In examining the challenge of taking charge of the instructional programme as outlined by Hallinger and Murphy (1985), it is argued that the SMT and teachers need to work in conjunction with each other in curriculum matters and educational issues. Thus, the job description informing the portfolio as espoused by Hallinger and Murphy (1985) includes curriculum co-ordination, mentoring and assessing classroom practices, and evaluating learner progress, all of which is explored in greater detail.
3.16.1 The coordination of the curriculum
Day (2011) claims that the educational programme featured in a school includes co-curricular and extra-curricular activities. Effective members of the SMT are therefore urged by Day (2011) to consciously involve teachers in curriculum planning and development, thereby encouraging them to take ownership of decisions. Thus, as instructional leaders, SMT members are expected to provide potential avenues for the fruitful practices in syllabus development and application Day (2011). This has a ripple effect, as teachers’ commitment to the COLT of the school is ensured, which, in turn, results in learners being offered and provided
with enriching educational experiences. Furthermore, Day (2011) warns that although instructional leaders do not need to possess expert knowledge in syllabus matters, they nevertheless ought to be familiar with foundational literature with regard to the development of the syllabus.
Sim (2011) suggests that empowered leaders lead by example in educational matters as they review artifices and assets in the different learning areas. In addition, it is recommended that teaching be aligned with curriculum, as this encourages teachers and others to engage in the professional development initiatives whereby guidelines and recommended revisions to the instructional programme is examined. To this end, Sim (2011) advises that local, provincial or national standards should also be integrated into curriculum and instruction, whilst testing and assessment procedures ought to be reviewed. Furthermore, it is urged that the assistance of curriculum development specialists from within and outside the school, ought to be enlisted in helping facilitate professional development in the area of curriculum development (Sim, 2011).
3.16.2 The role of the SMT in supervising and evaluating instruction
Goslin (2009) submits that members of the SMT need to perceive themselves as ‘teachers of teachers’, to be role-models and to walk-the-talk in their mission of providing encouragement and support to teachers. Thus, in their quest to develop teachers professionally, SMT members are urged to provide instructional support in the form of monitoring, supervising and evaluating teachers’ delivery in the classroom, ensuring that this is aligned to the predetermined objectives and purposes of the school. In concurring with Enueme and Egwunyenga (2008), Goslin, 2009) suggests that SMT members use their wealth of teaching experience to participate in some teaching. In engaging with the curriculum at grassroots level, this may help members of the SMT, who are thus undergoing similar experiences, to acquire first-hand information of challenges experienced by teachers, so that they can address these challenges whilst offering support to teachers under their care (Goslin, 2009). By the same token, it is envisaged that this evaluative practice will promote the ideology of the SMT gaining legitimacy in the eyes of teachers (Enueme & Egwunyenga, 2008).
In a similar vein, Grobler and Conley (2013) deem the assessing and monitoring of teachers’
performances to be debatable, since it is not a clinical process, lending itself to subjectivity as it is based on the relationship of the school leader with the teacher under scrutiny. In
distinguishing between supervision and evaluation, supervision would appear to more effective as it centres on assisting teachers, whilst evaluation is viewed negatively since this judges and rates teachers. Grobler and Conley (2013) add that effective instructional leaders are those who carefully plan for teachers to have adequate feedback and information to assist them in their professional growth and development. To this end, Loock, Grobler and Mestry (2006, p.
63) posit that the following functions which teacher evaluation may fulfil include a ‘formative function’ for teachers acquisition of skills for effective teaching; a ‘summative function’ which may be used when assessing teachers’ competence for promotion purposes; a ‘socio-political function’, which is employed when SMT members desire teachers to adopt specific teaching techniques for better practice; and an ‘administrative function’ which provides the platform for members of the SMT to employ their authority when advising teachers accordingly.
In concurring with MacBeath and Dempster (2009), Bush (2013) concede that although different purposes for evaluating teaching personnel exists, the focus of the instructional leader in performance evaluation, centres around promoting the professional growth and development of teachers. It is envisaged that this, in turn, would improve learner achievement (Bush, 2013).
In line with Moore’s (2009) assertion, Bush (2013) claims that a principal may contribute meaningfully to their teachers’ professional development through word and deed, thereby placing emphasis on improving teaching and promoting learning. This involves teachers in planning, implementing and assessing supervision and professional development; utilising experts in supervision and professional development as consultants; providing options or alternatives to traditional practices of supervision and professional development; and drawing links between professional development and learner achievement. In light of the above, the school leader’s role in monitoring learner progress, with the view of improving the school as a whole, will now be determined.
3.16.3 Monitoring learner progress
Stiggins and Duke (2008) claim that as instructional leaders guiding and assisting teachers to engage in sound assessment practices, SMT members both directly and indirectly accepts responsibility for learner achievement. Observations by Day (2011) shows that effective members of the SMT acquaint themselves with the various methods of assessment as well as the innovative ways in which assessment may be conducted. Likewise, productive members of the SMT are renowned for eliciting and analysing relevant data so that these may be
employed to inform the school improvement plan (SIP), and to revamp the educational programmes and practices of the school (Blasé, et al., 2010). Likewise, Van der Voort (2013) maintains that SMT members must ensure that their assessment systems provide information in various contexts to support or verify learners’ learning and teacher’ teaching.