In this section, Transformative Leadership is explained from the perspective of educational leadership.
In an attempt to define and explain the theoretical framework of such leadership, I need to contextualise it within the body of educational leadership and identify its inherent characteristics.
Educational leadership entails many aspects of leadership, within a person or the position that they occupy, depending on the context in which it manifests itself. For
30 | P a g e
Fullan (1999) this leadership concentrates on a sense of service and shared mission. For Sergiovanni (2001), it concerns values and relationships, while for Day (2004) it is concerned with the ethical and emotional practices of the leader. For Leithwood (1994), transformational leadership is about identifying characteristics such as setting direction, developing people and redesigning the organisation.
For the purpose of this research, transformative leadership was chosen because it is concerned with the change, social justice and transformation that will be effected. Shields (2009) states that much of transformative leadership is built on the work of Freire (1970, 1998) in that education for change should lead to liberation through transformation and through a critical understanding of the roles by those in power and the powerless.
In this study, the focus is on how we as the SMT administer the curriculum, asking ourselves as teachers, as school managers, whether we are enabling linguistic access through SASL - not just as a subject but as a language of teaching and learning. Are we interested in good academic literacy for our Deaf learners, by teaching them critical skills and exposing them to Deaf role models in literature and Deaf culture? Denzin and Lincoln (2013, p. 345) state that an ‘oppressive culture’ in our schools is created by ’top-down’ standards imposed and not challenged. They propose having teachers, (and I include school managers), who become self-critical and begin to explore their current practices in our schools. They state (2013, p.346),
Promoting teachers as researchers is a fundamental way of cleaning up the damage of deskilled models of teaching that infantilise teachers by giving them scripts to read to their students…Teachers who engage in critical practice find it difficult to allow top- down content standards and their poisonous effects go unchallenged.
In the same way as administrators or school managers, we must become critical and communicate the challenges encountered within the context of our schools to the DBE. As stated above, teachers cannot uncritically take a curriculum and unquestioningly implement it. This is synonymous with the ‘banking model’ of education (Freire, 1972). Schools who implement SASL in this way could be following a medical model of Deafness (discussed in the next section), where they still practise an oral approach to SASL. They could make the Deaf learner to ‘fit’ the curriculum, when rather the school should critically examine the curriculum and the context of the learners and how the SASL curriculum should be implemented for their academic success.
31 | P a g e
Shields (2009, p. 89) posits that transformative leadership comprises leaders using their powers to transform social realities while Weiner (2003, p.89) views this leadership as “an exercise of power and authority that begins with questions of justice, democracy and the dialectic between individual accountability and the social responsibility”. Therefore, it is the responsibility of school leaders to create schools where SASL is accessible.
Transformative leadership indicates a substantive change to an organisation, a change that requires a dismantling of traditional ways into a reconstructed and
democratic new social context. Cornell West (2002, para 3)articulates it as:
An oppositional stance to the hegemonic forms of school leadership and promises a reformed change, as it engages the existence of race, class and gender inequalities present in schools as an agenda for institutional change.
This view of leadership assumes a different theoretical frame and a new way of practice from the old way which conformed to traditional leadership. In this system, there is an engagement of the “voices”: people whose opinions previously were not thought to be substantially relevant, now become important and necessary in the
processes of change.
West (2002) presents a view of Transformative Leadership that engages in critical dialogue about the different dynamics within the diverse roles of all individuals within a school. He states, (2002, para 12)
Transformative leadership demands that educational leaders critically assess the asymmetrical relations of power in the organizational context and deconstruct through critical interpretation, those practices and cultural artefacts that engender an anti- democratic discourse in organizations such as schools.
This form of leadership deals with identifying what constitutes quality education for our Deaf learner, what social injustice it begins to address and how role players can make a difference. It is the start to listening to all concerns from members in leadership, from Deaf teachers and Deaf class assistants when determining how we would move forward. It does not apply to the process of implementing SASL alone, but also to the socio-cultural paradigm of deafness that guides the decisions for our learners.
32 | P a g e 2.4. Paradigms of Deafness
There are two paradigmatic views of deafness for the understanding and determination of the language policy for SASL. Peel (2005, p. 9) explains that people’s own paradigm of deafness will determine the way they view, treat, teach and value Deaf learners and Deaf Education. This includes the medical paradigm and the socio- cultural paradigm.
2.4.1. The clinical-pathological (medical) paradigm
The clinical-pathological paradigm of deafness is also known as the “medical model”20
or the deficit model. The emphasis underlying this paradigm is to remediate or “fix” the deaf person, so that they would fit into the ‘hearing world’ (Mcilroy, 2008, Peel, 2004, Reagan, 2008). This paradigm generally follows the oral approach within Deaf Education with little or no regard for Sign Language or Deaf culture. This paradigm is also termed “pathological”, as the Deaf person needs to find a way to ‘fit’ into the hearing world. Statements such “All Deaf people can be cured with an cochlear implant….having an interpreter is sufficient” may be found in the work of Mertens (2009, p.35), where she highlights some of the assumptions made by hearing people who do not have knowledge about Deaf culture or the regard for a visual language.
2.4.2. Socio-cultural paradigm
To accept deafness in terms of a socio-cultural paradigm, commonly referred as the “Social Model”21, entails that deafness is not a disability, that Deaf culture and Sign Language is a representation of the DEAF-WORLD (Reagan, 2008, p 169). This acceptance of a socio-cultural construction of Deafness in education implies that SASL is accepted as the preferred ‘language-in-education’ policy (Reagan, 2008). Accepting SASL as the language of teaching and learning speaks directly to social justice: that of the rights of the Deaf learner.
20 Medical Model – This Model emphasises the need for medical intervention to “fix” the disability (Reagan, 2008, 167-169).
21 Social Model – This model celebrates, respects and regards the rights of Sign Language and Deaf Culture for Deaf people (Reagan, 2008, 167-169).
33 | P a g e
A socio-cultural perspective within a Deaf context highlights the importance of social interaction in language learning and Deaf culture identification as the cornerstone for the recognition of a Deaf paradigm. Peel (2004, p.12) emphasises that educators should view Deaf learners from the socio-cultural perspective and that in doing this, the rights of Deaf learners to receive quality education are acknowledged and strived for. In this context, it is through language that a child/learner acquires world knowledge. Grosjean (1992), on quality education for Deaf learners, strongly advocates for the rights of the Deaf child to master the ability of two languages, Sign Language and a written/oral form of a spoken language. This is critical for their social, cognitive, academic and physiological development as well as their vocational ability. To teach two languages to the Deaf child involves the Sign Bilingual approach.
See Stӧrbeck (2000, p.52) ‘Enrichment Bilingualism’ where this approach looks at the skill in both the primary and the secondary language, with ongoing emphasis on the minority language and culture throughout, whilst developing the primary language. At schools, we first have to focus on a Basic Interpersonal Communicational Skills (BICS) approach which relies on context and content of the language for enrichment; then we can focus on the Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) approach if we want to see learners start thinking critically and engaging with the school curriculum. When SASL becomes the language of thought, academic improvement in all other subjects becomes attainable. But the change starts with the implementation of SASL, when all staff responsible for the SASL curriculum becomes critical by asking and discussing SASL access for all learners and teachers.