28
29
What is totally different about Banathy‘s (1992) review is that she draws a critique of the school effectiveness and school improvement movements for their theoretical underpinnings.
She calls for a rethinking of the way school development has been conceived, by introducing systems theory in education (Banathy, 1992; Banathy, 1996).
In this section I am elaborating on the phase of systemic education reform embracing the current education debates of conceptualising school development. The contributions to the current debate on education reform are made by many scholars, but I will cite a few due to the limited nature of this study (Fullan, 2008, 2013, Hopkins, 2013, Hargreaves, 2013, Ash &
D‘Auria, 2013, DuFour, 2013). School systems are bound by the hard to change patterns which need to be revisited and looked at from a whole systems perspective. The study further delves into the era when the main focus shifted towards scaling up education reform.
The shift from the piecemeal conceptions of school development led to the current debates on systemic school development. There has been a great interest shown by renowned scholars, researchers and policy makers on whole school reform. The educational changes cover a wide field which cannot be covered in this study. An effort however is being made to scale the current debate on the thinking regarding the upscaling of school reform. The current debate about upscaling whole school reform is supported from many quarters by scholars (Fullan, 2010a; Hargreaves, 2013; Hopkins, 2013; Ash & D‘Auria, 2012) to mention a few.
These scholars present a compelling case in support of system wide education reform. Fullan (2010a) examined what he considered as successful school reform initiatives in three countries, the USA, UK and Australia. Fullan (2010) focuses on the future of the schooling system whilst also raising concerns about the current state of education at the level of the school, district, state as well as the global arena.
The two pronged school based and national based approaches is supported from many quarters by scholars in terms of its merits (Hopkins, 2007; Barber, 2009; Hargreaves &
Shirley, 2009). Hopkins, Harris, Still & MacKay (2011) reviewed education systems across the developed world with the intention of drawing conclusions about the way education reforms are improving. Some scholars believe it is the responsibility of the principal to keep the school focused on its mission, and influences others to follow suit (Fullan, 2010a;
Habegger, 2008; Boggan, 2014). Scholars strongly emphasise the value of collective
30
capacity within the school system in order to realise the goal of school development and beyond the district schools (Fullan, 2010a; Harris & Chrispeels, 2008; Pont, Nusche &
Hopkins, 2008). The school development framework that Fullan (2010a) presents outlines the significance of precise strategies which are time framed for short periods. Scholars support the idea of principals building collective capacity through generating professional collaboration and networking across schools and district (Harris & Chrispeels, 2008; Pont, et al., 2008; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009; Fullan, 2010a). Literature supports the idea of principals improving schools by working collaboratively with all stakeholders (Fullan 2010a;
Tickly & Ngcobo, 2005; Mbugua & Raneya, 2014; Hinigh & Hooge, 2014). Scholars concur about the negative effects of overemphasing standardisation and accountability (Ash &
D‘Auria, 2013; Hopkins, 2013; Harris, 2012; Fullan, 2010a). In this phase there is a strong desire to see the shift by principals in overemphasing the use of standardisation and accountability which is considered to be a negative driver for school development (Fullan, 2011; Ash & D‘Auria, 2012; Hopkins, 2013).
Scholars recognise the value of stakeholder mobilisation towards systemic improvement (Fullan, 2011; Ash & D‘Auria, 2012; Hopkins, 2013). It is the belief of some scholars that there is value in support from all the stakeholders in mobilising a successful programme of schools development (Fullan, 2010a; Bush, 2015). In some circles other scholars claim that system improvement can be further enhanced by focusing on moral purpose and clear communication as the lead drivers (Harris, 2012; Ash & D‘Auria; 2013; Hopkins, 2013;
Wriggley, 2013). Literature contributes to the debate and claims regarding what needs to be considered for any successful systemic reform (Barnard, 2013; Ash & D‘Auria, 2012;
Hargreaves, 2013; Hopkins, 2013). There is acknowledgement by scholars of the complexities in the implementation of large scale education reform to advance it from schools to districts, regions and provinces (Fullan, 2010a; Ash & D‘Auria, 2012; Hopkins, 2013). There is great acknowledgement by some studies that cite the famous McKinsey Reports (2007, 2010) as an example of a study based on twenty education systems that were characterised as being consistent in their improvement (Mourshed, Chijioke,& Barber, 2010;
Ash & D‘Auria, 2012; Green, 2014; Hargreaves, 2013; Hopkins, 2013). The idea of looking at principals as system leaders to support schools as instructional leaders is supported form many quarters (Hopkins, 2013; Fullan, 2013; Ash & D‘Auria, 2012). The current debates
31
embraced by these scholars and researchers points to a rethinking of the way in which schooling is perceived.
Systemic reform scholars claim that capacity building and networking are the leading drivers for scaling up systemic education reform across the school, district and state, which are the three tiers of the education system (Fullan, 2011; Wrigley, 2013; Ash & D‘Auria, 2012).
There is wide support by scholars for capacity building programmes for principals that need to be extended beyond the local school boundaries (Ash & D‘Auria, 2013; Fullan, 2010a;
Hargreaves, 2013; Hopkins, 2013). The shift towards integrated and holistic thinking saw the evolution of programmes that were supported from the schools identified and informed the nine key areas of Whole School Development (WSD) (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992).
South African scholars concur on a diverse factors that led to the failure in the implementation of school development due to the reductionist and consumerist approaches that were underpinned from school effectiveness and school improvement practice (Sister, 2004; Mchunu, 2006; Dhlamini, 2009; Mntambo, 2009; Xulu, 2009; Mbalati, 2010;
Sambumbu, 2010; Mathews, 2011; Mji, 2011; Mbulawa, 2012; Van der Voort &Wood, 2013;
Van der Voort, 2014). A systems perspective recognises the complex nature and the influence of political and socio-economic context on school development (Harber, 1999;
Bertram, 1999; Fertig, 2000; Mnisi & Prew, 2001). In the South African school system it is observed that some principals do not work with the recognised structures such as the School Management Team (SMT), the School Development Team (SDT) and the School Governing Body (SGB) on issues of school improvement (Mnisi & Prew, 2001; Mji, 2011).
I argue that the way school development is conceived needs to shift from the traditional reductionist approaches in the light of complex and multiple challenges that are facing schools on a day to day basis. School development is a wide field that is linked to different ways and approaches used in engaging with it. The purpose of this study is to examine how the principals used the Systems Thinking Approach as a framework for school development.
Therefore, in the next section the study will focus on the understanding of school development as part of the review of literature. I will elaborate in-depth in Chapter Three, on
32
the understanding of systems thinking which links the review of literature in this chapter.