Research: Education Management in SA (2)

[mahnmut]

Overview of education leadership and management initiatives

I examine three main issues, which are directly linked to school management developments in South Africa since 1994:

1. School leadership and management;
2. Professionalisation of principalship through the South African Standard for School Leadership (SASSL); and
3. Leading and managing the learning school.

In exploring these issues I draw mainly on a systematic and comprehensive literature review of school leadership, management, and governance (Bush et al., 2006), commissioned by the Matthew Goniwe School of Leadership and Governance (MGSLG). The aim of the desk research was to establish ‘what is known’ and ‘what still needs to be known’ about educational leadership,management, and governance in South Africa.


I also draw upon the work of the Education Management Task Team (EMTT) 2004–2006, which was commissioned by the Directorate of Education Management and Governance Development in the National Department of Education. Their work drew upon the South African Schools Act (SASA) 1996 and, specifically, the recommendations of the Ministerial Task Team on Educational Management (DoE 1996). The EMTT brief was to develop a policy framework for school leadership and management development, training, and implementation, and to devise a South African Standard for School Leadership (SASSL) which would inform professional educational leadership programmes, leading to a National Professional Qualification for Principalship (SANPQP). The SASSL would provide a clear role description for principals, set out what is required of principals, and identify key areas of principalship.

School leadership and management in South Africa

As noted earlier, a systematic review of the literature on school leadership, management, and governance was undertaken in 2005–2006. This part of the article is structured using the categories in the desk research report (Bush et al., 2006).

Participation and democracy
Thurlow (2003) states that the shift to a democratic South Africa following decades of apartheid has been accompanied by a move to school-based management. He endorses the view expressed by the 1996 Ministerial Task Team (DoE, 1996:24) that self-management should be accompanied by internal devolution of power. Chisholm (1999) provides an assessment of school democracy based on a three-year longitudinal study immediately following the first democratic elections in 1994. She points to the ‘control’ model of management
in the apartheid period, previously noted by Sebakwane (1997), but adds that teacher involvement in the former black schools remains low.

Bush (2003:54) reports on a 1998 survey of principals in KwaZulu-Natal: 75% of these respondents claim that they ‘normally discuss with staff before a joint decision is taken’ and that school aims are ‘decided in consultation with all stakeholders’.

Gender
There is considerable evidence (Buckland & Thurlow, 1996; Bush & Heystek, 2006) that women are greatly under-represented in management positions. Sebakwane (1992) attributes this disparity to ‘patriarchy’. To address the legacy of apartheid South Africa, many development and intervention initiatives have been implemented since 1994. For example, in 2006, the MGSLG established a course on Gender and Leadership: Women in Education Management, for which 50 female leaders are now registered. The course is offered
alongside the Advanced Certificate in Education (ACE) programme of the University of Johannesburg.

Strategic management

The approach to strategic management in South African schools has been given added impetus by the shift to greater self-management and, in particular, the acquisition of Section 21 status (South African Schools Act 1996), which gives more autonomy to those schools obtaining this status. The greater the authority exerted by school management teams (SMTs) and school governing bodies (SGBs), the greater the potential for a truly strategic approach to emerge.

Thurlow (2003b) refers to the 1996 Ministerial Task Team Report (DoE, 1996:189) to argue that strategic management and planning represent a “radical culture shift for schools” that previously “focused on short-term tasks” and adopted a “culture of dependency”. The new challenge is that the SMTs and SGBs are required to think and act strategically in order to align school policies and practices to national legislation. However, there is only limited empirical evidence of a strategic approach being adopted in practice.

 

To be continued...
 

Comments

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Thank you that you decided to post this~