Continuing to develop a deeper understanding of the research context

During this stage my understanding of the research context deepened. In particular I developed a greater understanding of the similarities and differences between Sing and Phonthong districts. The two districts have similarities in terms of remoteness and isolation of school locations and donor approaches in supporting schools. I also gained a better understanding of the differences between these two districts in terms of wealth, religion and ethnic diversity. The similarities and differences between Sing and Phonthong districts have had an impact on their education development. The following paragraphs discuss these insights.

The first similarity is the remoteness. This issue was raised in Stage 1 but it is worth emphasising again. The remoteness of school locations not only leads to communication problems for both school leaders and senior levels, but also leaves schools and school leaders in isolation. School leaders are often not well-informed about policy changes, and frequently the centre became disconnected from schools. Too often the remotest and poorest schools are not as well-served as schools situated in urban lowland areas. On the other hand, the relative remoteness gives school leaders a surprising amount of freedom to exercise and interpret policy and directives into action to support teaching and learning in their schools. This situation provides an opportunity for school leaders to exhibit their true leadership if they are to bring about change in their schools. However, it becomes apparent that not all principals are able to exploit this opportunity.

Issues flowing from donor support approaches are another major similarity in the two districts. As discussed in Stage 1, the role of donors and lenders was a sub-set of the context that emerged during Stage 1 and then later become the major part of this research. For example, initially donors were active only in Sing district while there was no donor support in Phonthong district. During this Stage the selected cluster in Phonthong district also received support from a donor for a school construction project. I found that the donor approach in supporting the two districts shared some similarities. For instance, their support was a piecemeal and focused on capital investment. To keep the discussion manageable these aspects will be discussed in a separate section (section 5.2.4.4) on the critical analysis of the role of the donors in contributing to the improvement of school leadership.

In addition to these similarities, there are a number of different features between Sing and Phonthong district. First, there is an economic distinction. The community contribution to school physical infrastructure and operation and maintenance costs are an example. Each family in Phonthong district contributed at least 100,000 kip (US$12) for school building, while the community in Sing district built a grass hut school and relied on donor support for better school building standards. Whereas each household gave its school at least 10,000 kip (US$1.2) for school operation costs in Phonthong district, in Sing district the school community paid 5,000 kip (US$0.60) each and preferred to contribute labour to their school instead of cash. This data clearly suggests that the community in Sing district is poorer than Phonthong district. However, both communities in the two districts valued education and their contribution depended on their socio-economic condition.

Religion is a second difference between the two districts. Buddhism is the predominant religion in Phonthong district whilst Animism is widely practiced in Sing district. The advantage for Phonthong district was the Buddhist monks in addition to encouraging and, in a number of instances, managing funds for school development projects, played an active role in supporting education, for example, donating a large amount of funds for school construction, while in Sing district religion did not play an active role in education. Most school construction funds in Phonthong cluster were co-financed by the community and monks. Stuart-Fox (1999) asserts that in rural communities monks have the leadership role because they are keen on community development and they are open to modernization, especially when they also gain benefits themselves. In addition, the traditional Buddhist Wat (temple) schools have a long history in contributing to Lao education development (Faming, 2007). This explains some of the reasons why Buddhism maintains its popularity in contemporary Lao society.

The third key difference between these two districts is ethnic diversity. This distinction was discussed in Stage 1 but it kept reappearing in Stage 2 so it is significant to re-examine it again. This issue is a considerable challenge for school leaders in Sing district. While in Phonthong district Lao-Tai speaking ethnic group was the dominant population, in Sing district there were many ethnic groups including low, mid and high-land ethnic groups such as Lao-Tai, Austro-Asiatic, Hmong-Yu Mien and Sino-Tibetan. In addition, minority ethnic groups (highland populations) were often mobilised and encouraged to move by the government to prevent slash-and-burn agriculture (Evrard & Goudineau, 2004). The increased and diversified mobility and language diversity created an additional challenge for school leaders in Sing district in expanding access to primary education as well as dealing with language of instruction at school, especially in grade 1 and 2. Faming (2007) also claims that the primary education curriculum is written in Lao language and designed within the “Lao national context” (i.e. ethnic Lao culture and Buddhism), which is hard to implement for teachers and pupils in the rural areas and ethnic children who are non-Lao speakers.

This was not a unique problem for the Lao PDR, it also an issue in other educational system in developing countries, especially in the former colonies of European powers (Bergmann, 2002). Bergmann suggests that teaching children to read and write should begin in a language they understand or their mother tongue; at a later stage the country’s official language should

be introduced as the medium of instruction. But in teaching terms, the transition to the official language is not easy to manage. The introduction of a foreign language in Grade 3 under the education system reform strategy adds another layer of difficulty for ethnic children as well as another challenge to their teachers and school leaders.

Field research on the similarities and differences between the two districts helped me to understand that educational policies and directives that are handed down from a distant source (the centre) were not always relevant or effective or implemented in all districts in the Lao PDR. As I have discussed above, there were key differences between the two districts that were the focus of this research project. These differences have implications for education policy and management practice in the Lao PDR. It is understandable that the central government would attempt to have one policy for the entire country. It is also understandable that the central government would be concerned with maintaining national unity. The language policy is one example of this. However, it is also important to realize the differences between regions and that the education policy may require different implementation strategies and different resourcing levels. Sultan (2003) claims that policy makers’ lack of understanding of the local context seemed to be one of the key factors for the less than successful effort in the Lao PDR. During this research it became apparent that random formal visits to schools by MOE and PES senior officials are necessary for a better understanding of the local educational context. This strategy would not only help to improve communication and the flow of information but also maintain contact with schools and school leaders so they do not feel so separated from the centre. More importantly, the local people will understand that education is not driven by technical experts at the central level who make decisions for everyone and are responsible for planning what will be done, despite the fact that implementation would have to occur at the school level (Sergiovanni, 2005).

5.2.4.3 Gain a greater understanding of the roles of school leaders in

leading and managing school effectively

To analyse and reflect on my data as well as to assist me in understanding the role of school leaders, I adopted three steps. First, I looked at my data (especially my writing) and listed some dot points as a consequence of my reflection for this stage. The following table illustrates an example of the brainstorming process on the four objectives (see Portfolio 2 for the complete brainstorming).

Table 5.6: An initial analysis

Objective Reflection

Maintaining and developing relationship - Respect and acknowledge the existing hierarchical structure and contribute to productive interpersonal relationships

- Respect local hierarchy and maintain relationships

Continuing to develop a deeper understanding of research context

- Increase the awareness of remoteness and isolation of school locations in two districts. - Understand the differences between the

two districts in terms of wealth, religion, donor, ethnicity diversity, its location

- the role of donors is a sub-set of context

Gain a greater understanding of the roles of school leaders in leading and managing schools (issues are similar but there are some differences in two districts)

- very narrow leadership development pathways for individuals and their careers - low incentives and salaries & little training and limited support for the position but high job expectations

- multiple roles: an educational and social/political leader

- vigilant so they rely on guidelines from the senior levels

Gain a better understanding the roles of donors in contributing to the uneven development of school leaders and schools

- lack of understanding of the reality on the ground

- active and often come with good intentions but end with unintended consequences - focus on more observable outcomes rather than invisible support

- an example of centrally planned themselves - add more responsibility to school leaders who have limited administrative skills and resources.

Second, I used the brainstorming table to discuss and review my initial analysis with my two supervisors. On reflection, my objective here was to give voice to local school leaders.

Although I was not a school leader, Reason’s (2001) call for a more encompassing form of research that includes three separate voices influenced my approach to the analysis of the data about school leaders. He refers to first, second and third person action research. First person focuses on the ability of the research to foster an inquiring approach to his or her own life by consciously taking action and assessing outcomes in the outside world while acting. Second person involves the researcher working with others on issues of mutual concern. The third person research intends to create a wider community of inquiry. I found Reason’s work helpful in positioning myself in relation to other research participants in the research process. It also helped me see more clearly issues from a school leader’s perspective and this, in turn, helped me to understand and analyse my rich research data.

While the work of Reason was useful during the action phase, it had limitations because I had to lot of data from three locations (the MOE, Sing and Phonthong districts) to deal with as a result of my reflection for this stage. It was during discussion with supervisors that we developed an approach to make more sense of my data analysis. The grouping of data not only grew out of Reason’s work but also related to the high power distance context outlined by Hofstede & Hofstede (2005) and Northouse (2007). This notion was useful because the Lao educational management system could be described as a hierarchical system where superiors and subordinates consider each other very unequal. Based on this research, school leaders were seen (if seen at all) by the MOE, PESs and DEBs as subordinates because they worked at the school level, the lowest educational administration unit. For example, schools were not included in the official educational decision-making hierarchy. They were expected to be told what to do and follow directives from the senior levels. And behind this level of relationships sit donors, the Party, powerful local personalities and so on. As a consequence, a second table was developed based on discussions with supervisors and the work of Reason, Hofstede & Hofstede and Northouse.

The second table was very useful because it more accurately reflected the key relationships and enabled a more effective analysis of these relationships. The table below summarises the critical relationships of the principals/school leaders. First, saytang or a vertical line includes the senior educational bureaucracy such as DEB, PES and MOE. They are removed from the day to day school operation. In broad term, saytang means vertical reporting relationships but the understanding can be flexible depending on the context. Second, saykhouang or a horizontal line comprises the local community and the local elements of the mass