from the secretary’s note to show how teacher leadership was enabled; however, this example is more teacher management rather than teacher leadership. In relation to decision-making, staff believed their principal was democratic. Data indicated that majority of the teachers (77%) agreed that their principal’s leadership style was democratic, while only 11% of the teachers believed that it was authoritarian type of leadership (T Q 2, p. 7). Majority of the teachers who agreed that their principal used a democratic leadership style gave reasons for their claims. Some believed that the principal was democratic because he provided room for teachers to express their feelings and opinions, that he allowed room for interactions, gave room for freedom of expression and allowed teacher participation in decision-making. For example, T-1 said that “the principal allows the teachers to participate in decision-making process before a decision is taken” (T Q 2, p. 7).
T-2 argued that “before a decision is taken, a staff meeting is usually called and base on the staff interaction, decision are taken” (T Q 2, p. 7). In support of this claim, T-3 said “my principal is democratic in nature because he gives everybody working under him chance to contribute to the development of the school and he doesn’t dominate” (T Q 2, p. 7). However, 12% of the teachers had contrary opinion. For example, T-4 said “he exercises his authority with little or no time for you to question his order” (T Q 2, p. 8).
4.5.3 Parental involvement in decision-making
Indications from the data revealed how powerful and influential some parents and community people were in the organizational structure of the school when it came to the issue of decision-making. For example, when one of the teachers was interviewed as to whether or not the school ethos encouraged or discouraged him to take a lead in decision-making in the school, he argued that “no, not at all, there are a lot of barriers militating against taking such
60 a step in decision-making in the school. Some of these include: the environmental and political factors and community people as well” (SRI, p. 9, 20/07/2012). He further said that if a teacher or principal steps on the toes of some parents when taking certain decisions, “they (the parents) can use their political influence to remove you from office”. In other words being the principal of the school did not make any difference in relation to parents.
In another development similar to the situation above, some parents came to the school to complain that their children were not promoted due to their low academic performance in the promotion examinations conducted in the school. Despite this, they wanted their children to be promoted. In response, the principal explained that there was nothing that could be done.
The secretary, in her minutes, quoted the principal as saying that “he (principal) wondered why students and parents would be requesting for such considerations, but because of the environmental factor, there was nothing the school can do” (Do, p. 5, 18/01/2011).
In an interview with one of the teachers of the school to elaborate further on what the principal meant by environmental factors, he spoke extensively on the issue. He said the principal was referring to the low academic performance of the students and the negative attitudes of many of the parents that contributed toward the falling standard of education in the state. He spoke of the non-availability of some infrastructural facilities that could go a long way to enhancing effective learning. However, when the school asked students to contribute money for the provision of such amenities, “the parents would go and report the school to the Governor through various radio programmes run by the government to hear the views of the people on state of things in the state” (SRI, p. 10. 20/07/2012). This teacher also said “the state government, is only in some cases playing politics with free education in the state, this is because essential facilities are lacking and any attempt by the school management to ask students to contribute money, the parents would say after all, ‘education is free’ and this is affecting effective teaching and learning in the school” (SRI, p. 11.
20/07/2012).
In my next section, I discuss leadership practices that were prevalent in the case study school.