REVISITING “THIN” CONCEPTIONS OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

The new education dispensation forms a constitutive framework for developing transformation in schools, yet schools do not always reflect transformed environments. The new education policy requires school leaders to work in democratic environments, but school leaders (principals) are struggling to translate this new policy into practice.

I argue that the reason why my school as well as the six other schools I engaged with do not reflect transformed environments. I contend that the leader (school principal) is struggling to implement the constitutive frameworks for developing transformation in the school adequately. In chapter 1 I refer to one of the former model C, high school principals commenting on new policy overload. Therefore, I contend that very little change has taken place in present-day schools that I have become familiar with. I maintain that if change is visible, it is purely superficial – that is, schools appear to have changed and transformed their

environment. By this I mean that the school environment reflects traces of democratic transformation, but that this is not substantive enough to deepen transformation. These superficial changes represent a thin conception of educational leadership and management practice in current schools. As a consequence, I contend that the six principals as well as I seem to be struggling to convert policy into practice. Therefore I argue that educational changes have thus been superficial.

I contend that thin conceptions of educational leadership and management practice are embedded in positivist thinking and actions. I argue that the leaders’ positivist/behaviourist attributes, concomitant with their thinking and actions, relate to how they continue to proceed in their practice. I mean that very little change would have taken place in schools if the leaders (school principals) have not changed becoming aligned with renewed thinking and action. In other words, a thin conception of educational leadership and management practice is embedded in the school principals’ positivist/behaviourist ways of thinking and acting. Their approach would therefore reflect thinness in educational leadership and management practice.

What I consider as thin conceptions of educational leadership and management practice directly point to the leaders (school principals) who lead and manage schools in a particular way, reflecting an autocratic manner and style of leading and managing a school, evident in my visit to six other schools. The two white, former model C principals have a strong tendency towards autocratic leadership and management. They clearly indicate that their role as principal galvanises the ethos and culture of the school. The two coloured principals, former House of Representative schools depicted a more humble approach to their roles as school principals but conveyed that they were ultimately responsible and accountable for the decision-making of the school. The two black, formerly Bantu Education school principals depicted total humility and concern for humanity and the school community but categorically stated that as heads of their respective schools the ultimate decision-making of the school rest in the hands of the school principal. Through this empirical observation it is evident that autocracy rangers from “thin” to deeper notions of leading and managing a school. However, all six principals confirmed that there has to be a measure of autocratic leadership. The reason being, principals are answerable, accountable and responsible to both the DoE and the school community.

An autocratic style of school leadership and management is embedded in autonomous, authoritarian and dictatorial approach. All power and decision-making is autonomous and controlled by the school principal. In other words, all decision-making is subject to the principals’ authorisation and approval – as can be seen, for instance, in the ways in which I conduct staff meetings as well as the very formal and autocratic way the two white principals engaged with me. Autocracy means that no decisions are finalised without the principals’

stamp of approval. It came across most emphatically that the success of the two former model C schools (primary and high school) is due to the strength and leadership of the school principal. They both referred to “my school”, and their achievements at the school. An autocratic style of school leadership and management forms a thin idea of an educational leadership and management practice, because it typifies a positivist/behaviourist notion of an authoritarian mode of leading and managing.

In addition, educational leadership and management practice are hierarchical, bureaucratic and discriminatory in terms of male domination and the exclusion of women (Young 2000) from leadership and management positions, particularly in South African schools. The exclusion of women from leadership and management positions is not only an exclusionary practice that is discriminatory towards women in school practice but is undemocratic in terms of gender equality as an underpinning value of democracy Therefore, I hold that current educational leadership and management practices continue to be male dominated, irrespective of race and regardless of legislated frameworks embedded in gender equality, non-sexism and non-discrimination towards women in general but, particularly women of diverse race and culture who have reached the level of Head of Department or Deputy Head but not as Heads of P4 schools. This was substantially evident in all six the schools I engaged with. None of the six schools had females as the Deputy Head of the school; however, women educators did fill the ranks of Head of Department in the various schools. This proves my point that women are not equally represented as potential deputy or heads of schools, and hence I argue that gender discrimination in leadership and management positions at schools continue to exist, particularly P4 schools.

Moreover, school leadership and management practice have not realigned school cultures to keep them abreast of multicultural education, to reflect a more transformed school environment. I substantiate my argument by referring to the six schools I engaged with; two of

the six school environments reflected a malaise of diverse cultures, however the majority of learners and staff were white, namely the two former model C schools (primary and high school). The other four schools strongly reflected the dominant racial culture of their school community. In other words, the two previously known coloured schools (primary and high school) reflected the majority of coloured learners and staff alike. The two previously known black schools reflected a dominant black school community. The one predominantly black high school reflects predominantly black learners but a more racially mixed staff. The response by the principal was that the school had inherited staff from the redeployment list as this school was a new school build in 1994, by the Nelson Mandela Presidential Fund.

By school culture I mean the values and norms that shape and mould the school encapsulating the ethos, standards, morals, ethics, and patterns of work, ceremonies, cultural and sporting events. All six school principals I argue continue to lead and manage their schools in positivist/behaviourist ways strongly influenced by their personal culture as well as the dominant culture of the school, while remaining oblivious of the social, cultural and environmental contexts of the diversity of learners and staff. Hence the need to rethink and restructure the cultural ethos in keeping with the social, cultural and environmental needs of the learners, teachers and school community.

I contend that educational leadership and management practice has generally failed to understand multicultural education as many school cultures continue to reflect past practice, evident in the six schools I engaged with by mainstreaming multiculturalism into the existing school culture. In so doing, excluding the voice of difference that reflects the social, cultural and environmental needs of the learners, teachers and school community. That means that thin conceptions of educational leadership and management practice with reference to school culture are configured by ethnocentrism, meaning the judging of other cultures from our own cultural perspective (Dimmock & Walker 2005: 9).

In relation to the above-mentioned notions of thin conceptions of educational leadership and management practice, namely that school environments are underpinned by autocracy, meaning dictatorship in a hierarchical school system, I alluded to the exclusion of women in leadership and management positions within the education system. Lastly, I referred to educational leadership and management in relation to school culture, where mainstreaming

multiculturalism in keeping with the general culture of the school is what I consider to be a thin educational leadership and management practice. In order to advance my argument that current educational leadership and management practices in schools are thin, I consider these three issues, namely autocracy, exclusion of women and mainstreaming multiculturalism, as issues that undermine democratic transformation in schools.

Next, I shall discuss what thin understandings of leadership and management entail. Firstly, I shall distinguish between meanings of educational leadership and educational management from a principal’s perspective. Secondly, I shall explain what thin understandings of educational leadership and management involve. Thirdly, I shall show how positivist theory of educational leadership and management connects with thin ideas. Fourthly, I shall refer to my story (narrative account) and personal encounters with six other principals whom I regard as principals who could possibility cultivate a deeper democratic practice if their thinking and actions could change aligned with a more democratic approach to school leadership and management. However, I would like to conceptualise some meanings of educational leadership as well as meanings of educational management, as both are essential prerequisites for the successful transformation of the South African education system.

2.2.1 UNDERSTANDING THE MEANINGS OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Educational leadership and management are complementary concepts. In practice effective management requires good leadership and vice versa. The biggest challenge for schools is that principals ought to be both good leaders and good managers in order to facilitate transforming the school environment. However, in practice I contend that I do not have both exceptional leadership and managerial skills. I would consider myself a visionary leader and a good manager. This understanding of good leadership and good management was highlighted when I engaged with the six school principals. The one former model C high school principal was a strong manager with strong managerial structures that he conveyed to me. The other former model C primary school principal was clearly a leader who envisaged the future of the school but did not refer to strategic management planning, only vision. The other former House of Representative high school principal appeared to be a very charismatic, charming man but when it came to answering questions concerning staff establishment and learner numbers he liaised with the other male Deputy Head to confirm the

actual statistics. The other primary school principal, former House of Representative school was a meticulous person. His office was neat and well organised with all the relevant legislation, policy and documentation neatly displayed. He revealed that the copious paper work from the district office has impinged on his role as school principal. The former Bantu Education high school principal displayed both leadership and management capabilities as he eloquently discussed the future of school education from a leader and managers perspective.

The other former Bantu Education primary school principal is a leader who shared his humanitarian concern for staff, learners and the impoverished squatter school community.

This particular principal clearly lacked the technological resources to manage the school. This school did not have a telephone, fax facility, computers or administrative staff. The infrastructure of the school was hampered by the lack of basic facilities. For the sake of clarification I would therefore like to offer a meaning of educational leadership and one of educational management and show how these two concepts are intertwined ways that school principals apply to successfully lead and manage schools.

Let me distinguish between meanings of educational leadership and educational management. Educational leadership is an accountable and responsible role that leaders take on in order to lead their schools. Being the principal entails a commitment and responsibility that a leader undertakes as head of a school. This commitment and responsibility make the leader accountable to the Department of Education (DoE), teachers, parents, learners and school community in terms of the position they hold and the vision set for their schools. Being accountable implies a responsibility that means being answerable to the DoE, parents, teachers, learners and the school community. Accountability implies that school leadership is the responsibility undertaken by a person to execute legislated education policy with regard to leading and managing a school.

In other words, educational leadership is about the responsible role of principals as officials of the DoE, appointed to head, guide, lead, interpret and implement DoE policy in school practices in a competent manner through the vision of the school. It is thus the competence of thinking and acting of school leaders that will translate into how thinly or how deeply principals lead and manage schools in relation to implementing current educational policy. It is a commitment by principals as officials of the DoE to implement and develop the new constitutive framework in current schools in a competent manner directed by the vision of the

school (Nanus, 1997). In other words, the principals’ commitment is a pledge to implement new policy competently.

Thomas Sergiovanni (1994: 214) states:

in communities, the sources of authority for leadership are embedded in shared ideas.

One source is moral authority in the form of obligations and duties that emerge from the bonding and binding ties of community. Another source is professional authority in the form of a commitment to virtuous practice.

In other words, Sergiovanni (1994) contends that educational leadership is participatory in that a just, decent and ethical commitment to the community is shaped within a social context.

He further states that the professional responsibility of leadership is a commitment to an honest, good and righteous practice. Sergiovanni (1994) thus concurs that educational leadership is thus a principled commitment to the community and an honourable professional practice. Hence, educational leadership, according to Sergiovanni (1994), is anchored in responsibility in practice (education profession) and social commitment (school community).

It is therefore evident that the way an educational leader (school principal) thinks and acts has a direct impact on the vision of the school. Therefore, I contend that if school principals have not changed their thinking and actions in order to be aligned with transforming the school environment, then thin conceptions of educational leadership and management practice would continue to exist in such schools.

2.2.2 UNDERSTANDING THE MEANINGS OF EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT

Let us view some meanings of educational management and see how these meanings complement one another and differ, yet are inherent in the educational leadership role that school principals play in leading and managing schools. An important function of educational leadership is school management. Bell (1990: 137) defines management as “the day-to-day management of schools” by deciding what to do and then getting it done through the effective use of resources. Bell (1990) further draws our attention to the structures and processes of management that underpin these day-to-day tasks. These include planning: an action to

achieve desired results; organising: structuring and staffing the organisation most appropriately to attain the desired objective; leading: motivating people to work together to attain a desired outcome; and co-ordinating: monitoring the progress of work in relation to the intended plan. Bell further informs us that school effectiveness “is often defined in terms of achieving specified goals with little discussion about the quality of those goals” (Bell 1990:

137). In other words, what Bell (1990) purports are achieving goals that would determine the effectiveness of management as a prerequisite for an effective school. However, Bell cautions us that such thinking and acting are qualitative in nature and statistical in presentation as they override the value of discussion, stating “little discussion about the quality of those goals”

(Bell 1990: 137) is discussed. The value of Bell’s argument informs me that effective educational management is not only determined by the achievement of goals but on the value of discussion concerning the quality of those goals. In other words, Bell draws my attention to the value of discussion that principals ought to engender in managing schools.

These meanings of “school management” allude to how effectively the school functions in relation to the role that principals play in planning and managing school structures such as development strategies, school organisational structures and systems, policy setting – school rules and regulations, sports codes, cultural codes, safety and security policy and HIV/Aids policy, action plans, governance structures – financial planning, school budgets, school maintenance, personnel development, human resources, staff appointments, staff portfolios, school governing body (SGB) planning, school management teams (SMT) planning and staff development teams (SDT) co-ordinating and capacity building for all role-players – staff development programmes for teachers, life skills development programmes for learners, parent information meetings such as, OBE parent information, parent counselling skills, medical information on children’s illnesses, learners’ progress reports to parents, as well as networking and developing partnerships with the school community. These executive managerial decision-making, administrative and supervisory functions that leaders perform give structure and form to the management composition of the school.

In other words, these managerial roles and functions direct the strategic alignment of the school, identified as a structured, functional, working plan for the school. The managerial function and strategic alignment constitute the accountable and responsible role that leaders perform as school managers. If school principals are autocratic in their approach to

educational management, the managerial functions and strategic alignment, such as school structures and systems, strategic planning and decision-making of the school, would be dealt with in a hierarchical manner where planning, structure and decision-making would be sanctioned and scrutinised autonomously by the principal for approval. I have experienced this approach in my own practice where I am inclined to autocratically manage the school and only inform staff of their administrative duties and function in the school. I do not value discussion, as stated by Bell (1990). Hence, the way I manage the school has a direct impact on my leadership style and approach.

It is evident that as a leader of a school I cannot consider educational leadership and management as two separate entities. I argue that educational leadership and management are interchangeable functions, roles and responsibilities of principals in leading, managing and transforming schools. Therefore leadership cannot function without management because in practice effective management requires good leadership and vice versa. I will therefore refer to educational leadership and management as interchangeable actions for school practice. The biggest challenge as school principal is, to be both manager and leader in order to be successful in facilitating deeper transformation in school practice.

2.2.3 “THIN” CONCEPTIONS OF EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT