4.2 THEMES THAT EMERGED FROM THE FINDINGS
4.2.2 THE CONFIDENCE TO LEAD
4.2.3.2 THE SENIOR PRIMARY PHASE MEETINGS AS A DECISION MAKING
72
there was widespread agreement that democracy prevailed and decisions making was through consensus. Thus I can confidently surmise that staff meetings in the case school were not a case of “I participate, we participate, but they decide over what kind of issue we can decide” (Hatcher, 2005, p. 259).
Having looked at decision-making during a staff meeting in the case study school, I now move on to discuss decision-making during phase meetings. There were two phases within the school; the Foundation Phase (Grades R to 3) and the Senior Primary Phase (Grades 4 to 7). I begin with a discussion on the senior primary phase meeting and then move on to discuss decision-making at the Foundation Phase level.
73
While there were indications that SMT3 in the Senior Phase was exceedingly supportive, TL 2 disclosed that the tone of the meetings was at times strained as there was a degree of dissatisfaction amongst the educators:
There are a few educators that totally disagree with the decisions that we take right up to the point that it is sanctioned by the HoD…There is like some dissatisfaction when we leave the meeting room at times (I, TL2, 9/12/2010).
TL1 added to the nature of dissatisfaction, touched on by TL2, by stating, “I have a feeling that Senior Primary teachers are a bit unhappy….they seem to be overwhelmed by some of the decisions taken over there” (I, TL1, 15/12/2010). TL1 openly revealed that the Senior Primary educators were unhappy with the “authoritarian approach” of SMT3 and finally she advanced: “But, I think, it is the approach and not so much the work. Maybe, the way he comes down strongly on them and they feel intimidated or (sigh) I don’t know” (I, TL1, 15/12/2010).
In considering whether teachers’ inputs were taken into account TL1 asserted:
No, I think that is the problem, I think some people who do want to talk; they feel it is not taken and they don’t want to talk anymore … (pause). Because I think the decision has already been made (I, TL1, 15/12/2010).
That teachers’ inputs were not always considered was also suggested by SMT2 who was of the view that “it is one way only, don’t go this way or that way, this is how it has to be done” (I, SMT2, 29/09/2011). Further to this, there was genuine agreement that the teachers received “a lot of support” (FGI, TL6, 28/09/2011) and “they are guiding us all the time” (FGI, TL8, 28/09/2011). Despite the support received by educators from SMT3, educators in the Senior Primary Phase were unhappy as “sometimes decisions are taken that’s final and we just go by that” (FGI, TL8, 28/09/2011) and at
“certain times because it’s like this load upon us that we can’t climb this hill, you know the way it’s puts across to us” (FGI, TL8, 28/09/2011).
Despite the challenges alluded to by TL2, and further expounded upon by the other level one primary participants, they nevertheless believed that, in the main, educators were largely comfortable with sharing their views. In her final analysis, a view supported by the majority of teachers in the questionnaire, TL3 disclosed: “Ja, everybody is very open to suggestions and make suggestions themselves….there is a good rapport” (I, TL3, 9/12/2010). SMT2, however, believed that the tone of the meeting did not encourage open communication for it was “picked up at our senior
74
primary meeting that teachers don’t exercise that right” (I, SMT2, 29/09/2011). This left the HoD with the impression that silence meant acceptance and thus “the quieter you are, this person is not going to change because this person feels it is OK” (I, SMT2, 29/09/2011).
During the second Phase Meeting (O, PM, 12/10/2010) the atmosphere was very cordial and there was a good rapport amongst the educators:
The HoD being the chair initiated discussion as per the agenda and most of the discussion was dominated by the chair. In terms of the dates for the exams, a draft proposal was presented to the staff for comment. Thus, room was made for teachers’ inputs and a final time frame would be presented after the suggestions were taken into account (O, PM, 12/10/2010).
An educator raised her concern about the feasibility of organising a Market Day2 for the term. The educator’s proposal to cancel Market Day was supported by two other educators. However, “the chair did not dismiss the suggestion, but rather encouraged the educators to raise this issue at the correct forum, this being the Staff Meeting” (O, PM, 12/10/2010). This attitude of the chair was not indifferent, but rather encouraging.
This observation is in tandem with the views revealed by the majority of secondary participants (89%) who felt that decisions at a phase meeting were taken after discussion and consensus was reached. However after a deeper analysis of decision making at the senior phase meetings, a different picture emerged.
While TL2 acknowledged that in the senior primary phase meeting, “decisions are arrived at holistically, it is a team effort, we brainstorm it together” (I, TL2, 9/12/
2010), she very diplomatically added that “ultimately it is the HoD or the supervisor – he considers all the ideas and suggestions that we have made and then marry it together with the requirements of policy”. SMT3 being the HoD mentioned, concurred and held the view that “policy dictates how decisions are made” (I, SMT3, 14/12/2010). This authoritarian approach adopted by SMT3 is aptly captured by Wright in pronouncing that those in formal authority “know that their schools have to succeed in a target-based culture and in the end this will drive what is allowed and what is prescribed” (Wright, 2003, p. 142).
While there were genuine attempts at the phase meeting to distribute leadership and share in decision making, the limitation of distributed leadership as articulated by Wood
2 A fund raising initiative held at school, whereby different stalls are set up for learners to purchase items or participate in an activity.
75
(2004) was once again brought to the fore when educators expressed their concern about sometimes being alienated from the decision making process. Unlike the staff meeting, educators at the senior phase meeting did not believe that there was adequate discussion and consensus. The “not negotiable” (I, SMT3, 14/12/2010) approach of SMT3 was highlighted as the primary reason for educators unhappiness in the senior primary phase. However, during the latter part of the year there were genuine attempts by SMT3 to make some amends as SMT3 had “eased up a bit because I think teachers have been talking about it” (FGI, TL6, 28/09/2011).