Limited leading

Glover and Law (2004:85) maintain that leading is a management function that is directly concerned with the ways in which intended plans are operationalised. It involves the ability of an individual in charge to inspire, motivate and give direction to enable others to contribute to the efficient achievement of the set goals (Smit et al., 2011:310). Prinsloo (2008:156) suggests that in order to elicit the above behavioural responses from their subordinates, CPD managers should be able to

159 communicate and motivate their subordinates effectively. This approach is also supported in behavioural management theory (cf. 2.5.6).

During the study, it was discovered that many participants were aware of leading as the role of CPD managers. Although none of the participants cited or implied motivating, the majority emphasised supervision and communication as the activities that CPD managers should perform when leading.

Their views of supervision and communication were, however, limited.

4.3.2.4.1 Insufficient supervision

Several participants demonstrated awareness that CPD managers are responsible for supervising their subordinates’ participation in teachers’ CPD for curriculum change implementation-related programmes and activities. Some of the responses to the question about leading as the role of CPD included:

It is my responsibilities to oversee the work of the subject advisors even during the workshops. I account for everything in this unit (Curriculum coordinator-4).

A similar expression from one principal was:

As SMTs, we must supervise the teachers in all aspects about curriculum implementation. So, it is our duty to make sure that they attend workshops. In most cases, I expect them to give feedback to the HoDs when they come back (Principal T1–RUS).

Reality-check revealed that most CPD managers had superficially discharged the activity of supervision. Several participants agreed that many CPD managers focused on mandatory attendance of teachers to the training workshops and PSFs, but did not supervise teachers’ enrollment in the government-sponsored ACE programmes. It was revealed that some teachers had enrolled in the above programmes for different subjects than they actually taught. Principal T1-MOR added: others even did ACE in [educational] management. This implied a complete deviation from the goal of deploying a qualification-driven method as another strategy to improve the capacity of the teachers for effective implementation of curriculum change in the classrooms (cf. 1.2). Moreover, some principals felt that some of the ACE graduates did not necessarily add value. Several principals revealed that some of the graduates refused to teach the new subjects they were allocated at schools. The principal in the next quotation expressed his frustrations concerning the lack of supervision over teachers’ registration in the ACE programme as follows:

Some [teachers] do ACE secretly. Mostly, the ACE they do is not related to the subject that they teach. You will never know as a principal until they submit a certificate. They need that cash

160 bonus. One thing interesting is that some of them refuse to teach the new subject should it become known that they have a qualification. Even those who are subsidised by the department do not agree easily (Principal L2-DIT).

In the light of the preceding discussion, the present researcher believes that the whole question of teachers registering for government-funded ACE in different subjects than they taught - and had no prospects of teaching the “ACE-subjects” when duty called, is an indictment to CPD managers and the NWED. Evidently, such malpractices imply fruitless expenditure of the government’s revenue and, as such, would not add value to the government’s quest to improve the implementation of curriculum change. Therefore, the present researcher suggests strongly that CPD managers, particularly principals, should be given powers to recommend the teachers’ enrollment in the government-sponsored ACE. Concerning the existing ACE graduates, the principals and curriculum coordinators should liaise with the Human Resource Management and Development Chief Directorate in the NWED concerning their ACE-subjects so that those teachers would be put to meaningful use in their different schools.

4.3.2.4.2 Top-down communication approach

There was consensus among the participants that in order to be successful in their role, CPD managers should be efficient and effective communicators. HoD L2-MOR said: they should ensure that they share relevant information as quick and as wide as possible among the role-players. This suggestion coheres with the goals of teamwork in the TQM theory (cf. 2.5.3) and interactive relationships as explained in systems theory (cf. 2.5.4).

During data collection, the study found that CPD managers did communicate with the members in the organisation. As mentioned in section 4.3.2.2.3 of this study, a convergence of document analysis and interview data revealed that CPD managers communicated through notices, in the form of circulars, notifying the teachers to attend the training workshops and PSFs. A number of participants also disclosed that CPD managers also sent notices through mobile phone text messages. Nonetheless, most participants felt that the ways in which CPD managers communicated were inadequate. The majority of principals, HoDs and teachers in this study mentioned that they found the excessive use of sending notices via the medium of mobile text messages irritating and undermining to their respective roles in teacher’s CPD for curriculum change implementation. They also expressed dissatisfaction around the short notices that were often sent on the eleventh hour.

This study found that some of the notices were either sent by the AOs or received by the schools as short as five to two working days prior to the set dates of the training workshops and PSFs. In their

161 different focus groups, the principals concurred that the curriculum coordinators should call them to a discussion meeting, and later remind them through notices.

The workshops are organised haphazardly. This causes a lot of disruption to the free-flow of teaching and learning in our schools. At least if they can call principals to a meeting [to get their inputs] or send the notices in advance it will be better. We will know and make proper arrangements beforehand (HoD T1-DIT).

Several teachers and HoDs criticised the poor facilitation of information about the registration for the ACE. It was discovered that some of the notices concerning the teachers’ registration for the ACE did not reach all schools and some were received by schools after the closing dates of the registrations. Teacher A1-MOR said:

I happened to know about the registration of ACE for English through a friend from Brits Area Office. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have known until the registration closed. What was worse was that I had to drive all the way from Makapanstad to Tlhabane Resource Centre in Rustenburg for my registration. I had to go as soon as possible because the registration was closing the next day.

If a clear and participatory flow of information does not occur, then the role of CPD managers is prone to be complex. CPD managers that do not communicate effectively are likely to fail or demoralise their subordinates. Staff might miss or lose critical CPD opportunities due to poor communication. Furthermore, such CPD managers may damage their relationship with other role-players.

The participants maintained a view that communication should be participatory and clear in order to be effective. To this effect, they suggested that CPD managers should convene meetings with role-players to discuss the organisation of the relevant teachers’ CPD for curriculum change implementation programme or activity. In support of this, Ramphele (2000:30) maintains that participative management of an effective team provides extensive opportunities to ensure that the two-way communication takes place, rather than the subordinates being told what has been decided. Ideally, the teachers’ union representatives should constitute such meetings to represent the voices of the teachers if such meetings are held at AO level. Concerning the value of the notices (circulars), the present researcher holds the opinion that they are not only important for administrative paper trail purposes, but should be sent to confirm the arrangements or changes thereof. Mainly, the notices should be sent for purposes of reminding schools about the agreed arrangements. To reiterate, it is imperative of CPD managers to ensure that the time for teachers’

162 CPD for curriculum change implementation should form an integral part of the AO and school year programmes (cf. 4.3.2.2.3).