4.2 Presentation of findings 63
4.2.2 Principals’ enactment and enhancement of instructional leadership practices
4.2.2.1 Distributed instructional leadership 81
The findings from the data suggest that all four principals displayed high levels of distributed instructional leadership practices in their schools. Consequently, the key factors that emerged
81
were: the importance of distributed instructional leadership, strategies used to implement distributed instructional leadership, examples of distributed instructional leadership, and the benefits of distributed instructional leadership.
The first factor that the principals emphasised was the importance of distributed instructional leadership in the effective functioning of their schools. Mr Nkosi of Albatross Secondary said:
Delegation is very important in a school because a school is not a one-man show. So as a leader and a principal, you need to delegate duties to educators, HoDs and deputy principals. But this is not an abdication of your responsibilities. (Mr Nkosi)
A similar response came from the principal of Kestrel Secondary, who said:
The principal cannot do this [leadership] alone. We have got a School Management Team - the key role player in the process of teaching and learning. So we rely heavily on our HoDs, as they know the subject areas and they are entrusted with the first line supervision.
(Dr Chetty)
Findings from the interviews seem to suggest that the principals considered distributed instructional leadership as a very important practice in their schools. The general view was that a
‘hero leader’ at the top is obsolete, and not feasible in a large and diverse school organisation.
This is encapsulated in Mr Nkosi’s view that many individuals assume leadership roles in the school. Further, Dr Chetty’s view that he relied heavily on HoDs as first line managers can be best surmised by the adage, ‘two heads are better than one’. This is because HoDs have subject area expertise and are thus best placed to deal with any challenges associated with teaching and learning.
Further, the principals highlighted the strategies that they used to implement distributed instructional leadership practices. This is apparent in the following excerpts from the principals.
Mrs Naicker of Penguin Primary had this to say:
We involve the managers deeply in collegial decision-making. We have created a democratic environment where people are free to engage in robust dialogue. We have frequent subject committee meetings and we empower others to lead. I delegate tasks to people. Thus, there is constant reviewing and providing feedback. (Mrs Naicker)
82
Mr Nkosi of Albatross Secondary added that:
You must know when to delegate, although accountability still lies with you. You need to monitor the delegation, and consider people’s abilities and interests. (Mr Nkosi)
However, Dr Chetty of Kestrel Secondary took a slightly different view regarding distributed instructional leadership. He said:
I think managing teaching and learning is just too important to delegate entirely. You cannot delegate the accountability for it. Okay, you can delegate some of the responsibility. I believe if you work alongside people and also do a bit, then it is more beneficial. But I believe more effective than just delegating, is when you delegate along the continuum so that all people are doing the same thing. (Dr Chetty)
The above extracts suggest that the school principals followed certain strategies when delegating leadership tasks. Mrs Naicker and Mr Nkosi delegated tasks to individuals, but supported and monitored them in their efforts. Further, both principals were held accountable for the tasks. This seems to suggest that Mrs Naicker and Mr Nkosi adopted a nurturing and responsible role in their schools. In a similar vein, Dr Chetty endorsed the concept of delegation but believed that principals should take a hands-on approach to delegation. This shows that Dr Chetty took an active interest in school-wide issues and would thus be deeply involved in teaching and learning practices. All these strategies serve the common goal of improving teaching and learning.
The third factor that the principals discussed was specific examples of distributed instructional leadership practices. Three principals provided illustrations of delegating stock control, handling disciplinary procedures, and timetabling issues. Mrs Naicker of Penguin Primary commented:
Sometimes I need to delegate the duty of ensuring stock control. Firstly, there is the administrative function where the administrative clerk plays a role. Secondly, the HoD controls the distribution and the stock register. What is your policy regarding the safe keeping and the utilisation of stock? So I support the person to ensure that the stock is properly managed, that there is a register for effective stock distribution, and I have put procedures in place to recover the stock and monitor if it is utilised. (Mrs Naicker)
Similarly, Mr Nkosi of Albatross Secondary said:
83
The person who is in charge of discipline in the school is Mr Reddy. Even when people say that he is a racist, and treats Indian learners differently from African learners, I always check that he is consistent. So I delegate discipline and I monitor it. (Mr Nkosi)
Mr Ramdin of Robin Primary added that:
For example timetabling is delegated to a manager who puts a team together and works with the team. So the specific duties of allocating times according to the prescripts of the CAPS programme - all those kind of things and logistics are worked out. But I monitor the timeframe within which we have to work. We always have the performance indicators beforehand such as what is expected by a certain day. So whilst the timetabling committee does all the work, I am always held accountable. (Mr Ramdin)
Findings from the interviews seem to suggest that distributed instructional leadership practices were prevalent in the researched schools. By delegating tasks such as stock control, disciplinary procedures and timetabling committees, the principals displayed vision as they were willing to relinquish some power and control. The upshot of this was that other teachers would be able to develop their leadership skills and expertise. This would invariably benefit teaching and learning practices at the schools.
The fourth factor that the principals illuminated was the benefits of distributed instructional leadership. Mrs Naicker of Penguin Primary commented:
And for growth and development purposes, when you have faith in certain people - you are developing them and you are empowering them so that they grow as people. You will then find that teaching and learning is developed. (Mrs Naicker)
Mr Ramdin of Robin Primary added that:
It is not possible for any single individual to manage all aspects of school functionality. It is impossible for one person [the principal] to carry out all tasks effectively. So by delegating, one is able to reduce one’s workload. (Mr Ramdin)
The voices of the principals suggest that distributed instructional leadership empowered people with new skills and expertise. Mrs Naicker also opined that it developed trust in teachers to fulfil
84
their true potential. This is in line with The South African Standard for Principalship’s (DoBE, 2014) goal of maximising all potential resources within the school. Further, Mr Ramdin stated that dispersed leadership reduced the workload of principals. Most schools are large and complex organisations and would require many individuals to contribute to its effectiveness. Thus, it would allow principals more time to concentrate on supporting teaching and learning practices.
Similarly, the staff minutes of Penguin Primary dated 19/07/2013, confirmed that Mrs Naicker had constituted the Learning and Teaching Support Materials (LTSM) committee which engaged in regular meetings and kept proper records. The staff minutes of Robin Primary dated 21/02/2014 also indicated the composition of the “Staff Development Team (SDT) to oversee the Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS) process”. Furthermore, the staff minutes of Kestrel Secondary on 13/01/2014 thanked the timetabling committee for drawing up the 2014 timetable. Thus, the documents reviewed corroborated the findings generated in the interviews regarding the distributed instructional leadership practices at the researched schools.
The sentiments of school principals regarding distributed instructional leadership are in line with what the literature is saying. The South African Standard for Principalship (DoBE, 2014) states that principals should manage schools as successful organisations by effectively using human resources and other assets to support teaching and learning. In addition, Lee, et al. (2012) provide an in-depth account of how distributed instructional leadership practices deal with the challenges that schools face in diverse contexts. Crucially, Leithwood, et al. (2008) posit that school leadership has a greater impact on learning outcomes when it is widely distributed.
In this study, I draw on Spillane’s (2006) model in order to theorise distributed instructional leadership in schools. Firstly, the leader-plus aspect acknowledges that several people both in formal and informal positions assume school leadership roles. The findings in this study suggest that principals used teachers, HoDs and deputy principals in different leadership roles. Secondly, the leadership practice aspect focuses on the interactions among leaders, followers, and their contexts around specific leadership tasks. In this regard, the principals delegated the tasks of stock control, disciplinary procedures, and timetabling issues.
In summarising this sub-theme, the key finding that emerged was that distributed instructional leadership practices were prominent in all four researched schools. With this in mind, the key
85
factors that were discussed were: the importance of distributed instructional leadership, strategies used to implement distributed instructional leadership, examples of distributed instructional leadership, and the benefits of distributed instructional leadership.