Instructional support

The quality of instructional supervision by both school directors, and provincial and district education office teams is critical to the effective management of teachers (Bennel & Akyeampong 2007). The instructional supervision activities commonly associated with these different administrative levels respectively are reviewed below.

School director

The literature on developed countries states that strong leadership on the part of the school director is a key indicator of teacher satisfaction (Department of Education/USA 1997), and there is a growing consensus on the importance of the instructional leadership role of this individual (Darling-Hammond & Rothman 2011; World Bank HDN 2012). The crucial importance of the director’s role is also emphasised in research from selected anglophone African countries, which argues that the influence of this individual can extend to improving teacher attendance and performance, student behaviour, and relationships with parents (Mulkeen 2009). Overall, recent research is in agreement in concluding that the school director plays a significant role in the efficacy of his or her

staff members and influence their levels of satisfaction (Mulkeen 2009; Darling- Hammond & Rothman 2011; World Bank HDN 2012).

Chapman (2005) also confirms the essential role of the school director, and asserts that the selection, preparation and supervision of this individual are significant determinants of an effective school system. However, in many developing countries, such selection is conducted without open competition (Mulkeen 2009), training for school directors is not regularly organised (Bennel & Akyeampong 2007), and the monitoring of performance attracts little attention due to limited external school supervision (Mulkeen 2009). On the whole, research suggests that although the role of the school director may vary from context to context, he or she plays a significant role in the functioning of the school, participating in both administration and the instructional supervision of teachers (Kemmerer 1990).

However, a greater focus on school management tasks than the instructional supervision of teachers means that the current role of the sub-Saharan African school director is heavily weighted in favour of management. Indeed, the relevant literature shows that school ‘managers’ tend not to see pedagogical leadership as part of their role and often devote the bulk of their time to administrative tasks (Mulkeen 2009). One official study by MoEYS describes how little attention is given to instructional staff supervision, revealing that as many as twenty-five per cent of 150 primary school teachers responded in an official survey that their school director had to their knowledge never visited a classroom (MoEYS 2006b).

Another important role of the school director that is closely related to instructional supervision is the disciplining of teachers, usually through enforcement of established codes of staff conduct. In this regard, it has been suggested that school directors should maintain a certain level of accountability at school level and take the lead in facilitating rewards and sanctions aimed at increasing teacher motivation (World Bank HDN 2012).

However, these issues are complex in the developing world since school directors often invariably do not have the administrative authority to discipline their staff (Mulkeen 2009; Bennel & Akyeampong 2007). Moreover, in many countries few teachers or directors understand the school code of conduct (Van Nuland et al. 2006). Compounding all this, absenteeism is frequently endemic not only on the part of teachers but also their directors, with research from Uganda going as far as to report that the problem in respect of the latter is even much greater than is the case with regular teachers (World Bank 2007).

Provincial and district office instructional supervision

Evidence from developed countries suggests that monitoring from education authorities is critical to the effective implementation of improved teaching and learning methods, in terms of reviewing how well teachers work and whether their students are learning in accordance with the stipulations of national curriculums in particular (World Bank HDN 2012). However, in developed-country contexts, monitoring can also be demotivating as overemphasis on standards set by the centre and monitored through frequent school inspections is often linked to deterioration of teacher satisfaction (Kelchtermans 1999). Current research suggests somewhat similar to findings from developed countries, Bennel and Akyeampong (2007) emphasising the importance of quality over quantity in external supervision, as previously observed. It is also stressed that there must be a frank discussion of teachers’ skill deficits and strengths, as well as clear, transparent feedback following inspection and supervision visits in order to increase expertise and motivation (Bennel & Akyeampong 2007). This type of hands-on instructional supervision usually requires high interpersonal and professional skills combined with regular visits (Tanaka 2010). Tanaka (2010), who conducted ethnographic research on teacher motivation in rural Ghanaian schools, stresses the significance of the role of district office staff to teacher motivation since this level of supervision is particularly influential in terms of the long-term career vision of teachers.

However, available research also shows that much existing external inspection and supervision in the developing world is undertaken by untrained staff, and hindered by insufficient travel allowances and emphasis on evaluation rather than training and betterment of the teaching force (Kemmerer 1990). More recent research from African and Asian contexts also reports that the number of external monitoring visits and/or inspections is often too limited to be effective (Ramachandran et al. 2005; Benveniste, Marshall & Araujo 2008). In addition, Mulkeen (2010) found that inspectors were keener on meeting predetermined quotas (number of visits in a given period) rather than focusing on the results and quality of schools visited. However, given the absence of empirical research focusing on what actually happens when supervisors and teachers interact, it remains difficult to understand the dynamics of external instructional supervision and teacher motivation in the developing world context.

Leadership and teacher autonomy

The wider literature on school leadership in developed countries discusses the issues of teacher autonomy and motivation, one study on leadership discourse concluding that effective teacher motivation is based on a compromise between the individual’s wish for autonomy and an institutional need for structure (Chemers 2001). Several studies stress a strong correlation between school leadership, teacher autonomy, and level of teacher commitment (Department of Education/USA 1997; Blase & Blase 1999). One such study also found the increasing of staff autonomy and facilitating participatory decision making to be popular policy actions with regard to building teacher enthusiasm, particularly in terms of enhancing intrinsic aspects of motivation (Twenge 2010).

However, discussion around school leadership in the developing world places comparatively less emphasis on teacher autonomy than in developed countries, probably because it is assumed that it is not possible to meet the basic conditions for completely autonomous school management in respect of school directors in the former context.

Obstacles include the limited administrative authority of school directors and teachers’ low levels of understanding about codes of conduct, as mentioned above. Cambodia is no exception here as clarification of the balance between teacher autonomy and institutional structure is still regarded as a policy challenge (Benveniste, Marshall & Araujo 2008).