Problems faced when implementing the change initiative

A number of issues emerged around the theme relating to the problems faced by institutions in the process of implementation of the change initiative as school principals have a strategic position to influence and reflect on the change management process (Pettit and Hind, 1992;

Kinsler and Gamble, 2001; Harris and Lambert, 2003). This theme concerning the problems faced in the implementation within and beyond institutions recurred across a number of questions. A wide range of problems were reiterated by the respondents in their responses relating to questions about their experiences, the impact of the change initiative on teachers and students, their suggestions for improvement and the problems they faced at the institutional level. Here the scope of this theme widened beyond the institutions to include problems related to planning and policymaking process as well as questions of political will and the sustainability of change. These various problems have been grouped in their relation to the major emergent issues, as set out below:

Table 5.5 Categories indicating problems faced to implement the change initiative

Category No of scripts evident in

Gaps in the change process 14

Teachers 10

School leaders 5

Pedagogy and examinations 13

Planning and policy making 18

Political unpredictability 7

Resources and support 9

The issue of gaps in relation to a number of dimensions was quite pronounced in the responses of interviewees and it was identified as a substantial factor hindering the successful implementation of this change initiative. These gaps were perceived to be found in curriculum with reference to the materials, time, requirements, level, teaching methods, examination system and presentation of curriculum; in planning and policy with reference to inclusion, consistency, communication and implementation strategy; and in implementation with reference to its consistency, pace of change, physical facilities and coordination.

139

With regard to the curriculum, respondents identified a mismatch between the requirements of curriculum at different levels of education such as Primary, Secondary and Higher Education levels and felt that one level was not preparing students for the next. The change in curriculum at secondary and higher secondary level was neither in keeping with the curriculum at the junior classes nor it was preparing students for the academic requirements of the higher levels. These gaps can be illustrated by the following example: ‘There is a problem at the graduation level as students are not in practice to write answers of such long questions’ (R3). There was also the question related to the level of the curriculum with some principals indicating that the curriculum did not match the age level of the students sometimes it was too advanced and sometimes not advanced enough to match the students’

needs. In the view of two principals, this happened because the curriculum was not designed by teachers. There were, in the principals’ views discontinuities between the examination paper model and the content of the syllabus. Other problems seen by the respondents in relation to the curriculum indicated the mismatch between teaching methods, the content and the level of curriculum: ‘Our problem is that syllabus is changed but the teaching methods remain the same. If methods in use are obsolete then there is a mismatch’ (R11). It was also mentioned that the content of the new curriculum was extensive and could not be covered in the time available in the session and there was a lack of coherence in presentation and application of the concepts: ‘The change is imposed without giving any thought to the level of students. The syllabus designers give the quantity without considering that how much time is available for that subject every week and how much time will be required to cover that content’ (R9).

The planning and policy making process of the change programme under study was also perceived to have some issues especially with regard to the inclusion of stakeholders. The various stakeholders in the system (principals and teachers) were not involved in planning and designing of the reformed curriculum or the examination system. This, in the view of the principals, was carried out by non-experts and people not working in the field. Another issue related to the stability of the change was its pace: the pace of change was quite rapid which caused confusion and the loss of trust among the stakeholders. There were flaws in communication processes. There was no timely information given to institutions to enable

140

them prepare for the change nor were the changes and the implications of these conveyed to different people who had a major role to play in the full implementation of this change such as paper setters and markers: ‘When some change is planned full information is not conveyed.

We are not involved in the planning of a change. We just get written orders that this change has been made’ (R17). There were issues then, in the view of the principals, in the planning process for the change initiative and in its implementation strategy, which resulted in a divergence between the intentions of planners and actions of implementers.

The principals made some observations concerning issues in the implementation of the change programme. They thought that implementation was interrupted due to the inconsistency and the mismatch between the policy parameters and the physical facilities on the ground. They also felt there was a mismatch between the planning and policy processes and the context of the schools. Implementation was further impeded on the account of the fragmented coordination among different bodies involved in the process of the implementation. ‘The vision of the policy makers is not correct because it is based on borrowed work. They are confused people with no vision. There is no proper communication rather there is a gap’ (R2).

The issues related to teachers were the main concerns coming up in number of places in the interviews with the principals including discussions on the impact of change on teachers, the problems in implementation and particularly in suggestions for improvement. The heads of institutions stated that absence of training for teachers was a main hurdle in taking the change programme forward at the institutional level: ‘The teacher training was not enough or rather very insignificant’ (R9). As teachers were not involved in the planning or designing of the new system, this training was essential in order that teachers understood this initiative.

However, the absence of any planned training created not only a communication gap, but scepticism and lack of enthusiasm among teachers:

Teachers were not properly trained although they did make a slight effort to put together some teachers and train them about the new policy and new change they were trying to bring about. But that was inadequate. As there was no training for teachers, so that is why their response was sceptical. (R5)

141

Even the opinion of teachers was not taken before initiating the change or afterwards in the form of feedback. The training could have covered some of these issues. The teaching of concepts was required in the new system, which was a new practice for teachers who were previously teaching in a system based on rote learning but no training was planned or organised for teachers: ‘Teachers also faced many problems because they were not used to the teaching of concepts. Our teachers were not accustomed to this neither they were given any training for it’ (R3).

Besides training, the other main factor hindering the successful implementation of the change programme identified by interviewees was the non-involvement of teachers in the process of planning and policy formulation for the change. This issue emerged as a major source of concern for the heads of the institutions and this omission came under repeated criticism in the interviews: ‘Actually when change is planned, teachers are not consulted. Things are decided on higher levels and then brought down. Obviously, in the field it is the teachers who have to implement the change. It cannot be implemented if teachers are not informed and their feedback is not taken’ (R13). Another problem identified for teachers was the fact that their accountability rested largely on the examination results of their students, which had shaped their teaching with a concentration on preparing their students to develop techniques to perform well in the examination. As the system was textbook based so teachers were also driven to finish the syllabus and again focused on preparing students to answer typical questions in order to enable their students get through the examinations well: ‘The new system is marks and examination oriented so teachers guide students on the tricks to get marks. Only exams are important so the focus is to prepare for exams. The accountability of teachers is also for the GPA of their students’ (R13).

Beyond training and pedagogic issues head teachers identified, another problem was the lack of any increase in pay despite the increase in the workload of teachers.

So workload of teachers has increased but neither remunerations for paper setting nor payments for paper marking have been raised. This is a discouraging point for teachers and they now do not opt for paper setting or marking duties. (R20)

142

The respondents identified three main problems for their role as school leaders: firstly, they were not involved in devising the new system; secondly, they were not made part of the planning process for the implementation policy/strategy though it was directly related to them; thirdly, there was no communication of vital information, which could help them provide guidance for staff in their institutions.

They have not involved any of our teachers or principals in the change. When you are planning, you need to involve all concerned and spend time on it.

Involvement is crucial. A teacher can understand the classroom situation and an administrator can handle it in a proper way as they face the real situation.

(R4)

and ‘Heads of the institutions were not part of the policy making or planning the implementation. Their role in the implementation process is very important but they were not consulted and change was not properly communicated to them.’ (R5)

The respondents quite extensively deliberated upon issues relating to pedagogy and examination. They thought that cramming was still part of the system because examination questions were still textbook based with an additional drawback that in the new system students had to cram books for fewer marks. ‘Now it is more problematic. In the past student knew that if he would cram the whole book, he will get 75 marks but now it is for just 25 marks. In my opinion it has worsened the situation’ (R13). The incapacity of students to express their conceptual understanding and the lack of activity based teaching and learning was a concern. ‘The new examination system by the board was planned on this notion of concept building but the problem is that in our colleges 90% students are those who cannot express themselves in English’ (R6).

The other problem noted by interviewees was the overarching importance given to examination results and grades, which had restricted teaching and learning process based on textbooks which in turn concertedly focussed on the examination: ‘We have no time to focus on the curriculum as we are preparing students for the examination’ (R7). There were also

143

problems with the examination system as well because underpinning principles of the change initiative were not communicated to the paper setters and they were not trained in the new requirements. In addition, sufficient time was not given for paper setting to meet the changes.

There was no coordination between paper setting and marking. ‘When it went to paper setters there was gap in the implementation. So there was no body or mechanism to transfer this change to the actual paper setters’ (R5).

Problems related to planning and policymaking were particularly intensive in the implementation process. Many respondents thought that there was confusion in the policymaking process and there were no clear objectives or vision. Instead, there were contradictions between the objectives:

Our policy is not consistent. First, we should be clear about the objectives what we want to achieve. There are dichotomies in our basic objectives.

Objectives are something else and we demand something else. The changes, which have been introduced, are abrupt. (R16)

In the views of the interviewees, the policy was not far sighted; it was adopted in a fragmented way and with no follow up or strong commitment by the policy makers. Another aspect of policy of deep concern to the principals was the inconsistency in approach and frequent changes in direction because of changes in the political sphere. Principals also pointed out that no thorough planning was done to anticipate possible resistance and to develop strategy to overcome any resistance. Therefore, the whole implementation strategy was ill planned with no time scheduling or staged approach. Wendell (2009) describes this as a disregard of the possible reaction of people affected by change and the existing cultural and classroom realities. In the view of the principals, the situation was worsened because of a lack of communication with all stakeholders, problematic procedures, slow bureaucratic processes and the partial implementation by only one examination board even though it was planned to be adopted all over the country. The capacity to manage the change was not given serious thought in the planning process so the development of required capacity was not proposed in the policy. There was a lack of a sense of responsibility in the policy makers and planners of the change programme and they had also created a misplaced focus on grades and

144

marks. The annual evaluation system was also criticised and cited as a problem for the implementation of change. The exclusion of educational institutions from the Ministry of Education Curriculum Wing and lack of coordination and communication between them was mentioned by a respondent as a flaw, which hampered the implementation. Many respondents thought that overall the changed system was an imported work not grounded in the local reality and not suitable to existing processes, requirements and culture. The process, in the view of the respondents, needed more grounding in the local context. These ideas came from the connection of the change in curriculum along with examination system borrowed from

‘A’ levels system of studies and examination.

So they do not consider physical facilities, context and ground realities and give the policies. Unfortunately, change is politically motivated to oblige a group of people like writers or publishers. We make extra effort to teach according to one pattern throughout the year. We develop a mind frame of students to follow the pattern but it is changed the next year. Therefore, students need to be trained on a new thing for the next year. If a system is imported it cannot work without adaptation to the local environment and situation as processes, requirements and culture are different for different places. (R17)

These comments resonate with Wendell’s (2009) scenario of employing the simplistic approach by politicians who try to find quick fixes to the educational issues by borrowing

‘change solutions, ‘off the shelf’ from education systems of other countries’ (p 44). They do not regard the differences between the contexts of different institutions. This mismatch between the local realities and the change effort results in confusion in the institutions where heads pass on the orders to teachers who in turn try to implement these changed practices in the classrooms. This communication of change is neither sensitive to the need to be flexible in order to adjust to the local contexts nor is it supported by the understanding of the goals and aims of the change, so the implementation is also unlikely to make headway into most classrooms.

145

Overlapping with problems in the planning and policy process was the issue of the ‘fickleness of change’, the lack of consistency: ‘In short changes are sudden. There should be a constant policy’ (R13). It was a deep concern and kept recurring throughout the interviews.

Respondents had problems with frequent shifts in policy, ad hoc and midsession change, abrupt change at senior levels of education and sudden imposition of change without giving enough preparation time or creating a match with on the ground reality: ‘In the beginning this change was brought in suddenly. People were not given enough time as time should have been given for preparation’ (R15).

Along with the issues of planning and policy, the problems related to resources and support was also a focused concern of respondents. The resources like guidance books, internet or extra material were perceived as being insufficient. The topics in the new curriculum were extensive and time was a scarce resource to prepare for this. The support or facilitation from the higher offices in education was not available.

Related to the issues mentioned above, a few students related problems were also mentioned such as concerns that the changed curriculum was not relevant to the mental level or requirements of the students. Students’ confusion was also perceived by the interviewees as a problem and it was partly because teachers themselves were not clear and partly because the students themselves were not prepared for this new curriculum in the junior stages of their education. There were no co-curricular or extracurricular activities for students to support their learning and it was felt that ultimately they had to rely on memory based learning as well as memory-based evaluation.

Principals elaborated on the problems in the implementation of the change programme quite extensively and identified multiple issues. The issue related to gaps within the curriculum between the content and teaching time as well as assessment criteria, between curriculum requirements and the training of students from junior level of education and the teaching methods of teachers. There were also gaps in communication between the policy makers and educators in the institutions and between curriculum developers and examination paper setters and markers. There were gaps in the implementation caused by fragmented

146

coordination among different offices, lack of follow up, unstable policies and neglect of the context. Lack of teacher training and teacher participation in curriculum development were identified as major problems for teachers along with the issue of students’ grade based accountability for teachers. The issue of competitive salaries for teachers was also raised, especially when their workload in the reformed system has increased. For students textbook based learning and assessment, the overriding importance of examination results in their academic life and career choices and non-availability of comprehensive education were identified as main issues by the interviewees. The principals were also concerned about the abruptness, suddenness and arbitrariness of the change programmes and about the volatility in the political strata, which affected the change programmes and resulted in change or even

coordination among different offices, lack of follow up, unstable policies and neglect of the context. Lack of teacher training and teacher participation in curriculum development were identified as major problems for teachers along with the issue of students’ grade based accountability for teachers. The issue of competitive salaries for teachers was also raised, especially when their workload in the reformed system has increased. For students textbook based learning and assessment, the overriding importance of examination results in their academic life and career choices and non-availability of comprehensive education were identified as main issues by the interviewees. The principals were also concerned about the abruptness, suddenness and arbitrariness of the change programmes and about the volatility in the political strata, which affected the change programmes and resulted in change or even