5.7. Structural and policy-driven challenges faced by district officials
5.7.2. Misalignment between district and head office and within the district offices as
128
This theme suggests that the lack of capacity of principals, SMTs, teachers, and DOs could hinder DOs endeavours from supporting teaching and learning. DOs also believed that policies of recruitment of principals were a result of this challenge.
5.7.2. Misalignment between district and head office and within the district
129
templates, one and the same, instead of taking this one thing that we have and work on it. This one wants it this way, and this one wants it that way.
Not only was the challenge of alignment between the district and the head office, but the synergy between the national structure and the provincial head office also came out as another challenge. It appeared that this anomaly created confusion in the district because of the demands from both levels. This is what DD1 said;
Sometimes there is this competition, be caught between the strategy of the province and the strategy of DBE, which takes priority, you know. The alignment of those things, you know. Somewhere we do not have to compete. DBE is expecting this;
the province will be expecting this, and they all want us. So, we needed to find a way of saying, how do we synergise some of this, so that we know that this is what we are aiming for, you know.
Synergy within the district office also came out as a challenge that hindered the operations of supporting schools. Seemingly, there was disharmony in the way the CLI unit and the circuit management unit worked. This appeared to be affecting the curriculum support (CLI) sub- directorate. This is how one participant shared his view;
IDSOs, I think mainly in some districts, it is a problem that there is no synergy between circuit management and CLI. There are challenges that we experience.
For instance, there are administrative problems. You have HoDs that are not doing their jobs, but sometimes, you see the teachers do not take the facilitators very, very serious; principals do not take facilitators very seriously. But if the IDS can come in and support us, I think it will solve many problems where they can help us and support us to close those gaps. DCLI1
It appeared that DOs did not accept the introduction of the circuit as a substructure of the district. This structural change resulted in upsetting the modus operandi of supporting schools.
Participants believed that it was better when there were no circuits in the district because support could be distributed across without hindrances. CLI2 summarised just how the restructuring of the districts hampered their process of supporting schools.
I must say, it came as a big challenge for me. From 2012, our province introduced restructuring and come up with a circuit way, we did not work in circuits, but now
130
we have circuits. In our district, we have five circuits, and in the five circuits, there is a Circuit Manager with three IDSOs. When the restructuring came, I am alone at CLI, and they took subject advisors and spread them into this circuit, which makes life now not so easy. Now I am in a situation whereby Circuit Manager wants to do something with the circuit, with the circuit team. Mina [I] now, I have a whole calendar full of activities from Head Office, issues that we have seen during the year, a whole program that I must also implement. Circuit wants their people; I also want them. Now there is this clash that is going on. So, now coordinating activities, it is a big deal for me. Sometimes I would say, we have management plans to say, okay, fortnightly they will go to the circuit on a Friday. However, sometimes we find the circuit wants them on that week; then, I cannot see them. So, also, it is an issue of ukuthi [that], how do we coordinate. But we try. We are still trying. And who is suffering? The school. The school suffers and, most of all, the child.
A similar view was shared by DCLI2, who shared his experience on how restructuring into circuits resulted in CLI official not to able to attend some meetings because of clashes:
But unfortunately, the problem is, there are now five circuits. Now they will have their circuit meetings in the week, maybe on Tuesday or Wednesday and I cannot be at every meeting, and so that is the challenge. And previously, it was different, there was only one Coordinator for all the IDSOs, and he will call one meeting, where I can also be, or my senior can be as well. Now that is a challenge DCLI2
Another participant highlighted that district restructuring into circuits made it difficult for DOs to share practices across all schools in the districts. From her account, it appeared that the introduction of circuits implicitly clustered schools according to socioeconomic status. As a result, it impacted negatively on collaboration across schools. CLI1 expressed her view;
With subject information-sharing meetings that I spoke about earlier, we would mix educators because we want people to share good practice. Because good practice does not only come from us, it comes from schools also…Now, unfortunately, this modelling now the white [urban school] teachers now are on their own. And sometimes our underperforming schools - and traditionally it will be our black schools - you find that you know, somewhere you need this expertise. You are not
131
able to have it because now, you know, schools are grouped into circuits… But because Head Office wants us to report per circuit, you know, we are forced. CLI1 Few participants also shared structural challenges the district faced, which were based on IDSOs unhappiness about their role in the district. This hampered the day-to-day work of supporting schools. They mentioned that policy changes were the cause of this challenge. This is how DD1 and DD2 shared their views;
And also, you know, the issue of the Cluster Leaders in this province, where there is still resistance by the Cluster Leaders, to say they should have been called Circuit Managers and not Cluster Leaders. These IDSO currently are fighting for the term, Circuit Manager. Now they decided, some of them, to withdraw their services, up until this matter is addressed, you see. But now, while doing that, they are not servicing schools the way they are supposed to.
There are tensions in the GDE regarding the post of IDSOs wanting to be Circuit Managers, we sort of lost some IDSOs. We feel that we cannot continue to be caught in issues that are policy; the issue of IDSO Circuit Managers is a policy matter, and it has been dealt with. So, for me, that is a limitation. Because IDSO’s are at the chalk face of the school, almost on a daily basis.
From the above quotes, there seems to be a challenge for DOs in coordinating support activities for schools because of the circuit restructuring that has been introduced. This is contradictory to the assertions that DOs made previously in this chapter, where DOs shared their experiences on how they work together to synergise their leadership roles, see page 32. Furthermore, from the above excerpts, it appears that national policies could hinder DOs while attempting to support teaching and learning in schools. While national policies are imposed on district officials, DOs need to manage the environment so that it does not impact much on their daily operations. This explains what open systems theory and PELP Coherence Framework postulate as important (Childress et al., 2007; Hoy & Miskel, 2008; Scott, 2003)