2.5 Some key district leadership practices that enhance teaching and learning
2.5.1 Establishing and communicating shared vision and mission
32
local literature does not give insights into the DOs’ functions and practices. Hence, this study attempts to address this void in the literature.
In this discussion, it has been emphasised that while districts are acknowledged as an essential level that offers support to schools, the education system in SA is yet to change. Honig (2012, p. 735) posits that district offices were “originally established and have historically operated to carry out a limited range of largely regulatory and basic business functions – not to support teaching and learning improvement.” Rorrer et al. (2008) reported that education improvement policies favoured school-based management, which excluded district offices and entrusted responsibility for learning outcomes to principals and school-level management. According to Honig (2013, p. 1), this resulted in a “mismatch” between the conventional roles of district offices inclined to compliance and the much-needed key role that focuses on teaching and learning. Despite the anomaly that seems to dominate, scholars have recently begun to illustrate practices of district offices that have focused their energies on supporting teaching and learning in schools. The next section details these practices. Even though little research has been conducted in SA on the role of the DOs to support teaching and learning, the literature highlights the need for DOs to develop and support principals, School Management Teams (SMTs) and teachers to enhance learning outcomes.
33
involved in teaching and learning to build a shared understanding of a purposeful direction and a set of core goals to support the direction, which is a challenge that educational leadership must tackle to be successful (Fullan, 2010). Sharing similar sentiments, DuFour and Marzano (2011, p. 29) state that “the willingness to articulate fundamental goals, the strategies for achieving those goals and the indicators that will be used to monitor progress towards the goals are vital to effective district leadership.” Furthermore, Leithwood and Riehl (2003, p. 3) suggest that “effective leaders help their schools develop or endorse visions that embody the best about teaching and learning [by inspiring] others to reach for ambitious goals.” Fullan (2010) further elaborates by identifying leadership components for DOs to pursue the moral purpose of education with learning improvement. These include building relationships among DOs, with schools as well as communities.
For realising this vision of schooling, it is important that educational systems understand the moral purpose of education. In his book, The Moral Imperative of School Leadership, Fullan (2003) argues that the most powerful lever for continuous large-scale school reform and for changing the context of the present schooling experience is the moral purpose of public schools. This theorist pronounces:
[The] moral purpose of the highest order is having a system where all students learn, the gap between high and low performance becomes greatly reduced, and what people learn enables them to be successful citizens and workers in a morally based knowledge society (Fullan, 2003, p. 28).
Connecting school leadership to student learning as part of a moral imperative is the need for bridging the learner achievement gap while sustaining improvement across all schools (Leithwood, 2010). This seems critical in the effort to transform education systems to prepare learners better to sustain themselves and integrate well into the industrial society. According to Childress et al. (2007), a district's mission and vision can infuse into the system through theory or action by articulating statements of beliefs that guide the district in selecting strategies intended to have a considerable impact on the instructional core. District Officials also need to spend considerable time and energy on addressing the vision and mission issues with the aim of redefining district and school cultures (Fullan, 2007; Louis et al., 2010; Leithwood & Louis, 2012). Additionally, Louis et al. (2010) found that districts should be very clear and repetitive
34
when communicating their agenda for student learning. They further concluded that district leaders should be visible and articulate and cooperatively work together in the district so that all convey the message collectively. Consistent with the work of Fullan (2007, see also Bennis
& Nanus, 1997), DuFour and Marzano (2011) recognise the importance of a guiding vision and strong relationships. They assert that “the ability to articulate a realistic, credible, and attractive vision of the future that connects to the hopes and dreams of others is a defining skill of an effective leader” (DuFour & Marzano, 2011, p. 202). The best leaders link these two concepts, the vision and the importance of the work; they help to build a sense of empowerment and commitment. They advise district leaders that they need to link the vision of the district:
To the hopes and dreams of those [they] serve. Work with a guiding coalition to develop the specific actionable steps [DOs] will take to move towards the vision.
Then constantly remind…staff of the importance of their work by linking it to a higher purpose (DuFour & Marzano, 2011, p. 203).
Essential to the leaders in realising the district's mission and vision is the idea of “helping staff to develop shared understandings about the school and its activities as well as goals that undergird a sense of purpose or vision” (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008, p. 507). Leithwood (2010) concluded in his comprehensive review of research that high-performing districts develop a shared vision that focuses on closing performance gaps and ensuring that all students perform to high standards. Furthermore, Marzano and Waters (2009, p. 7) found that high-performing districts typically did not adopt a single frame for teaching and learning. However, they adopted
“a broad but common framework for classroom instructional design and planning that guarantees the consistent use of research-based instructional strategies in each school.” In addition, five districts studied by Togneri and Anderson (2003, p. 15) defined their vision for teaching as a practice that involved reflection, wherein teachers
“actively engage students in rigorous content, assess the impact of instructional methods, reflect on their practice, work with colleagues to research and share effective practice, and make appropriate adjustments to help students learn effectively”.
In these districts, the strategic plan encompassed comprehensive goals and strategies. What emerged as prominent in this study was the extent to which these districts used their visions and goals to guide instructional improvement. These goals were “increasing achievement for
35
all students, improving instruction, creating a safe and supportive environment for students and involving parents and the community” (Togneri & Anderson, 2003, p. 12).
Morever, from the literature, it appears that there is a need for a district’s vision and beliefs for learner achievement to be a shared endeavour by all staff in the district, including schools (Honig & Rainey, 2015; Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010; Leithwood, 2010; Levin et al., 2012).
Hence, communication is key to actualising the vision and goals into everyday practice (Fullan, 2007). Communication serves as the means for leaders to improve their work with various schools to instil the vision. While traditional communication tools are still seen as important, the emergence of social media calls for educational leadership to shift their thinking to incorporating social media technologies in their day-to-day work. This is because social media tools allow for greater interactions between educational leaders and their stakeholders and can significantly influence school personnel and the district. Hence leaders should take social media use as an expectation, not just an option (Cox, 2012). Using these tools, Protheroe (2008, p. 38) posits that district leaders need to communicate “a clear and unwavering message [that]
low expectations for any group of students was unacceptable.” DuFour and Marzano (2011, p.
198) caution against letting vision, planning, and conversation be a substitute for “purposeful action,” hence district leaders need to “engage others in clarifying the very specific steps that must be taken.” These authors discuss the need to be explicit and contend that DOs habitually
“rely on generalities of ‘we want all schools to focus on teaching and learning rather than clarifying the actionable steps they expect schools to take” (DuFour & Marzano, p. 33).
Furthermore, Cawelti and Protheroe (2003) contend that it is not enough only to create compelling images about the district’s future. However, district offices should develop programmes, plans and teaching strategies that lead to improved learner achievement. Louis et al. (2010) argue that this leads to a gap between visioning and bringing the vision to being. The section below discusses another leadership practice of DOs: district instructional focused leadership practice.