Findings by PwC (2007) reveal that members of the SMT who are truly committed, passionately demonstrate their ability to meet and address challenges as they appear. Thus, in their quest to create a progressive learning and teaching culture in schools, Totterdell, et al.
(2011) perceive the pedagogic partnership between colleagues to be brokered and mediated through teamwork, power by senior leaders to be surrendered, and schools to be transformed into collaborative, professional learning communities. For this to happen, Grant (2006) argues that members of the SMT need to relinquish their own power and encourage their teachers to lead and manage the COLT effectively. It is further asserted by Southworth (2009) that principals, members of the SMT and teachers communally share their concerns and experiences, whilst working with and through others. According to Pratt (2014), the forms of influence of leaders’ practice include direct effects on teachers’ practice through demonstrating or modelling, and indirect effects which encompasses alterations by teachers with respect to leaders’ supervision, cooperative teamwork and shared dialogue. This exchange of ideas between leaders and teachers, whether formal or informal, leads to improved classroom practice.
Likewise, based on their study on teacher development within a community of learners, Graham and Ferriter (2010) emphasise the importance of the role of the SMT in creating a collaborative culture in which teachers learn together with shared purpose, mutual regard, and caring and integrity, with the aim of increasing learner achievement. Culatta (2012) proclaims that teachers working together as a team may prove a powerful tool for changes in teaching practice to be realised, as this had a bigger impact on teachers' beliefs, values and assumptions, than merely talking about these matters. On the issue of collaborative learning, Eaker and Keating (2012) argue that the SMT ought to jointly assist their teachers to manage classroom discipline by offering alternatives to corporal punishment, together with other strategies to help teachers function optimally. Likewise, Brandt (2016) claims that in the SMT supporting and assisting teachers to design lessons that involve learners in cooperative, developmental learning, they are ultimately guiding and correcting learners’ behaviour.
Furthermore, Brandt (2016) advocates that members of the SMT ensure that teachers build on learners’ past experiences and prior learning, and that they follow schemes of work aligned to
the education policy and also that adequate resources to promote a positive COLT are made available. For their role to be effective, the SMT is advised to urge teachers to be punctual and report promptly to class, to check the classroom environment before-hand to ensure that there is adequate seating, relevant materials, worksheets and writing implements and have ‘rules, rights, responsibilities and consequences, prominently displayed in the classroom (Smith, 2009). To this end, the DBE compiled a Manifesto on Values, Education and Democracy, whilst placing on record the basic values of equality; social justice; non-racism and non-sexism;
democracy; and Ubuntu, all of which are integral for the personal advancement of all stakeholders in the school’s population. The above expects teachers to function collegially as a unit together with previously disadvantaged learners, so as to eradicate traces of discrimination, inequity, infringement and prejudice (SADTU, 2010).
It is additionally proposed by Kallaway (2009) that in an attempt to ensure a collateral and ethical ethos, the SMT needs to function within structures that recognises equal and just rights of all. From the above, one may deduce that the SMT has an integral role to play in creating a collaborative COLT in the school as a learning organisation which fosters amicable relationships between teachers amongst each other, as well as teachers and learners. Thus, in reinforcing that the school is a structured organisation where learning takes place, it is asserted by DuFour, et al. (2010) that bringing about a cultural shift that occupies itself with upgrading classroom pedagogy is a somewhat manifold and complicated mission. Thus, many facets to bolster a comprehensive diary of PD activities soliciting school improvement, need to be drawn up. Those schools defined by a supportive infrastructure are advised by DuFour (2011) to create sequels whereby members of staff, as potential teacher leaders, are given time and opportunities to cohabit and assimilate information together, so that learners may be the beneficiaries of such productivity.
In pursuance, teacher leaders are those foster united, communal linkages with the principal, SMT members and peers, and who permit and entrust themselves and their colleagues towards realising a common vision for an enhanced school’s COLT (Crowther, et al., 2009). Thus, a crucial element is the forging of synergy and coherence amongst the staff by the SMT. In a similar vein, Osterman (2008) posits that the SMT, in approaching this venture of professional development with the mind-set that teachers are professionals and ought to be treated as such, set time aside for CPTD initiatives. Furthermore, these leaders, with the aim of improving the
COLT of schools, are compelled to offer encouragement and guidance to their learners and teachers (Osterman, 2008). This would allow for the availability of multiplex conditions favourable for experimenting, with this contextualised knowledge then leading to manageable learning.
Osterman (2008) adds that successful SMT work in collaboration with teachers, showing respect for the COLT of the school. These members of the SMT find numerous ways to build teachers’ determination and capacity to pursue their collective goals, whilst supporting and encouraging teachers to complete their tasks efficiently. As the SMT demonstrate their leadership roles, they are required to attend to the professional needs of teachers by nurturing and coaching those who display talents, and who demonstrate ingenuity, competence, prowess and dexterity (Barnett & McCormick, 2007). Militello, Rallis and Goldring (2009) additionally argue that the intents of supervision are both formative and summative. This suggests that it is in the hands of members of the SMT to create opportunities for supervision and assessment, thereby urging teachers to introspect on their own teaching pedagogy.
Thus, through teacher evaluation, members of the SMT offer teachers feedback with the intention of assuring that acceptable performance standards are maintained. In turn, this prompts teachers to extend their potential in an effort to attain the school’s visionary goals and force them to think critically so that the COLT of the school may be improved. During the post-evaluation interview process, the SMT, together with the teacher, is advised to reconstruct the lesson using notes from the SMT member’s observation. In pursuance, at the feedback session, it is suggested by Militello, Rallis and Goldring (2009) that the SMT member allows the teacher full participation for a beneficial interview. In devising a performance improvement plan, the objectives must be discussed together to ensure understanding, so that improved performance and better results may be obtained in the future. Patterns and trends arising from the teacher’s lesson should be identified by the SMT.
It is suggested that this can be followed by a constructive discussion session, using a non- critical tone, whereby the strengths and weaknesses, the areas for improvement, and recommendations for better success in the future, are identified (Barnett & McCormick, 2007).
Similarly, McFarland (2014) suggests that the SMT, in helping develop teachers professionally, are advised to offer teachers valuable, profound and genuine feedback, whilst allowing the teacher to first explain his or her views. Thus, when offering counselling and not
judgment, the SMT, together with the teacher, devises ways to improve outcomes of lessons, so that new objectives and development plans may be implemented. This may prompt them to identify areas for professional development. Nevertheless, Barnett and McCormick (2007) warn that this process is not as linear and simple as it appears to be. Although the SMT acknowledges that evaluation of teachers is an important component of their portfolio, Barnett and McCormick (2007) assert that many hesitate to hold teachers accountable for classroom performance, especially if these were unsatisfactory.
Furthermore, some teacher unions’ policies obstruct the process of evaluation of teachers by the SMT, which serves to hinder the formal evaluative process (Barnett & McCormick, 2007).
Davidoff and Lazarus (2010) espouse that the SMT ought to be knowledgeable about both digressive and erratic conditions under which schools function. This knowledge which they possess may be employed to sustain and maintain, or change things around for the betterment of the school (Davidoff & Lazarus, 2010). Thus, the actions of the SMT to yield the desired results, is linked to their power to influence others as a result of their formal leadership position as coaches and supervisors in their departments (Davidoff & Lazarus, 2010). Moore (2009) asserts that supervising encompasses the concerted attempt by someone to develop others in a manner that allows them to reach their all-round maximum level of functioning.
Bearing the above in mind, a common thread inherent in education policies is the desire for a high standard of education, making the SMT’s role an exhaustive and demanding one.
Furthermore, Bush and Glover (2008) assert that all-round improvement is reliant on the efficacious leadership of the SMT, thereby compelling the SMT to be accelerators in process of learning and teaching. To this end, the Education Improvement Commission (EIC, 2000) advocates the SIP to be a living document, its purpose being to map out those innovations required to bring about the necessary changes for the betterment of the school’s COLT. As far as the necessity of the SIP to achieve quality education is concerned, it is asserted by Van Deventer and Kruger (2008) that planning is the primary management function that members of the SMT are expected to fulfil. In view of this, it is imperative that schools have a formal School Self Evaluation (SSE) tool drawn up first, so that areas of weaknesses and shortcomings may be assessed. This then forms the basis for the SIP so that the progress of staff personnel towards whole-school development may be steered. The DBE, KwaZulu-Natal (2007) outlines specific aspects that SMTs have to bear in mind when developing and implementing the SIP,
which has to be closely monitored. These include a demonstration of knowledge pertaining to the school’s developmental improvement process, and volunteering to impart this knowledge with all concerned.
Nonetheless, although SMT members acknowledges the importance of the SIP, they lack the capacity to design and implement plans for school improvement (DBE, 2009). Duke, et al.
(2013) remind us that this is not purely a South African issue. Investigations carried out internationally confirms that the SIP, a plan regarded as a vital component for improvement, emphasises that the future of the youth is compromised if the poorly-performing schools fail to ensure productivity (Duke, et al., 2013). To this end, Naidu, Joubert, Mestry, Mosoge and Ngcobo (2008) claim that although the value of a SIP is to develop a proficient COLT, the SIP is absent at many underperforming schools. The findings mostly reveal that the SMT in the researched schools adopted a laissez-faire approach, and that although some schools had the SIPs in place, these were seldom implemented. In addition, Naidu, et al. (2008) argue that schools are requested by the DBE to annually manage the process of self-evaluation, and to generate the outcomes electronically into the SIP, which schools then have to implement and monitor. Furthermore, the DBE and UNICEF South Africa (2008) advises the SMT to support and guide teachers in identifying areas for development, and thereafter draw up the SIP for the school.
It is thus proposed that teachers themselves identify those areas in which they require development, so as to gain ownership of their professional development participation (Desimone, 2011). Correspondingly, the DBE (2007) concedes that CPTD management system expects teachers to personally take control of their self-development by first recognising those areas in which they need to professionally develop. To this end, the SMT is advised to analyse the data so as to discern those areas requiring revamping, and to put measures in place to remedy such shortcomings. An investigation conducted by Van der Voort (2013) found that the SIP of those schools which did not perform at their maximum, did not contain measurable, attainable targets, with stakeholders not being encouraged to participate in the planning process. In concurring with Van der Voort (2013), McFarland (2014) promotes the value of the SIP as an agenda and accountability tool that SMT members could use to measure and thereby improve schools’ functionality. I concur with Grobler’s (2013) proposal that the SMT create a strong and supportive organisational culture in the workplace, so as to allow teachers to apply and practice what they have learnt in training.
In addition, McFarland (2014) suggests that pivotal to a successful and effective COLT is the presence of strong SMT leadership. It is contended that their behaviours and actions may either positively or negatively influence the professional training and learning of staff. In retrospect, Darling-Hammond and Richardson (2009) note that CPD for the SMT is just as important as it is for teachers, as the SMT may not always comprehend that which underpins exceptional and worthy PD initiatives, and may not always know what teachers require as far as their training is concerned. Grobler (2013) proposes that SMT members identify the nature of teachers’
morale prevailing through the adoption of policies, practices and procedures. It is argued that members of the SMT who are committed to improving the COLT of the school play an active role through their classroom visits, demonstration of their teaching methods, and assessment of the suitability of learning materials (Grobler, 2013). Furthermore, dedicated and effective SMT members work side-by-side with teachers to maintain high curriculum standards, develop practical vision and mission statements, and set achievable performance goals and objectives.
These entail the school manager working with heads of departments, teachers, school counsellors and other staff members in order to enhance and ensure the academic achievement of learners (Grobler, 2013).
In concurring with Grobler (2013), Fullan (2011) contemplates the role played by the SMT, suggesting that the SMT engage in a number of collaborative activities characterised by teamwork and mutual communication. Fullan (2011) maintains that this interpersonal interaction between the SMT and teachers appears to be fundamental ground upon which other relationships stem from. It is espoused that if the teacher-SMT relationship is characterised by helpfulness, support and trust, so too will other relationships. Likewise, if the SMT-teacher interactions are guarded, distant or judgmental, it is likely that these traits will then permeate through the school. To this end, the relationship between SMT members and teachers appears to amplify and model what all relationships will be like (Fullan, 2011). In extension of the above, it is asserted that decision-making is the most crucial aspect of leadership, a dimension which will now be explored.