Statistical analyses

Descriptive and inferential statistics were generated using a Statistica package and statistical analyses were undertaken using Students t-test where appropriate and analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques with Scheffe‟ post hoc tests done to distinguish between

multivariates when significant differences were detected. Where significant differences were found calculations of practical significance (effect size) were made using Cohen‟s d when

appropriate.

Statistical analyses of the data revealed no statistically significant differences (p≤0.5) in terms of the three main factors, i.e. their views of the principal‟s roles (F1), their views on their

teachers and schools (F2), and their relations with their district offices (F3) in terms of whether they were a principal, deputy principal or „other‟, in terms of whether they were male or female; what their qualifications were; or whether they served in secondary or primary schools. Statistically significant differences (p≤0.5) were found in terms of years of service in the post of

principal, whether the schools were in the Eastern or Western Cape, and the historical type of school. A full description of the statistical analyses is contained in appendices M and N.

Differences between years of experience in years in the post

The mean scores revealed that principals in the 0-5 year experience grouping, i.e. those who had the least experience in the position, viewed their relationship with the district office in a more favourable light than principals who had served for longer periods (Table 5.7).

Table 5.7

Mean scores, numbers and standard deviations of Principals’ views on their relationship with the District Office (Factor 3; N=122)

Q1.7 F3 F F3 F3 Means N σ 0-5 years 3.13 14 0.84 6-10 years 2.93 14 0.95 11-15 years 2.48 15 0.78 16-20 years 2.88 13 0.97 >20 years 2.42 66 0.89 All Groups 2.62 122 0.92

Although the Scheffe‟ post-hoc test was not powerful to distinguish pair wise differences,

the difference was statistically significant at greater than the 95% level of confidence (p=0.03).

Differences between principals in the Eastern and Western Cape

While there were no statistically significant differences (p=0.01; df=114) between principals from the Eastern or Western Cape in terms of factors F1 or F2, i.e. their views of their roles and their views of their teachers and schools, respectively, there was a difference at the p≤0.05 level with a medium practical significance for factor F3 with Western Cape principals

Differences between principals in historically different types of schools

There were no statistically significant differences between principals in historically different types of schools in terms of how they viewed their roles. Application of ANOVA revealed that there were, however, statistically significant differences between principals in different types of schools and how they viewed their teachers and their schools and how they related with their district offices.

Principals in ex Model C schools differed significantly from principals in ex DET schools (p=0.0007; Cohen's d=0.96) and principals from ex HoR schools (p=0.00; Cohen's d=1.51), in both cases with a large practical significance, in terms of how they viewed their teachers and their schools (Table 5.8). In the case of relationships with the district office only ex Model C and ex DET principals differed significantly with a large practical significance (p=0.0013; Cohen's d=0.87) with ex-DET principals viewing their relationship with the district office statistically significantly more favourably than their counterparts (Table 5.8).

Table 5.8

Differences between principals in historically different types of schools in terms of their views of their teachers and schools (F2) and their relationship with the district office (F3)

Q1.10 F2 F2 F2 F3 F3 F3

Means N σ Means N σ

ex DET - previously for Africans 3.71 29 0.59 3.07 29 0.73

ex Model C - previously for Whites 4.20 55 0.47 2.31 55 0.95

ex HoR - previously for 'coloureds' 3.42 20 0.65 2.86 20 0.88

Summary of statistically significant differences

Differences between principals‟ view of their roles (F1), their views on their teachers and

schools (F2), and their relationship with their district offices (F3) are presented in Table 5.9

Table 5.9

Summary of differences in principals’ perceptions with regard to the three main factors that were analysed statistically

Factor Differences

Principals‟ views of their roles (F1)

 There were no statistically significant differences between principals‟ perceptions of their roles across age, gender, years of service in the role, the province in which they work, whether they headed a primary or a secondary school, or historic background of the school

Principals‟ views on their teachers and school (F2)

 Principals in ex-Model C schools viewed their teachers and schools statistically significantly more positively (with strong practical significance) than principals in ex-DET schools (p=0.0007; Cohen's d=0.96) and principals from ex HoR schools (p=0.00; Cohen's d=1.51)

Principals‟ view of their relationship with the District Office of the Department of Education

 Principals in ex-Model C and ex-HoR schools differed statistically significantly with ex-DET school principals (p=0.0013; Cohen's d=0.87) in that they viewed their relationship with the District Office statistically significantly more negatively than their counterparts in ex-DET schools.

 Principals in the Western Cape view their relationship with the District Office statistically significantly differently (p≤0.05) more positively than their counterparts in the Eastern Cape at a medium level of practical significance (d=0.50).

The qualitative data that could be gleaned from the on-line survey are reported below in a similar manner to how they were presented in chapter four, viz. as the deductively derived

themes from the literature and other new themes derived inductively from the data generated. There were no data generated on resources and teacher resistance but some pertaining to professional development and coaching and mentoring is presented below.

4.2 Professional development

Data obtained through the online survey indicate that principals view professional development as an important empowerment mechanism. They reported on how they were professionally developed over the years. According to some, they attended workshops and training where certain topics were presented and discussed. These sessions were accompanied by group interaction where, as peers they shared experiences (peer lecture learning) related to the management of schools.

Some principals reported that they registered at universities to improve their qualifications and, with the guidance of their lecturers and tutors, grew personally. One principal said that he was “extremely inspired” by his lecturer and thesis supervisor who always availed

himself for consultation. Together they had fruitful engagements and discussions about school leadership in general. Another principal reported that he spent weeks in schools all over the US shadowing principals and that this experience contributed towards his professional growth.

In general most principals believe that their professional development is enhanced by attending relevant training sessions and by interacting with other principals where they can share their own experiences about their practice. According to them this interaction evokes confidence and is a great source of encouragement to them and enables them to advise each other on issues related to the management and leadership of schools. The professional growth of principals can

further be enhanced if it is accompanied by coaching and mentoring and data generated in this study on this topic is presented in the following section.

4.3 Coaching and mentoring

Several principals reported that mentoring and coaching was necessary, especially for inexperienced principals. They were of the view that Education Development Officers (EDOs) must provide this service when they visit schools, i.e. they need to give guidance to principals on work related issues and must assist them (principals) to reflect on their practice when necessary. They also need to ensure that theory is translated into practice by the principals.

Some principals said they were mentored by their previous principals and mentors from private institutions. They reported that their principals guided and offered them mentorship and provided examples of good practice. One principal said her husband, who was a principal of long standing, mentored and coached her when she was appointed principal. She believes that this support contributed significantly to her personal growth. A similar view was expressed by other principals who were mentored by their principals when they were still deputy principal under their leadership.

Some principals reported that they were mentored and coached when they registered for the ACE: School Leadership programme, a process that was linked to the qualification on which they were registered. Mentors were sent to their schools to assist and guide them as individuals and sometimes as a group. When in groups they received advice from their mentors, were helped to prepare their portfolios of evidence, and were supported in terms of the learning process in general. The group discussions were for feedback on personal growth as leaders and provided further guidance in terms of certain leadership skills.

Where it was reported by some principals that in rare cases (despite DoE officials‟ reports that they provided „mentoring and coaching‟ to school principals) attempts at mentoring were

provided by the department, it was not functional and was out of touch with the real situation prevalent in schools. In some cases this „mentoring and coaching‟ process was only limited to site meetings with little or no business related to this purpose.