2.5 Some key district leadership practices that enhance teaching and learning
2.5.3 Providing professional development and capacity
As discussed in Section 1.1, almost 25 years after democracy, quality education for all children in SA remains elusive and still characterised by inequalities that could be explained by racial and socioeconomic status (Spaull, 2013; RSA, 2014). King-McKenzie, Delacruz, Bantwini, and Bogan (2013, p. 30) note that teachers in SA are subject to frequent curriculum changes;
for example, four curriculum policies have been introduced in 15 years. These policies are the Curriculum 2005 (C2005), the Revised National Curriculum Statements (RNCS), the National Curriculum Statements (NCS) and CAPS. Teachers who are supposed to implement such curriculum changes require professional development. Furthermore, as curriculum managers, principals need capacity development to support teachers and SMTs. However, teachers and
37
school principals do not adequately receive professional development support. Van der Berg, Spaull, Wills, Gustafsson, and Kotzé (2016, p. 26) echoed this concern when they suggested that “support is far from adequate in most public educational systems.” This assertion confirms that further research concerning the DOs and their roles is needed as they are the schools’
immediate level of support. If we do not know how DOs organise themselves to support schools, we may not understand why schools feel under-supported by the district office.
Moreover, Spaull (2013, p. 9) contends that “while the roots of this system may be traced back to the apartheid era, it is inexcusable that most Black children still receive an education that condemns them to be the underclass of South African society.” National Education Evaluation and Development Unit [NEEDU] also report that the majority of South African learners do not receive a quality education, which is aggravated by the following:
The quality of schooling is inequitably distributed, with the poorer 80% of the population generally receiving schooling of significantly inferior quality to that enjoyed by the most affluent 20%. The majority of South African children – from homes of the working class or unemployed and frequently child-headed households – attend township or rural schools (NEEDU, 2015, p. 2).
While it appears that DOs provide instructional leadership by generating will, as revealed in Section 2.5.2, DOs need to combine this with capacity building (Rorrer et al., 2008). District Officials also need to understand the need for building capacity for teachers as well as school management and work towards linking and aligning their functions to improve teaching and learning in schools (Fullan, 2001). In that way, DOs could model the behaviour to school management and teachers. Leithwood and Louis (2012) state that it is vital for teachers and principals to improve the quality of teaching and learning as well as the districts develop the conditions to provide such capacity. Also, Fullan (2010, p. 2) asserts, “the power of collective capacity is that it enables ordinary people to accomplish extraordinary things”. Firstly, knowledge of effective practices is widely available and accessible daily. Secondly, working together generates commitment. Consequently, effective development improves significantly.
Furthermore, professional development practices can have a positive impact when they are job- embedded, ongoing and sustained and are most effective when carried out in a community of practice (Louis et al., 2010). Therefore, districts should be characterised by a considerable
38
investment in capacity building among leaders and teachers and ensure that these professional development activities align with the significant goal of improving student achievement.
Bantwini (2012. p. 517) explains how this affects teacher quality through professional development in primary schools in one province in SA:
Teachers had negative perceptions that led to the belief that they were not receiving the support and tools they needed for professional development from their district.
The impact of their perceptions was evident in the slow or non-implementation of the district’s newly launched curriculum reforms […]. Failure to address teachers’
perceptions is likely to result in teachers not benefiting from their professional development programs.
In investing in capacity building for school personnel, teachers will likely need help “building their repertoire of instructional strategies as they work to ensure all students make needed progress towards instructional goals” (Cawelti & Protheroe, 2007, p. 49). However, Levin et al. (2012) suggested that it is also vital for district offices to build their capacity to support school improvement. The preceding discussion seems to point to the dire need for continuing investment in collective capacity building to make a positive and long-term change. Fullan (2010, p. 72) suggests:
The power of collective capacity is that it enables ordinary people to accomplish extraordinary things – for two reasons. One is that knowledge about effective practice becomes more widely available and accessible on a daily basis. The second reason is more powerful still – working together generates commitment. Moral purpose, when it stares you in the face through students and your peers working together to make lives and society better, is palpable, indeed virtually irresistible.
Sharrat and Fullan (2009) conceptualise capacity building as “a highly complex, dynamic, knowledge-building process, intended to lead to increased student achievement in every school. [Hence], consideration must be given to the approaches that would result in systemic capacity building” (Sharrat & Fullan, 2009, p. 8). Honig (2012) stated that it is critical for DOs to offer professional development for principals so that they become effective leaders who positively affect learner performance. This author further notes that enabling principals to be instructional leaders must stem from the beliefs of all DOs, not only executive leaders.
39
However, Corcoran et al. (2013) noted that district professional development programmes usually do not consider the content base of teachers. However, they overemphasise procedures as opposed to enhancing learning for both teachers and learners (Corcoran et al., 2013).
Moreover, Bottoms and Schmidt-Davis (2010) suggested that district leaders need to offer a balanced set of professional learning experiences by prioritising the development of the capacity of all teaching staff to generate interesting and appealing involvement for learners.
Secondly, they need to develop professional learning communities where district and school leaders share learning experiences as well as induction programmes and mentoring for new principals and teachers. Copland and Blum (2007, p. 44) stated that "as district leaders develop their own capacity, they become more adept at refining long-term goals and problem-solving along the way.” However, they must have a professional learning plan that continuously increases the capacity of district staff to support principals and schools (Bottoms & Schmidt- Davis, 2010).