Chapter Six: Discussion
6.5 Models of school improvement
There are various models of school improvement which the researcher has discussed in chapter two. The researcher has found that not all of these models are being used by the schools in the area.
With regards to the model of school improvement that is proposed by McKinsey and Company (Mourshed et al., 2010), the researcher found that the schools in the area do not adhere strictly to the hierarchy of the model in terms of what is required of schools within the various stages. The schools have elements of different aspects of the model.
With regards to the “poor to fair” stage of school development (Mourshed et al., 2010), the researcher notes that within the DRF‟s partner schools there has been a focus on literacy and numeracy as is the case with all South African schools. There has also been infrastructure development within these schools with assistance from the DRF and the schools have tried to ensure that the basic needs of their learners are met through the provision of meals during lunch and food hampers which are made available to learners from child headed households.
However the schools do not use scripted teaching material; while they follow the CAPS curriculum, the planning and preparation of lessons is left up to teachers who also choose which text books they use. In terms of district visits, the researcher has found through this research study, as discussed in chapter five, that they are inadequate as schools do not receive as much support as they would like from the district. Lastly, with regards to teachers who perform well, there are no incentives in place for such teachers which could be seen as a reason for the general lack of drive and motivation.
With regards to the “fair to good” stage of school development discussed in chapter two (Mourshed et al., 2010), the researcher found that within the DRF‟s partner schools the teachers and the school are required to be accountable, as indicated in chapter five; they are responsible for ensuring that teaching and learning does take place and that they adhere to the requirements of the partnership that they have with the DRF. DRF workshops have also improved the structures of the schools; the SMTs have been equipped with managerial skills and a consultant has visited the schools to ensure that what they learn at workshops is implemented. Lastly, the schools are permitted to handle their finances on their own.
In the “good to great” stage of school development there is a focus on teacher development (Mourshed et al., 2010). At the DRF‟s partners schools the DRF has provided workshops to equip both teachers and principals with the skills that they may require to increase their ability to perform their functions within their schools effectively. There are also some schools that perform internal evaluations of their teachers, as outlined in chapter five, in order to ensure that their teachers are performing to the best of their ability.
Lastly, in the “great to excellent” stage schools are afforded more freedom, with schools focusing on within school improvement (Mourshed et al., 2010). Among the DRF‟s partner schools one notes that there are schools that have developed ways to improve from within and there are also schools which have formed networks with other schools. Additionally, every partner school has administrative assistants who handles the administration of the school.
Therefore, when reviewing the model proposed by Mourshed et al. (2010), one finds that in relation to the DRF‟s partner schools, these schools have factors that they practice across all stages and they do not adhere to the stage specific factors as outlined by the model. This highlights the complexity of the school system, as the schools have engaged in a range of strategies to ensure that they improve. It is almost impossible to determine cause and effect in school improvement due to the fact that there are so many parts within the system which are nested in each other (Byrne, 1998; Opfer & Pedder, 2011). In terms of determining what will result in school improvement, the schools and the DRF have chosen to focus on those factors which they believe to have the greatest influence on the development of the school.
With regards to the productive pedagogies model that is outlined by Lingard et al. (2003), the need for learning to be made relevant to the lives of learners is emphasised, as outlined in chapter two. The model accounts for the complexity of classroom practices which have
various influential factors at play. Within the DRF‟s partner schools, the researcher found that very few teachers made an attempt to make their lesson relevant to the lives of the learners by using the model. There could be two possible reasons for this: it could be that the teachers were unaware of the model or it could also be that the teachers at most of these schools do not have adequate content knowledge (Khosa, n.d.), as discussed in chapter five.
According to NEEDU (2012), teachers fail to implement pedagogical strategies due to their lack of content knowledge or alternatively due to their lack of complex problem solving abilities. Yet the productive pedagogies strategy could be useful within South African schools as it is a teaching strategy that acknowledges differences and take these into consideration so that learning can be made relevant to learners within the classroom.
In Hattie‟s (2009) model of visible teaching and learning he emphasises the need for teachers to determine where the learners are with regards to their learning by seeking feedback from the learners and providing learners with feedback so that they do indeed learn what is being taught in the lesson. Within the DRF‟s partner schools the researcher found that no teacher sought feedback from the learners, nor did they provide feedback. The only form of feedback that was initiated was the marking of learners‟ books, and even then the teachers did not provide valuable feedback in the form of corrections. There was only one grade one teacher that went around the class during her lesson to determine whether the learners were doing what was required of them correctly. A possible reason for this failure to provide and seek feedback on the part of teachers could be their lack of content knowledge (Khosa, n.d), as discussed in chapter five.
6.6 School improvement within a South African context
In the South African context there has been a focus on bringing to the fore a system of education that would provide an education of an equal quality to all learners. In doing so South Africa has chosen to implement a form of whole school and systemic school improvement strategies (Simkins & Pereira, n.d.; Taylor & Prinsloo, 2005). In line with South African school improvement projects such as the Quality Learning Project and the Khanyisa Education Support Programme, the DRF has also made an attempt to focus on a form of whole school improvement in order to ensure that every aspect that has an influence on increasing learner performance is addressed.
Unlike the Quality Learning Project, the DRF has not focused on the district but has focused on the school as a whole. This includes classroom practices to an extent. It has also chosen to
focus on community and parental involvement as is the case with the Khanyisa education support programme. Yet much like the Quality Learning Project, the DRF has focused on capacitating the teachers and principals within its partner schools so that they are better equipped to perform their functions within their schools.
In line with the vast amount of literature on the importance of the role of a principal within a school (Botha, 2010; Schleicher, 2012; Taylor, 2008; Van Der Linde, 2006), the CEO of the DRF also believes that the principal of a school determines whether or not the school functions and performs effectively or not, as discussed in chapter five. It is for this reason that the DRF has chosen to capacitate the principals and management teams of the schools to be able to manage and run their schools effectively so as to allow effective teaching and learning to take place.
One of the issues with regards to bringing to the fore school improvement within a South African context is the lack of support and pressure from the district offices (Chinsamy, 2002;
Creemers et al., 2007; Khosa, n.d.; Taylor & Prinsloo, 2005). The district departments are considered to be influential in determining the outcomes that a school produces yet it is often the case that the district fails to carry out its role effectively within the school system. It is for this reason that Fullan (2001) advocates that every individual that has a role within the school system, at all levels, be capacitated so as to ensure optimal performance. In line with the capacitation of personnel within the system, Fullan (2006) also advocates for a change in the culture of these individuals so that every individual within the school system shares the same drive and motivation for achieving school improvement.
Within the DRF‟s partner schools, the researcher found that the schools in the area felt that they did not receive adequate support from their district department, as outlined in chapter five. The lack of support and pressure from the district department can be regarded as a contributing factor within the school system that hinders improvement.