Managing school change and improvement is one of the most complex tasks of school leadership. Fullan (1993) and Spark (1993) in Leighton (1996) point out that school leaders need to understand the change process in order to lead and manage change and improvement efforts effectively. Holly and Southworth (1989: 24) argue that during the early days of the change process, continuity, synthesis and instrumentalism are vital factors in developing school change. That is, anticipated change occurs as planned. However, emergent changes may arise during the process. It is also argued that opportunity-based changes are introduced during the process in response to an opportunity. The three types of changes overlap and have to be synthesised and improved continuously.
It is essential that school improvement efforts link to others in the school and district and connect the school’s goals to the broader and deeper mission of providing high-quality learning for all students. Senge (1991) in Fullan (1994) contends that for school improvement efforts to be successful, teachers, parents, community and business partners,
administrators, and students must share leadership functions. Likewise, the head teacher’s role must change from that of a top-down supervisor to facilitator, architect, steward, instructional leader, coach, and strategic teacher. Holly and Southworth (1989) also agree that change that bubbles up from the grassroots has staying power. This means if the people on the ground, such as teachers, learners and parents are enthusiastic, sustainable change will take place.
It is also argued that the mass of teachers are most likely to embrace a change if, among other things, it enhances a respect for their autonomy with regard to classroom practice and reinforces their professional identify (Macdonald and Walker, 1976 in Slater, 1985: 460). In this connection the skills and attitudes of the teachers influence the process of change negatively or positively.
Community participation: In traditional thinking, the school and community are said to be separated by a wall. Interaction between the two is practically non-existent. Another concept of school community is that which considers the school as an ideal community where the school contributes its knowledge, findings and skills to the community. The school plays an active role, and the community is passive and receptive. However, studies else where in developing countries show that rural communities tend to ignore the school if it does not cater for felt needs or cannot be absorbed into its culture (Dove, 1986). Dove observes that it is difficult to adapt the school to local needs because of the misidentification of the needs of the community, incapacity of the school to reach rural skills effectively or lack of opportunities in the community. Thus, the economy cannot absorb skills learned at school.
Studies of rural community (Dove, 1986) show how villagers enthusiastically sent their children to school once they observed that success in the school could lead to high income, occupational status and land ownership. Even in an increasingly difficult job-market, they continued to send their children to school because of the very high value they had come to place on occupational status.
However, in the African context, even at present there are disparities in educational opportunities and not all societies put high value on schooling. For example, the Masai in Tanzania and other nomadic tribes do not value schooling. Some kind of force is employed by the government to make sure that parents send their children to school. Obanya (1999:
87) says that employment, whether self-employment or in a job, is a function of the state of society’s economy, skills and products. Skilled work cannot be sold in a situation where very few people can afford to buy them.
If the mission of the school is different from the community and its ideas, the community may reject the school’s influence. In other words, the changes they brought may have been beneficial to the individual but on the whole they did not enhance the well-being of the communities. Consequently, the community rejects the school by refusing to become its client and refusing to send their children to school. This can neutralise the effects of the school if it has nothing new to offer to the community. If, for example, the school is viewed by the community as offering what they knew already, if teachers were so poorly trained and lacked a professional background, the community may reject the school.
Dove (1986) concludes that the influence of the school in social change is greater when it is promoting knowledge, skills and values which the community either actively welcomes, or, at least accepts as part of an inevitably changing way of life. Thus, for instance, Tanzania has insisted on Education for Self-Reliance (ESR) in schools, which attempt to put into practice mutual help and co-operation. However, there is evidence that the communities reinforce competitive and elitist values.
Ahmed et al (1991) delineated three aspects to community participation in education programmes in developing countries:
• Participation in the services and activities by those for whom these are intended. • Participation in designing, managing, setting goals and evaluating programmes. • Contributing financially or otherwise to programmes with or without sharing in the
benefits but with little say in planning or managing the programmes.
The current practices of management in Tanzania show that there is no sufficiently supportive or meaningful participation of interested parents and community members in planning and managing educational programmes in the community. Decisions that are of some significance are generally made away from community at higher levels of the administrative hierarchy. The mechanism which could conceivably be a vehicle for
community involvement in substantive matters, such as school committee or community education committee, is given an advisory or consultative role. In many cases it depends on the local administration and educational functionaries to determine whether and to what extent the community bodies might become involved in decision-making and how much importance is given to community views.
Dove (1986), Ahmed, et al (1991) and Chambers (1997) contend that communities are not necessarily homogeneous entities with common concerns, interests and visions for the future. Conflicts and factionalism arise from various traditional and newer forces of division: class, caste, religion, uneven ownership of land and other assets, control of political power, age, gender and poverty. Studies done in India conclude that social and caste characteristics constitute the major determinants of the quantity and quality of education received by individuals (Ahmed, Kai Ming, Jalaluddin and Ramachandran, 1991). This generalisation appears not to apply in Tanzania where, since independence, deliberate changes in the education system have been made to abolish racism, division of classes and other discriminatory practices in society by nationalizing schools and introducing one official language, Swahili, which has united most Tanzanians.
Chambers (1997: 183) laments that outsider professionals treat communities as homogeneous while, within the communities, there are many obvious differences. He further argues that those whom outsiders meet and interact with are most likely to be middle-aged or youths, male, from dominant groups and economically well off. Often their criteria, preferences and priorities are taken as those of the whole community. However, the community also includes those who are weak and worse off, children, the very old, females, social inferiors, subordinate groups, the disabled and those who are vulnerable and poor. This argument calls for involvement of all stakeholders when introducing and implementing educational change.