2.4 School development in South Africa
2.4.4 The focus of school development planning
49
In Chapter Three I will present some of the tools for thinking that assist in facilitating strategic planning from a systems thinking perspective. What is presented next however, are some of the key focus areas which are elements of a bigger sub-systems involving a whole school development approach.
50
key areas that cut across all schools. School development in South Africa is totally different from what research indicates in European countries. Ngesi (2003) in his study reported that few schools had embarked on the development of School development Plans and the establishment of School Development Committees (SDC). There are a number of structures which are responsible for the functionality of the school. The co-ordination of such structures requires the leadership and management of the principal so that they work towards achieving one desired goal.
There has been research conducted on the monitoring and implementation of educational reform in South African schools. Reports which are prepared are based on the implementation of educational reforms of a wide variety (Centre for Education Policy Development, 1998, Harber & Muthukrishna, 2000). The ideological differences that shape the South African school context make it difficult to implement a one size fit all process of school development. However, this does not mean the schools cannot identify other key performance areas due to the complexity of the school system. To make an illustration of this there are a number of social ills that manifest themselves such as drug abuse, abuse of alcohol, sexual harassment, corporal punishment, early teenage pregnancy. These do not feature in the same instrument for conducting a holistic evaluation of the school. These are tendencies that have become prevalent in this decade. The other feature which has not been prevalent previously is the proliferation of satanism in which manifests itself in hysteria, and other horrendous acts of vandalism and ritual killings. Studies have been conducted which identify the gaps in the implementation of the Whole School Evaluation approach to school development in South Africa. Nkosi (2014) reports on the challenges of ―ukuthwala‖ ―bride abduction‖ which is facing some principals in rural school contexts. In the next paragraph the discussion focuses on the relationship between the context of school development and the effect it has on its character. Lopez- Yonez and Sanchez-Moreno (2013) who conducted research in difficult contexts attributed challenges to school development to the capacity to start new projects, the adoption of new ideas, the adaptation to external dispositions to new realities and characteristics. These Latin American schools were in challenging areas where they needed to cope with local contextual factors and adapt to community affiliation.
51 2.4.5 School development process and context
Literature on school development planning is broad and takes from the idea of engaging schools to move towards self-reliance and self–management as is the practice in the business word (Craith, 2003; MacGilchrist, 2000; Dempster, Kruchov & Distant, 1995; MacGilchrist
& Mortimore, 1996; Hopkins, 1995). A critical look at the literature on school development planning shows that it was conceptualised on the deterministic and total quality management based approaches (Broadhead, Hogson, Cuckle & Dunford, 1998; Cuckle, Broadhead, Hogson, & Dunford, 1998a; 1998b; Davies & Ellison, 1992). A shift in thinking from this perspective will embrace a process of development planning that is iterative and cyclic. The critique of school development planning is the tendency to be product oriented than process oriented. In this I study I argue for a shift in thinking in terms of conceiving, practicing and school development planning. The argument is based on the critique that the traditional and single loop, linear tools utilised for school development planning is not fully effective (Hargreaves & Hopkins, 1991; Stoll & Fink, 1996; Kannepel, 2000; Hopkins, Harris, Stoll &
Mackay, 2011; Mette, 2013). The prevalent practice is stuck in the mechanical analysis of individualistic factors whilst engaging in planning (Murphy, 2013; Wrigley, 2004; Peacock, 2011). Scholars advocate for a systems tools as part of the process of engaging in school development planning (Senge, 2006; Fullan, 2006). Scholars have different views about the way the school development planning tool is prescriptive (Gray, 2000; Fullan, 2006; Mette, 2013). There is a perception that school development planning is undertaken to give direction to the work of the whole school in order to ensure that learners receive quality education in terms of both their holistic development (Broadhead & Cuckle, 2002; SDPI, 1999). The key activities in the process of school development planning include the audit of the development needs, the prioritisation of key performance areas, the setting of goals and plans for addressing the identified development key areas (McNamara & O'Hara, 2008;
Leithwood, Jantzi & McElheron-Hopkins, 2005). Kannepel (2000) believes there must be a middle ground between standard based reform and rural school improvement. The standard based approach provides the schools with a set of standards which need to be adapted by the local rural schools (Kannepel, 2000). Mbokazi (2013) indicated in his findings the role of leadership in focus on managing teaching and learning and the creation of a positive school culture of high-performance and development and sustenance of relationships within and
52
outside the school community as critical for school development. However, he draws attention to the contextual factors which were militating against the improvement of results, yet the leadership of these schools was able to turn schools around inspite of adverse circumstances.
In the South African context the leading team to guide such a technical process is made up of the School Development Team (SDT) and the SGB. Scholars have emphasise the dire need for effective training of governance structures (Mgadla, 2011; Tsotesti, Van Wyk, Lemmer, 2008; Heystek, 2006; Looyen, 2000; Sibuyi, 1997). These scholars have indicated that these structures lack the capacity and skills to take school improvement to another dimension of innovation (Mgadla, 2011; Tsotesti, Van Wyk, Lemmer, 2008; Heystek, 2004; 2006). The role of a systems facilitator is to guide and steer the process of strategic planning by asking the right questions of the stakeholders. The facilitator requires special strategic planning facilitation skills in order to probe questions. The systems facilitator addresses a number of questions during the process of strategic planning. To illustrate this point further the following are some of the kind of questions that the facilitator may ask; ―Who are the customers?‖ In other words ―whom does the school serve?‖ Another follow up question will be based on the kind of service that the school provides. Linked to that question will be:
―What service does the school provide?‖ In order to follow up on this question the facilitator will enquire also about the beliefs and values that the school stands for (SDPI, 2003). The process of engaging in strategic planning as a specialised skill requires a certain level of technical skills for the principal to facilitate the process of conducting a situational analysis.
In this study I am advocating that all the structures that need to be involved in strategic planning can be trained. The SDT, SGBs and principals can be trained in such skills when approaching it form a system thinking perspective. In this linear approach, school development planning involves working on the conducting a situational analysis, identifying key performance areas, prioritising key performance areas, setting of goals and objectives, spelling out performance indicators and mapping the school development plan with realistic timeframes. In systems thinking approach as postulated by Checkland (2000) strategic
53
planning takes a different direction from the normal cyclic course envisaged by the quality management system.
Amongst some of the challenges that face school development is the failure to consider the context prevailing in the school system (Harber & Muthukrishna, 2000; Van der Berg, Burger, Burger, Louw & Yu, 2006; Van der Berg & Van der Berg, 2007; Van der Berg, 2008). The dominant discourses on school change, education reform focus on the different conceptions of school development based the contexts which influence various approaches.
The gap between the theory as advocated from the sidelines of school change and the prevailing conditions in the context of schools leaves a lot to be desired. The understanding of context influences the way people think about the interrelationship between the school community and the circumstances that prevail at school. Two decades ago Cole (1996) understood the issue of context and its complexity in terms of boundaries which are ambiguous and dynamic (Wrigley, Thompson & Lingard, 2012). Van Oers (1998) preferred to call this intellectual exercise contextualising due to the consideration of existing socio- cultural factors (Wrigley, et al., 2012). Attempts were made in England and Wales under the banner of DES project to change the school culture (Hargreaves & Hopkins 1991). The Development planning provided an illustration of an authentic school improvement strategy which was combined with curriculum innovation and the modification of the school management structure (Hargreaves & Hopkins 1991; Hopkins, et al. 2011). As the systems evolved comprehensive school improvement plans were developed for submission to authorities by individual schools. The shift towards a holistic approach included a variety of areas that were considered for improvement. There has been a strong argument to seriously consider the political and socio-economic context of the schools where school development is needed due to multiple deprivations that face the schooling system (Harber, 1999; Bertram, 1999; Fertig, 2000; Mnisi & Prew, 2001; Chikoko, Naicker, & Mthiyane, 2015).
This study takes note of the value of schools as systems that exist within context of culture which in turn impact on the school system. The above discussion indicates the value attached to the process of school development as a complex process which requires skillful facilitators and role of structures in supporting the process. In the ensuing discussion the focus shifts to the professional learning communities as a key area in the current debate in school reform.
54 2.4.6 Professional learning communities
In this study professional learning communities are taken as interconnected to school development. The idea of professional learning communities (PLCs) is being promoted in order to make a difference to school improvement. Several studies have been conducted and scholarly discourse undertaken in the global arena on professional learning communities (DuFour, 2008; Harries & Jones, 2010; DuFour & DuFour, 2013). There is consensus on the idea of establishing professional learning communities as part of school development (Fullan, 2010b; Ono & Ferreira, 2010; Hargreaves, 2012; DuFour, 2013; Jones, Stall & Yarbrough, 2013; Ash & D‘Auria, 2012; Lee & Lee, 2013). The idea of teachers working collaboratively across networks is postulated from several quarters. There is a strong belief that the formation of PLCs can add value to improvement of teacher development. The advocacy for improving teacher capacity is the responsibility of principals for purposes of school development.
Scholars value the collaborative role of principals across the spectrum of professional learning communities (Ash & D‘Auria, 2013; DuFour & Eaker, 2013; Hargreaves, 2012;
Fullan, 2011). These scholars all recommended that collaboration between the professional learning communities be strengthened amongst principals across the schooling system.
According to DuFour et al. (2013) teamwork is prioritised in order to improve results.
DuFour et al. (2013) strongly believe that if these key characteristics can be applied across the schools, districts and provincial offices they can eventually lead to learner improvement.
Ash and D‘Auria (2013) argue for collaboration across the school system in order to benefit the other levels of the schooling system. The co-authors are positive about the influence that collaborative work can have on increasing organisational sustainability. When stakeholders work together the leaders can be held collectively accountable for results (Ash & D‘ Auria, 2013). Ash and D‘Auria (2013) emphasise that the strength of the teams is in gaining synergistic collaboration that is driven by trust, capacity building and leadership. In line with the earlier contributions of Hopkins (2011) professional teaching, networks, collaboration and accountability have been postulated as the lead drivers. This idea is resonated also by Fullan (2011) and Hargreaves (2012) who support the idea of principals and teachers working across all the networks. De Witt (2012) however, in an interview conducted with Hargreaves (2012) cautions us about making assumptions about PLCs and thinking they can be a panacea
55
for our teacher development programme. Lately, twitter as part of the social networks is used by teachers to exchange ideas (De Witt, 2102). The above discussion adds value to the understanding that we need concerning the issues that are critical in professional development and their relationship to school development.
Fullan (2011) supports the idea of collaboration as espoused by DuFour and colleagues (2010) in the professional learning communities (PLCs). Fullan (2011) reported on the PLCs which were found to be making a marked improvement in some of the districts. He firmly believes that the successful implementation of PLCs depends on building of the capacity of principals and also collaboration across the schools and districts (Ibid). The current debates and issues raised above concerning professional learning communities and the networks that are used for promoting collaboration amongst the principal places value on how they can provide another angle to school development. Williams, Brien and LeBlanc (2012) outline the challenges that were faced by 50 New Brunswick schools that are attempting to implement a professional learning community approach.
In South Africa teacher development programmes have also been researched (Ono, Chikamori, Ozawa & Kita, 2007; Mokhele, 2007; Pandey, 2010; Mokhele, 2011). The professional learning communities is however different in the South African landscape due to the nature of prevalent contextual factors. In South Africa teacher clusters are being used as a substitute for the traditional approaches to professional development to help teachers reshape their professional knowledge and change their classroom practices (Jita & Ndlalane, 2009; Jita & Mokhele, 2012; Jita & Mokhele, 2014; Mokhele, 2014).
Systems thinking is regarded as significant in developing schools as professional learning communities as recommended by Wells and Keane (2008). The co-authors demonstrated how Senge‘s (2006) laws of Systems Thinking may be utilised to improve professional learning communities.
The existence of professional learning communities is of benefit to school development. In the next paragraph, I show how the continuing professional teacher development is linked to school development.
56