2.4 School development in South Africa
2.4.2 Partnerships and networks for school development
40
41
The disjointed nature in which these initiatives were implemented led to schools failing to sustain what was invested by the NGOs due to the lack of ownership. To cite a few examples of these initiatives we are presenting those that were researched. The latest South African school reforms and development projects such as Dinaledi Project, UNIVELAMASHI, Education Project (SEED), the Soshanguve School Development Project (SSDP) and the District Development Support Programme (DDSP), the Quality Learning Project (QLP), Mpumalanga Secondary Science Initiative (MSSI) have tended to adopt a systemic approach to school transformation (Kanjee & Prinsloo, 2005; Chinsamy, 2013). This involves focusing on all levels of the system: classroom, school, and development of education in the quest to ensure that quality teaching and learning is provided and supported.
In the UNIVEMALASHI Project, which was a district‐level systemic reform initiative for teacher development, it was found to be successful in improving the content knowledge, skills and attitudes of 110 participating foundation phase (6–9 years) teachers during the first three years of its implementation (Onwu & Mogari, 2004). The Mpumalanga Secondary Science Initiative (MSSI) study focused for seven years on science and mathematics professional development intervention. Mokhele (2010) stated that CPD (Continuous Professional Development), however well-intentioned and executed, is received differently by each teacher as a result of their personal circumstances and investment in the programme.
The self-evaluation is conducted by the school community and forms the basis of the school improvement plan.
Bertram (1999) recommended a shift towards a holistic approach to school development planning, which have been embraced by several systems scholars as critical in dealing with complex school issues (Mathews & Jones, 2008; Prestige, Siegrist, Green, Brockneir, Tsemuchu, Pate, 2013; Barnard, 2013;Steele, 2014; Peurach, 2013; Lunenberg, 2015). These scholars recommend that principals shift their role towards being a system thinker whose role is to facilitate school development programmes (Fullan, 2010a, 2012; Ash & D‘Auria; 2013;
Hopkins; 2013). Scholars concur that principal system leadership plays a critical role in facilitating the process of school development of any nature (Hopkins & Higham 2007; Pont, Nusche & Hopkins, 2008; Hargreaves, Hola & Pont, 2008; Southwork & Du Quesney, 2005;
42
Pont, Nusche & Moorman, 2008). With the systems thinking approach there is a shift in thinking towards moving from the product of the school development plan to the process of change that needs to take place in schools. According to Haynes, Emmons, Gebreyesus and Ben-Avie (1996) school development is a system whereby changes and innovations of any part are considered to affect the interrelated parts. In a study conducted by Miller- Grandvaux, Welmond and Wolf, (2002) the role of NGOs in education particularly in Africa is discussed in detail, as well as their contribution to the education system. Sean Morrow (in Chisolm, 2005) outlines the historical background, critical challenges of NGOs and their adaptation to the dynamic changes in South Africa.
School development planning in a linear and atomistic approach ends up being non- sustainable due to lack of skills and also lack of ownership by the stakeholders (Gray &
Wilcox, 1995; Taggart & Sammons, 1999; Bell, 2002; Skidmore, 2004; Gustafsson, 2007).
The other angle of school planning is a holistic approach which can usher various approaches which are peculiar to the school systemic issues (Taggart & Sammons, 1999; Supovitz, Taylor, 2005; Fullan, 2006; Hargreaves, Halasz & Pont, 2007; Hallinger & Heck, 2010;
Morrison, 2013). With a holistic strategy school development becomes a systemic way of dealing with issues which indicate the interrelationships of all the elements of the school (Senge, 1999; Hopkins, Harris, Stoll & Mackay, 2011). The discussion below shows what can be learned from the work that was conducted by NGOs with regard to school development.
There are lessons that we can still gain from a study that was conducted two decades ago by scholars researching the role of NGOs working in partnership with schools for purposes of school development (Bertram, 1999; van Wyk & Lemmer, 2007; Prew, 2009; Myende, 2014). The NGO and donor funded approach to school development lacked sustainability of programmes due to lack of continuity in the funding to upscale these partnerships. The dynamic and complex nature of schools suggests that this approach cannot be a one size fits all, as schools have diverse needs and are located in diverse contexts. The sustainability of the programmes needs principals and SMT members to be systems learners in order to carry the process of school development (Hargreaves, 2006; Fullan, 2010a). There are suggestions based on scaling up systemic reform that can be identified with improving the capacity of the principal and SMT as key players to sustain school improvement in a learning organisation
43
(Fullan & Barber, 2010; Joseph & Reigeluth, 2010; Fullan, 2011; Hopkins, 2010; Moloi, 2010; Pont, Nusche & Hopkins, 2008).
Fullan (2010b) prefers to the principal‘s moral purpose, capacity building and partnerships amongst schools as the contribution to school development across schools. The lack of capacity in some districts to manage partnerships with the private sector and NGOs can also be a stumbling block to effective school development (Hampel & Isaacs, 2006). The idea of working with partners in underperforming schools cannot be promoted, unless the district has played its role of attending to prevailing issues of conflict, poor morale and lack of discipline (Gallie, 2007; Hampel & Issacs, 2006). Xaba (2006) points out the pivotal role that is played by the stakeholders, especially the governors for an effective school development. Maswela (2009) also cautions about the dependence on funding as key sustainability feature of school improvement. Sambumbu (2010) observed that the implementation of school development prevails much better in schools where there is a democratic, participatory, and transformational culture. Studies support the role of NGOs in supporting school improvement in diverse interests which include addressing social ills, developing infrastructure, providing resources, supporting the curriculum and other aspects leading to school development (Grandvaux, Welmond & Wolf, 2002; Khamba, 2006; Berg, Maleville
& Blank, 2006; Mazibuko, 2000).
The examples clearly show the prevalence of wide consultation in the South African School development concept (Clarcke, 2007; du Plooy & Westraad, 2004; Nelson Mandela Foundation, 2005). From these examples it can be concluded that South Africa is stuck in the reductionist and consumerist approaches to school development. The systemic thinker skills that are needed by principals are pivotal in sustaining school development (Fullan, 2010c, Ash & D‘Auria, 2010; Pont & Hopkins, 2008). In the next paragraph I will draw the reader to the understanding of strategic planning and its value to school development.
44 2.4.3 Strategic planning process and context
Many studies in the South African context expose the diverse contextual factors in both rural and township schools that hinder strategic planning for school development (Chikoko, Naicker & Mthiyane, 2015; Lumby, 2015; Maringe & Relebohile, 2015;Maringe, Masinire &
Nkambule, 2015; Moletsane, Juan, Prinsloo & Reddy, 2015; Van Wyk & Moeng, 2013). In this study I will show that the sampled schools have all these features considered to have multiple deprivations. This will be further indicated later in Chapter Five, where the profiles will be further elaborated, preceding the presentation of data these five cases. Therefore, it is against this background that I argue about the role of strategic planning from a systems thinking perspective as the framework for this research. Strategic planning is a process whereby leadership engages other stakeholders for the purpose of driving towards school development (Davies, 2011; Pisadia, Reyes-Guerra, & Coukos-Semmel, 2005; Pisadia &
Reyes-Guerra, 2007). There are diverse perspectives on strategic planning which cannot be reviewed in this limited study (Andersen, 2000; Davies & Ellison, 2003; Phillips, 2010;
Freeman, 2010; Orlitzky, Siegel &Waldman, 2011). The process of engaging in school development planning is intended to implement change and innovation, the outcome being school improvement (Cuckle & Broadhead, 2003; Davies & Ellison, 2003; Hargreaves &
Hopkins, 2004; Ainscow, Beresford, Harris & Hopkins, 2013). There is widespread belief that the nature of strategic planning as an exercise is that it requires time and effort and a number of technical and analytical skills (Bush, 2015; Male & Palaiologou, 2015; Chan, 2014; Mbugua & Raneya, 2104). For a comprehensive long-term planning process then all the stakeholders and participants are supposed to put aside time, effort, and passion and embrace strategic and systems tools as some of the skills in order to achieve this task. Albert and Grzeda (2015) suggested new ways of handling ideas to improve decision making by stimulating critical thinking, reflection and synthesis, and using heuristics effectively. They believe that it is critical to leverage the strategic thinking tools is such a way that it facilitates reflection and critical thinking and moves beyond analysis to application on suggested interventions (Ibid). The co-authors indicate the shortfall of strategic planning whereby facilitators and stakeholders are unable to utilise mental models and concept mapping as tools for thinking (McLaren, Vuong, & Grant, 2007). This a systems thinking approach which calls
45
for identification of the root problems and illustrating their interconnection by multi-cause diagrams (Batra, Kaushik, & Kalia, 2010).
It is observed that several strategic sessions are conducted without any consideration of showing the interconnection between the problematic issues. This is attributed to lack of understanding the skills for systems thinking. Gilbert (2013) is of the opinion that the complex issues that are identified need a systems understanding and the use of appropriate systems tools. Gilbert (2013) suggests that stakeholder engagement is key to the collaborative effort required for the intended outcomes of the strategic session. The narrow strategic guidelines have been challenged for revolving around routinely formalised stages involving decision-making about structure, leadership, policies, procedures, incentives, roles, culture, monitoring, and control systems (David, 2011;Thompson, Strickland & Gamble, 2010;
Albert & Grzeda, 2015).
Scholars emphasize the role of leadership and management in strategic planning and decision- making in organisations (Bunning, 1992; Floyd & Woolridge, 1992; Floyd & Lane, 2000). Strategic planning can take the form of an annual ritual or consensus seeking approach, depending on the leadership that prevails in the institution (Bunning, 1997;
Beinhocker & Kaplan, 2002). In view of the above, I argue that systemic leadership, can provide the needed catalyst for school development to be scaled across the school, district and state tiers of the education system. Scholars understand the role of governance, which shows the level of networking required for effective strategic planning (Kersbergen &Van Waarden, 2004; Pollit, 2003; White, 2001). In view of the level of turbulence in the environment, strategic partnerships are critical for organisational development (White, 2001;
Johanson, 2009). A combination of key elements of the deterministic and complexity approaches is to needed to craft and align the strategy. Hence, the significance attached to systems leadership that knows how to work in conditions which may seem to be in contradiction (Johanson, 2009). In view of the environmental influences on organisations, strategies are based on assumptions about systems. Organisations may be viewed as open, closed and non-systemic systems (Johanson, 2009). Emery and Trist (1965) describe the environment which influences our thinking about organisations as either being, placid randomised, placid clustered, disturbed-reactive and turbulent. The open- systems view is in
46
contrast with the closed and functionalist approach, which fails to consider emergent and unpredictable outcomes (Luhmann, 1995).
I argue that the present process of strategic planning is stuck in a linear, reductionist and single loop learning. School development planning can serve as a catalyst for strategic planning to manage educational reforms further leading to school improvement (Hopkins, et al., 1994; Stilglitz, 2002; Muijis, Harris, Chapman, Stoll & Russ, 2004). School development planning has a number of purposes which end up culminating in school improvement (Tyler, 2103; Huberman & Miles, 2013, Andreas, 2012). The introduction of changes and other innovations that can lead to the improvement of the quality of teaching and learning as well as the standards of learning is one of its purposes (Huberman & Miles, 2013, Andreas, 2012;
Johnson, Hays, Center & Daley, 2004). The purpose of development planning is to assist the school to introduce changes successfully, so that the quality of teaching and the standards of learning are improved (Xaba, 2006; Hargreaves, Earl, Moore & Manning, 2002; Fishman, Marx, Best & Tal, 2003). The assumption in school development planning was that eventually the outcome needs to be school improvement, although this was not the case in other schools (Glewwe & Kremer, 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Knight, 2002;
MacGilchrist & Mortimore, 1999).
There are a number of approaches as there are ways and means of conceptualising a school development plan (Ainscow, Booth & Dyson, 2004; Duit & Treagust, 2003; Hopkins &
Reynolds, 2001). Some scholars distinguish between planning for school improvement, innovation or introducing changes and routine and operational planning (Xaba, 2006;
Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Wasserstein-Warnet, & Klein, 2000). The school needs to determine the ways and means of planning and the requirements that justify the kind of school development and its outcome. It is a practice internationally and in South Africa that the poorly performing schools are subjected to stringent measures which include the compulsory submission of turn around strategies to mitigate poor performance (Hussain, 2015; Nkuta, 2015; Herman, Dawson, Dee, Greene, Maynard, R., Redding & Darwin, 2008;
Taylor, 2008, Peterson & West, 2003 ). A critical scrutiny of school development plans and other academic school improvement documents shows the lack of depth in terms of identifying the gaps that need to be addressed (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Easton &
47
Luppescu, 2010; Herman, et al., Dawson, Dee, Greene, Maynard, Redding & Darwin, 2008).
The most crucial area involved in the process of school planning is a conceptual framework that normally consists of the formulation of the vision, mission and goals. A simplistic cycle and process will normally include the prioritisation of key areas, the review, the design of the plans, the implementation and evaluation (MSTP, 1998; SDPI, 2003). The approach that this study advocates is based on perceiving schools as integrated, holistic organisations which are working towards achieving the same shared vision (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992; Senge, 2006). Hopkins et al. (1994) caution about development planning that fails to address the fundamental issues, which may be deeper than what is observed. Studies in South Africa concur on the strategic direction role to be played by SGBs (School Governing Bodies) working in collaboration with other stakeholders with the principal leading school development (Van Wyk & Moeng, 2013; Xaba, 2006; Xaba, 2011). Scholars recognise the role of SGBs as key leaders in strategising and the purpose of the school development plan is to identify the weaknesses and challenges existing at the school (Bush & Jourbert, 2004; Van Wyk & Moeng, 2013; Mbalathi, 2010).
Scholars agree that the key outcome of strategic planning is the formulation of the vision and mission and the strategic goals of the school (Wijesundera, 2002; Harris & Jones, 2010;
Hopkins, Harris, Stoll & Mackay, 2010). Strategic leadership and planning for school development requires critical skills that need to be develop in order to cope with the complexity of changes (Davies & Davies, 2004; Leithwood, Jantzi, Earl, Watson, Levin, &
Fullan 2007; Morse, 2009; Senge, 2014). Prestridge (2013) espouses the significance of the systems tools in the process of providing leadership and direction to stakeholders in schools.
A detailed discussion is presented in Section 3.17 of Chapter Three on systems tools. The Iceberg Tool is one such example of a systems tool that empower the leaders with skills for identifying root causes and dealing with the assumptions that affect the decision-making.
Research on the role of principals in school reform suggests that they have great influence in providing on ongoing leadership and support for school development (Blasé & Blase, 1999;
Blase & Kirby, 2000; McLaughin & Talbert, 2001; Kola & Selesho, 2012). Pisapia, Reyes, &
48
Coukos-Semmel (2005) linked three strategic thinking skills to leadership success, which is reframing, reflection and systems thinking.
Three decades ago principals in South Africa were trained in school development planning and documents were issued to assist in that regard. These booklets were issued to serve as a guide for the principal to facilitate the process of school development planning when working with School Governing Body members and SMT members. In the past two to three decades the principals were introduced to key conceptual frameworks based on schools as learning organisations, without any grounding on such concepts. I my observation I argue that the linear nature of the prevalent strategic planning perspective is conceptualised and underpinned by the quality management theory. The most common features of this cyclic process requires the facilitator to guide the stakeholders in addressing critical areas such as the vision, mission and strategic goals of the school organisation in its pursuit of quality teaching and learning (MSTP, 1998; SDPI, 1999). The South African conception of whole school development is different from the Western approach in the sense that which goes beyond to include the school community as the important stakeholders (Prew, 2009). In the above discussion the context of South African school development was presented, showing the unique character it has and the gaps that were identified during that era. Bottom and Schmidt-Davis (2010) defined the different roles of the province, the district and schools as strategic partners in support of learner improvement. All these levers are significant for a successful school development. The districts are viewed as strategic, whilst the province creates the necessary structures and policies that will enable the districts to take ownership of school improvement. Davis, Sumaro & D‘Armour (2012) warn against districts being too prescriptive but rather be proscriptive, based on the understanding that schools are dynamic learning systems. Pisadia, and Reyes Guerra (2007) presented the Strategic Thinking Questionnaire as a tool designed to check the leadership skills of principals. Another study conducted by Pang and Pisadia (2012) used the same questionnaire to check on the systems thinking skills of school principals as an indicator that predicts their effectiveness. These studies substantiate the argument that systems thinking can be a critical conceptual framework for principals engaged in school development (Pisadia &Reyes Guerra, 2007).
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.