29 emerged that sees principals getting appointed on the strength of their political connections as against their level of competency as instructional leaders. Research shows that politically appointed incumbents prioritised their allegiance to the teacher union, its activities and its political affiliates at the expense of their position as instructional leaders (Lumadi, 2012;
Zengele, 2012). On the other hand, the studies by Naicker, Chikoko and Mthiyane (2013) and Mawdsley, Bipath and Mawdsley (2012) conducted in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng provinces respectively, seem to suggest that principals appointed on the strength of their competency as instructional leaders, promote learner achievement. They further found that, unlike politically deployed principal, principals appointed on merit maintained high visibility in the school, had in-house and customised professional development programmes, led by example as subject teachers and exercised distributed form of leadership. These behavioural patterns exhibit characteristics of one of the essential skills for instructional leadership which Whittaker 1997 (cited in Jenkins 2009, p.36) terms “visible presence” as well as
“interpersonal skills” Lashway, 2002 (cited in Jenkins, 2009, p.37). From the foregoing discussion, it can therefore be concluded that the motivation behind the appointment of a principal, his/her leadership and management style and the behavior he/she models invariably shapes and impacts on the quality of instructional leadership the principal provides, which in turn influences learners’ academic performance.
30 particularly when there are curriculum reforms as is the case in most countries across the world, South Africa included (Bantwini & King-McKenzie, 2011). Research points to a number of challenges that limit district office capacity to support teaching and learning for improved learner achievement.
In their ground-breaking study on effective districts, Elmore and Burney (1997) concluded that district office capacity building, professional development programmes and instructional supports that are responsive and focus on instructional practices successfully shape and influence what principals and teachers do in schools. Fullan (2010) and McLaughlin and Talbert (2003) concur that professional synergy between schools and district offices yield improved learner performance. Hallinger and Heck (2010) add that effective supervision and support obtain when leaders have understanding of contextual factors and dynamics of schools which they supervise. Therefore, these authors seem to suggest that district officials are important role players that can potentially shape and inform effective instructional practices of teachers and principals if they offer professional development programmes that are responsive to the needs of schools and teachers (Elmore & Burney, 1997). They also suggest that effective professional development and support programmes obtain when they are informed by their beneficiaries. Evidence to these assertions is contained in the study of successful district office instructional leadership by Knapp, et al. (2010) detailed some strategies and practices which were implemented by district officials to support and improve learning and leadership in schools. They observed that district officials, among other practices, gave individual coaching on instruction to classroom teachers, provided regular instructional support to all teachers to build human capacity for instructional leadership by for example, diffusing teachers’ self-consciousness about their inadequacies and defensive posture by engaging with teachers on problem-solving process about specific student learning issues or hard-to-teach curricular topics. These district officials’ practices are said to have resulted in increased learner performance.
In South Africa, district offices came into being after the educational reforms of 1994.
District offices represent the provincial department of education, and ultimately the national department to which teachers are accountable. Since then, the country has seen four changes to the curriculum. But, it was only in 2013 that a policy that sets the roles and responsibilities of district offices was promulgated. The policy states that the three main roles of education districts are support, accountability and public information. Researchers (Taylor, 2006;
Prew, 2008; Smith, 2011; Spaull, 2013) point to the dual role of accountability and support
31 that districts should enact as mediators between the schools and provincial departments and national departments, ultimately. In other words, district offices are walking the metaphoric tightrope of providing support while applying pressure.
In their study of how district officials understand teacher learning and reform at one district in the Eastern Cape, Bantwini and King-McKenzie (2011) found that among the important roles district officials play are being instructional actors in educational reforms and capacity builders for teachers. Given that more South African researchers (Taylor, 2006, Lumadi, 2012; Spaull, 2013,) have identified teachers’ poor content knowledge and PCK as some causes of poor quality of education, there are more calls to develop and build capacity of South African teachers while at the same holding them accountable for performance (Chinsamy, 2002; Taylor, 2006; Prew, 2008). To build a strong teaching force, Du Plessis et al., (2007) recommend that teachers should be entitled to professional development and that both the teachers and the ministry of education (via district office) should be responsible for it. However, the full potential of the district office in terms of teacher support and development has yet to be realised as district offices are currently fulfilling, almost exclusively, a monitoring role (Van Der berg, Taylor, Gustafsson, Spaull & Armstrong, 2011). To effectively deliver on this mandate, it seems as if district offices themselves still have to get their house in order so as to battle the many challenges that limit district offices’
capacity to support schools and teachers (Bantwini & King-McKenzie, 2011).
For instance, in a study of self-perception of district officials in South Africa, Smith (2011) found that most district officials conceived their role in terms of bureaucratic administration and those who understood that they had to provide teacher support and development admitted that they lacked capacity to do so. This indicates that district officials (who often had been classroom based-teachers themselves) need to be developed and capacitated so that they can successfully enact their instructional leadership roles. According to Shulman (1987), for instructional leaders to be effective, they should have at least three components of professional knowledge which are: content knowledge; pedagogical knowledge and knowledge of students. However, In South Africa, research reveals that some subject advisors are constricted in this regard. For instance, the number of subject advisors against the schools they supervise is one limitation in the district office instructional leadership capabilities.
Thus, it becomes nearly impossible for subject advisors to knowledge of learners they work with. A case in point is a study conducted by Bantwini and Diko (2011) in the Eastern Cape Province to explore factors that affect district officials’ capacity to provide effective teacher
32 support. They found that huge workload is a challenge among subject advisors. One subject advisor who was a participant in the study stated that he was responsible for 466 schools within the district. Similarly, in Umlazi District of KwaZulu-Natal, where this study was conducted it appeared as if the subject advisors also had a lot on their plates in terms of the number of schools they supervise. For instance, for gateway subjects, Mathematics and Physical Sciences there were 2 and 3 subject advisors respectively who served a total of 201 secondary schools in the district. This suggests that the ratio of subject advisors against the schools that they supervise was a hindering factor. Some teachers reported that they had no knowledge of who their subject advisor was as they had never been with them. Clearly, this ratio goes against what research suggests for effective instructional leadership that the instructional leader should have knowledge of learners (Shulman, 1987) and maintain high visibility (Blasé & Blasé, 2000; Leon 2010; Naicker, Chikoko & Mthiyane, 2013).
Furthermore, Bantwini and King-McKenzie (2011) seem to raise a similar argument that district officials lack knowledge of the teachers they work with. They found that district officials’ assumptions about teacher learning and change as one factor that hampers successful implementation of curriculum reforms in South Africa. Teachers are adult learners. Adults learn best when the content they learn is relevant to their work experiences.
According to Bantwini and McKenzie (2011) district officials lack this crucial understanding.
They contend that district officials’ views about how teachers learn are limiting district offices’ ability to help teachers learn. In other words, for professional development programmes to be effective, they should be informed by the principles of adult learning which cannot be said of many district support programmes in South Africa.
Marishane (2011), on the other hand, blames district offices for principals not taking their instructional leadership role seriously. According to Marishane, education district offices do not seem to validate the behaviour of principals who spend most of their time being directly involved with teaching and learning activities. The district office seems to reinforce the notion that principals ought to be of more of administrators than instructional enactors. For instance, principals who are efficient instructional leaders are often overlooked for promotion posts to district office while those who were oriented to administration were often appointed to promotional management posts on the basis of their administration efficiency.
In the light of the echoed calls to improve the poor quality of education in South Africa, van Der Berg et al., (2011) recommended to the National Planning Commission that the district
33 office, as one of the central key role players in curriculum delivery and implementation, should engage in staggered programmes to provide targeted support to schools that will develop school management for instructional leadership, build teachers’ capacity as well as strengthen accountability and support between schools and school district offices. From this recommendation, NDP: Vision 2030 (2012) accordingly declares that relationships of accountability and support among stakeholders throughout the school system need to be strengthened. This, it continues, will be achieved by developing strong leadership, especially among district officials. With the promulgation of the Policy on Organisation, Role and Responsibilities of District Office (2013), it can be said that there is marked effort to heighten the role of district office in improving the quality of education in South Africa. This literature review now discusses the two theoretical frameworks which projected this study.