Functional Urban Schools Amid Dysfunctional Settings

Abstract

Similar to Dickens’s Tale of Two Cities, this research study is about a tale of two schools. The first type of school is a dysfunctional school. Dysfunctional schools are schools in a state of chaos (Shipengrower & Conway, 1998). The second school is that of order. The researchers refer to this school as a functional school. In 2003, the functional school in this research project scored a 100% pass rate in the Senior Certificate Examination (SCE), whereas the dysfunctional school scored 57.35%. Dysfunctional schools, known as “failing schools” are usually found in the poorest neighborhood, where children are mostly Black or immigrants who are not proficient in English. One of the casualties of the apartheid era has been the diminishing authority of the school principal. The aim of this research is to investigate the role of the leader in managing a functional school situated in a dysfunctional environment in the Gauteng province of South Africa. The research study is also directed at predicting the characteristics of dysfunctional/functional schools in the Gauteng province of South Africa.

Keywords

accountability educational policy educational reform school improvement principals

Introduction

School administrators of urban schools need to understand that effective schools have important functions to perform. In the United States, Congress has made an effort to make schools effective by mandating state testing. The failure of students in U.S. urban schools to perform satisfactorily on state mandated tests can result in penalties being imposed on schools and the possibility of students being able to transfer to other schools.

The options available to students in ineffective urban schools in South Africa are virtually nonexistent. Effective schools in South Africa depend on the leadership in the school to effect meaningful changes. This article explores how the quality of South African urban schools depends on effective administrative leadership.

The U.S. Approach to Addressing Functionality Under the NCLB

South Africa has adopted an approach to determining functional schools different from that in the United States under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB).The NCLB was designed to “hold schools, local educational agencies, and States accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students, and identifying and turning around low performing schools that have failed to provide a high quality education to their students” (NCLB, 2002). Each state is required to submit a plan demonstrating “that the State has developed and is implementing a single, statewide State accountability system that will be effective in ensuring that all local educational agencies, public elementary schools, and public secondary schools make adequate yearly progress” (NCLB § 6311(b)(2)A)).

The NCLB requires that each school district create annual standardized tests in literacy and mathematics (and, subsequently, science) in grades three through twelve that are aligned with standards in the school plans (NCLB, 2002); report the results of performance on these tests and other valid indicators for individual schools and for all relevant ethnic and socioeconomic subpopulations within those schools (NCLB § 6311(b)(3); set goals for “annual yearly progress” (AYP) so that students in all the relevant subpopulations can be expected to meet the state standard of adequacy within 12 years (§ 6311(2)(c)(5)); require local education authorities (LEAs) to present annual “report cards” ranking the performance of each of the relevant subpopulations at all of their schools on the state’s tests (§ 6311(c)(1) and(h)); integrate these activities into a broader accountability system for assuring that schools and school districts meet these obligations to provide an adequate education to all subpopulations; (§ 6311(b)(2)) along with LEAs, provide technical assistance premised “on scientifically based research” to schools that have persistently failed to meet their AYPs, including through state-organized peer-support teams of master teachers(§§ 6311(c)(3), 6311(c)(4), 6316(b)(4), 6317); and provide academic achievement awards for schools that “significantly closed the achievement gap” between students from different ethnic groups (§ 6311 (b)(1)(B)(i)).

However, the NCLB’s insistence that schools set goals for annual yearly progress and use tests to monitor school improvement has raised concerns as to whether the NCLB “is a Trojan horse for nefarious political designs” (Liebman & Sabel, 2003). In many U.S. states, NCLB-mandated tests, in addition to measuring student progress, are often also used as exit exams to meet state statutory requirements for high school graduation, an application that affects more than 70% of all high school students, a process that has raised concerns as to whether schools develop strategies to exclude students, likely to fail tests, from taking those tests altogether (Pullin, 2011-2012).

The challenge presented by what one author refers to as the “testing trap” is that, if meaningful change is to occur, “school personnel must share a coherent, explicit set of norms, and expectations about what a good school looks like before they can use signals from the outside to improve student learning” (Liebman & Sabel, 2003). In an insightful article, Thomas Risberg highlighted the three major flaws of the NCLB. First, “states are allowed to create their own standards and tests and determine what score makes a student proficient,” allowing for what the author refers to as “perverse incentives for states to adopt easy standards, develop simple tests, and use low thresholds for proficiency” (Risberg, 2011). Second, because each state bears the financial burden of creating its own tests and standards, the tests and standard instead of being the same “differ from state to state” (Risberg, 2011). Third, as the tests administered to students in different states differ significantly, “scores of students from different states cannot be quickly or accurately compared” (Risberg, 2011). The result is “comparing students from different states is like comparing apples and oranges” (Risberg, 2011).

The weakness of the NCLB is reflected in another important provision that affects largely disadvantaged students, primarily in urban schools. Where students attend a school identified for school improvement under the NCLB, “the local educational agency shall . . . provide all students enrolled in the school with the option to transfer to another public school served by the local educational agency . . . .” (§ 6316(b)(1)E(i)). The NCLB functions under “an implicit theory of learning that mandated external accountability and clear expectations for schools that motivates teachers and their students to be better will work,” but “the current law does little to enhance the capacity of schools to improve themselves” (Pullin, 2011-2012).

The combination of racial and economic segregation in U.S. schools presents a series of significant barriers to providing students with a high quality education. In Abbott v. Burke (1997), the Supreme Court of New Jersey observed that in poor, predominately minority schools, “obstacles to a thorough and efficient education are present not only in the schools themselves, but also in the neighborhoods and family conditions of poor urban children . . . (including) drug abuse, crime, hunger, poor health, illness, and unstable family situations” (p. 433). Poor students often face significant challenges in their home environments, such as poor health, malnutrition, neighborhood violence, and unstable family situations, which can serve as serious impediments to student attendance and learning. As a result, they are more likely to miss out on the various informal education and socialization opportunities that researchers have identified as just as important to making students “school ready” (Wilson, 2011). Poor minority students also often face pressure from their peers to not succeed academically because achievement is otherwise equated with “acting white” (Wilson, 2011).

Although schools with disadvantaged and minority students face a myriad of obstacles, they typically spend significantly less money per pupil than school districts with lower poverty rates, “even when one accounts for federal grant money given to schools with large percentages of poor students” (Wilson, 2011, p. 648). Consequently, they are more likely to have teachers who are not credentialed in the subject areas in which they teach, offer fewer honors or advanced placement courses, and have high teacher turnover rates (Parents Involved in Community School v. Seattle Sch, 2007). Predictably, students who attend such schools score lower on standardized achievement tests and are more likely to drop out (Parents Involved in Community School v. Seattle Sch, 2007).

The United States is unique in its effort to seek equity in public schools by means of comprehensive legislation, such as NCLB. Countries such as South Africa have severely limited resources, and must seek other methods for assessing success in addressing the needs of disadvantaged students. The challenge in South Africa is difficult because the disadvantaged students represent a significant percentage of the total student population who reside in urban and rural areas populated by disadvantaged adults and students, and because the disadvantaged students reside largely in rural, rather than urban, areas.

However, the United States and South Africa share a common interest as to whether disadvantaged students would perform more successfully in a school with more resources, better qualified teachers, and a more diverse student population. In other words, to express the issue differently, would performance by students in rural schools in South Africa improve if they were placed in high performing nonurban schools? South Africa has no counterpoint to the NCLB’s provision that students in poor performing schools have an opportunity to select a higher achieving school in the same school district. Such a choice option exists only in a rare situation, such as Head of Department, Mpumalanga Department of Education v. Hoerskool Ermelo (2010), where a largely White, Afrikaans-speaking school with empty rooms is ordered to enroll English-speaking disadvantaged students from an overly crowded nearby township school.

In effect, success in South African urban schools will need to be examined from a different perspective. As a change for most disadvantaged South African students is unlikely to occur through a transfer to a school with adequate resources, a different criteria for assessing success needs to be considered. This article will examine school success in preparing students for South Africa’s high stakes matriculation exam, relying on the concept of functionality. In essence, this approach will examine high achieving schools in a dysfunctional urban township where success in student achievement may not demonstrate a one-size-fits-all viewpoint of functionality, but, instead, may reveal that each successful school bears its own individual imprint of functionality.

The purpose of this article is to examine a successful secondary school in South Africa, and determine the factors that make this school functional. For purposes of this article, a functional school is defined as one that has at least an 80% to 100% pass rate of students who take the annual Matriculation Exam (ME). This article will examine research done in South Africa that explored an effective school in a dysfunctional setting with an ineffective school in a similar setting.

The Approach to Functionality in Postapartheid South Africa

An Historical Background to Functionality/Dysfunctionality in Schools

Apartheid officially ended in South Africa with the first general elections in 1994. However, the end of apartheid has not marked the end of discriminatory inequalities in South African schools, especially those located in the disadvantaged urban and township settings populated almost completely with disadvantaged Black students. Thrupp observed that postapartheid Black schools faced “savage inequalities” because these schools, located in areas with high levels of unemployment, and crime as well as poor housing and health conditions, were required to take on a significant caring role if academic goals were to be achieved (Thrupp, 1999).

The absolute inadequacy of Black schooling was reflected in the privilege of White education, which despite constituting less than 10% of the number of students, consumed 30% of the education budget and a White–Black spending ratio of 3:1 (National Education Policy Investigation, 1993). Despite efforts at reform, education in South Africa remains unequal along racial lines with grossly inferior Black institutions (where the overwhelming majority of Black students attend) demonstrating a decline in the ME pass rate (Booyse, le Roux, Seroto, & Wolhuter, 2011). In the former White schools in the Western Cape, 62.5% of Grade 3 students in 2008 could read and write at appropriate levels whereas the corresponding figure in the Black townships was 0.1% (Booyse et al., 2011). As reflected above, desegregation of educational institutions has been very much a one-way process with students of Black families seeking to move to the better historically White institutions. Thus, virtually all White students still attend formerly all-White institutions whereas most Black students continue to attend historically Black institutions (Booyse et al., 2011, p. 282).

Historically Black schools face other challenges. Although on any given day, 1.7% of teachers in historically White schools are absent, the number for Black schools varies from 15.5% to 25.5 % (Booyse et al., 2011). Even an increase in per-student government funds from R6300 in 2005/06 to R9160 in 2008/09 has seen the number of students passing the ME drop from 351,503 in 2006 to 344, 794 in 2008 (Booyse et al., 2011, p. 283).

Despite South Africa Constitution’s acknowledgement of a linguistic multiculturalism with eleven official languages (South Africa Constitution, 1996), English has become the language of preference. No progress has been made concerning the development of African languages beyond Grade 4 and the number of Afrikaans single-medium schools has declined from 1396 in 1993 to 667 in 2009 (Booyse et al., 2011).

Measuring Functionality and Dysfunctionality in South Africa Schools

The purposes of this study were to identify the characteristics of a dysfunctional school and a functional school in the Gauteng province of South Africa and to explore and describe the effective management of a functional school in a dysfunctional area. Two hundred questionnaires were distributed to principals in differing schools based on the pass rate of the ME. One hundred questionnaires were distributed to the principals of schools that had a pass rate of 80% to 100% on the ME (also known as the Senior Certificate Examination [SCE]) and one hundred questionnaires to schools that scored a past rate of less than 40%. One hundred eighty-one questionnaires were returned with the principals responding to eleven areas: school background; principal’s background information; staffing issues; school facilities; health, safety and security; school finance; school governance and management; school inspection and supervision; attendance rates and functional school days; school management; teaching practice; and, discipline, safety, and learning atmosphere (Bipath, 2005). These 11 categories constituted 11 independent variables which were examined in terms of their impact on the dependent variable, namely whether the school achieved a pass rate of 80% to 100% or whether the pass rate was below 40%.

Functional schools were identified as having strong leadership, high expectations for children’s achievement, an orderly atmosphere conducive to learning, an emphasis on basic skill acquisition, and frequent monitoring of student progress which is used as feedback (Earley & Weindling, 2004). In terms of the independent variables, functional schools were characterized as having zero defect in discipline among teachers, students and school support staff; excellence in student academic achievement; quality involvement in the cocurricular activities; creative and innovative teaching and learning process and administration; cleanliness and a cheerful environment; active involvement and valuable contribution by members of the school in community work; high percentage of students pursuing higher education; good interpersonal relationships among school citizens; efficient management of school finance; espirit de corps and dedication among management, teachers and support staff; and, strong leadership (Bipath, 2005).

Conducting the Study

The researcher conducted a field study of 4 weeks each in a functional school and a dysfunctional school in a low socioeconomic area seeking responses to three open questions: What can you tell me about your school? What are the strengths and weaknesses of your school? How can you improve your school? In addition, the learners in the classes, the administrative clerks, teachers, parents, school governing body (SGB) members, Representative Council of Learners (RCL), which are the learners in secondary schools who are elected by all learners to represent them on the SGB and even the cleaners in the two schools being investigated were interviewed as well. The documents analyzed in this study were the following: minutes of the staff meetings; minutes of the SGB meetings; minutes of the RCL meetings; school developmental plans; the school policy; and, newsletters, memos to parents (Bipath, 2005).

The researcher used the qualitative methods of observation, semistructured interviews and document analysis with all stakeholders in the functional as well as dysfunctional school in the dysfunctional area to triangulate the findings of the qualitative research (Bipath, 2005, p. 217). By investigating two schools in a poor socioeconomic area the investigator ensured that the contextual variables for both would be the same.

The research revealed that the role of the principal in creating a functional or dysfunctional school was critical. Principals in functional schools tended to accept responsibility for the management of teaching practices in their schools. Principals in dysfunctional schools appeared not to accept the same amount of responsibility as principals in functional schools for the management of teaching practices in their schools. This could lead to “finger pointing” at others with a concomitant shifting of blame for poor management on to others such as the Department of Education (Bipath, 2005, p. 170). The study revealed that a serious need exists for training urban school principals in how to function effectively. More importantly, though, the study is hopeful in that dysfunctionality does not have to be the modus operandi for a school simply because it is located in a dysfunctional area.

Effective Leadership Traits Ascertained From the Study

Leading and managing the learning school

Effective school administrators require emotional intelligence, which consists of self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. A leader who demonstrates emotional intelligence will first be aware of his or her own emotions and will not allow them to cloud his or her judgment. Second, the leader will be able to motivate himself or herself to complete a given task. Third, the leader will be able to accurately sense others’ emotions (Goleman, 1997). The principal in the functional school possessed all the emotional intelligence competencies necessary to lead and manage the school. He had the ability to recognize how his emotions affected his performance and the performance of others. The vision and mission of the school was consistently communicated to all staff members by the principal. He communicated the vision of the school to learners by setting goals for them at the first assembly of the school year.

He organized programs to ensure that the developmental plans were implemented. The batho pele (People First) principles that emphasize consultation, service standards, increased access, courtesy, openness and transparency, redress, and value for money are posted outside his door (http://www.dpsa.gov.za/batho-pele/Principles.asp). He required that the treasurer deliver a monthly budget report at SGB meetings so that all stakeholders were aware of how and why money is spent and that changes in the budget would not occur without consultation with them. Minutes of all meetings are meticulously filed in the office and are easily accessible to anyone.

Shaping the direction and development of the school

The principal is aware of the poverty and hunger of his students is continuously looking for sponsors to provide free meals for learners during the school day. He is aware that learners have no study space in their homes so he keeps his school open till late hours.

In addressing the organizational culture of his school the principal paid attention to the punctuality and attendance of teachers and learners, the management by the heads of departments (HODs), the empowerment of the deputy principals, and the functional role of the SGB. He also ensured that the parents were educated on their roles and responsibilities regarding their learners.

The learners were considered as high priority in this school and the principal made time to individually motivate each learner to study. When students did well he arranged bursaries to assist them. For the chosen few learners who needed enrichment in passing the ME with a distinction, he selected high performing students to assist in teaching as part of the Role Model Intervention Programme (RMIP).

The principal of the functional school measured the performance of all learners by setting dates for monthly cycle tests for Grades 8 to 12 learners. The use of pace setters in specific subjects ensured that the work was controlled by being divided into manageable portions and assessed monthly. The school was open every Saturday beginning with the new school year in January for extra lessons if teachers were falling behind in the syllabus.

The principal also controlled the attendance of teachers and learners by having a register that was signed by the teacher and controlled by the class representative. The time that the teacher entered the class, and left the class was also recorded. The principal also briefed all teachers on these attendance registers and collected and checked them every Friday. If misdemeanors were noticed they were immediately dealt with. Charge sheets were drawn up by the School Management Team (SMT) for misdemeanors.

Part of the principal’s commitment to excellent results in his school was to work in uplifting the dysfunctional community in which the school was located. He did not blame apartheid for the low standard of teaching and learning and was proactive in drawing up programs and setting appropriate targets for monitoring the performance of learners. He was not afraid to visit high performing schools to find out how excellent results were achieved and was rewarded with 100% ME pass rate from 2003 through 2010.

Assuring quality and securing accountability

When asked about the excellent matriculation exam results of his school, the functional school principal complimented the work of his school management team in ensuring that the ME preparation study outlines were completed on time. The principal saw his role as merely the watchdog who called in all matriculants in the beginning of the year and explained the importance of achieving an excellent pass to complete a tertiary education. The RCL complemented their principal, saying that he was the reason for the good pass rates as he had called in parents, explaining the need for learners to study and be kept away from household chores. The principal was well aware that, in economically disadvantaged urban and township schools, children were generally given many chores to do and that parents did not always understand the importance of time for concentrated studying. He was also responsible for ensuring that learners who had no electricity in their home could study after hours at the school. To assure that students have the maximum possibility of assistance in preparing for the ME, he comes to school at 6:45 and leaves at 21:00. In addition, to minimize damage to, or theft of, school property or materials, he drives past the school at night to see if everything is safe.

Developing and empowering self and others

The principal displayed service orientation competencies in that he took personal responsibility for achieving the learners’ desired outcome. He had a genuine understanding of the learners’ needs and a strong desire to meet them. The result was the learners trusted the principal and were committed to achieving excellent results. During his interview, he affirmed that he “makes time” and speaks to each matriculant individually.

He was confident of his management skills and had distributed his responsibilities to his school management team. He encouraged his teachers to attend cluster meetings at the district office by budgeting for the costs of travel to and from the district office. He ensured that there was a positive learning atmosphere in his school by purchasing the most recent textbooks and teaching guides.

Managing the school as an organization

During the 4 weeks of observation at the functional school, teachers arrived punctually for lessons, and were prepared to teach their classes. Despite the noise outside the classrooms at the beginning of the school year, because 700 Grade 8 learners had not yet been placed in classes, the teachers in their classrooms continued with their lessons. After the 700 students were allocated to their classrooms, the principal and deputies walked around monitoring the teaching and learning. Students were neatly dressed in school uniforms and carried the necessary study materials. Administrative clerks were using the office equipment to type or duplicate worksheets. Classrooms were neat and tidy, and teachers and students exhibited a mutual respect by greeting each other politely.

Working With and for the Community

The principal of the functional school displayed social awareness, and emotional self-control in his interaction with the community. He had the ability to keep his emotions under control, and to restrain negative actions even when faced with opposition. During an SGB meeting, his opinion on teenage pregnancy was opposed by parent and teacher members. Although he was passionate about not accommodating pregnant learners in the school, he controlled his emotions, and listened to parent and teacher opinions. He made arrangements to call over the Educational Support Services (ESS) unit from Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) to the next SGB meeting where they would explain the policies, and procedures concerning teenage pregnancies. He was able to control the stress. When some of the boys drank alcohol, and smoked on school grounds during Youth Day, the principal confronted the boys, confiscated the contraband, met with the parents of the students involved regarding the discipline of their children.

Implications of the Study for Urban School Change

The study reinforces the National Department of Education’s (DOE’s) concern as to the need for effective leadership preparation that resulted in developing a package of measures linking the South African Standard for School Leadership (SASSL) to its Policy framework for Education Leadership and Management Development (Department of Education, 2005). The purpose of this linkage was to clarify the functions of the principal in the education system. This document identified the six key areas of the principalship identified above that were considered to be a necessary part of the leadership function of every principal: (a) leading and managing the learning school; (b) shaping the direction and development of the school; (c) assuring quality and securing accountability; (d) developing and empowering self and others; (e) managing the school as an organization; and (f) working with and for the community.

However, the study underlying this article reveals that the goals of the DOE have not been achieved. Moloi (2007) states that it is clear that the Department of Education (2005, 2007) intended to place the emphasis for transformation of all government schools on the professionalization of existing and aspiring principals, but, even if that has occurred in formerly all-White school, such does not seem to have been the case in Black urban and township schools. The DOE responded in 2007 to the need to train school principals to a national professional standard by introducing a National Qualification for school leadership in the form of an Advanced Certificate of Education (ACE). A 2-year ACE program developed at the University of Pretoria was designed to be practice based, meaning that participants were required not only to read and write but also to apply what was learnt, to reflect on the success or failure of the application, and to learn from their mistakes (http://web.up.ac.za/default.asp?ipkCategoryID=13636&sub=1&parentid=43&subid=13332&ipklookid=6).

However, although, arguably, the DOE’s development of the advanced principal license qualification Advanced Certificate of Education: School Leadership (ACE) is indicative of the department’s renewed commitment to capacity building in leadership and management and “to advance teaching and learning” (DOE, 2004), the persistence of undesirable leadership characteristics in dysfunctional schools raises serious questions as to whether the DOE has made the serious commitment necessary to achieve its goals. The experimental effort by the University of Pretoria to inaugurate an advanced principal license (ACE) reflected a general weakness that efforts to improve the management skills of principals, namely that most information was communicated at central sites, and that the mentorship provided by the retired ex-school principals were not long enough. Students (Interview held on 3 October 2011) expressed their desire to have more mentor visits, and requested that they have the support of the mentor even after the 2-year program. Some students even requested having their lecturers visit them, so that their dysfunctional environments will be understood. They mentioned, “We are functioning in schools with no resources. We don’t even have water and electricity, yet we are expected to perform like the well-resourced schools.” What was missing in the program is the practical aspects of visiting functional schools in dysfunctional areas and networking with these transformative principals to see the similar dysfunctional context but different functional and positive leadership style and attitude that is adopted for success by the functional school principals.

Whether the time commitment to the South African certificate is adequate remains to be seen. The commitment is certainly more, than in other countries. The Training Centre of the Ministry of Education for Principals in China boasts of a principal training program that is scheduled for 60 days (8.5 weeks), in which 1.5 weeks is scheduled for comprehensive educational investigation and seven weeks for dedicated training, totaling 280 training hours, including 136 hr for lectures, 104 hr for case study, research and discussion, idea exchange, and visiting schools for investigation, and 40 hr for self-study, public holidays and standby (Training Center of Ministry of Education for Principals). In South Africa, however, the program for principals is over 2 year, consisting of 10 contact sessions with lecturers who lecture in the 6 management areas. The mentors meet them for a 3-hr facilitation session over the 10 sessions and also conduct 2-hr school visits (this occurs 9 times over the 2-year program) for support and development of the personal, professional, and institutional progress of principals in the program.

Of course, the amount of time devoted to the program may not be the important and necessary ingredient. The key factor would seem to be the quality of the program in terms of effectiveness in the classroom, especially as related to on-site instruction and training. As reflected in the comments of principals a few paragraphs hence, the emphasis on graduate instruction did not seem to contribute to more effective leadership. Without information regarding the effectiveness of China’s shorter approach to preparing leaders, a comparison is premature.

Students’ (First Year Students of the ACE SL, Reflections on Lead and Manage People module, 2 November 2011) reflections on the program show a lot of positive comments, but whether the implementation is creating a difference in the schools, still needs to be investigated. Some students wrote, “The journey has been a worthwhile one and our school has show better learner performance” and the relationship with my staff is becoming better day by day and this can be attributed to the ACE programme.” This is evidence of a growth in confidence and ability to lead, however the sustainability of this skill is still to be investigated.

In era of accountability and decentralization, in which school leaders are expected to demonstrate bottom-line results and use of data to derive decisions, the skill and knowledge of principals matters more than ever (Hess & Kelly, 2006). Levine (2005) and Ruffin (2007), quoted a “mantra” applied in one of the promising leadership programs in England National College for School Leadership (NCSL) that says, “Every child in a well-led school and every leader a learner.” This means that the quality of school leadership is key to school improvement, which elevates the importance of how we train and teach aspiring principals (Hess & Kelly, 2006). A number of scholars have asked whether traditional approaches to preparing, and licensing principals are sufficient for the changing world (Elmore, 2000; Hess & Kelly, 2006;; Hess, 2003; Murphy, 2001; Tucker, 2003).

From the available empirical evidence, principals themselves suggest that they might be more effectively prepared, with just 4% reporting that graduate schools studies did more to prepare them for their position than on-the-job experiences or guidance from colleagues. In fact, 6% of principals asserted that “typical leadership programmes in graduate schools of education are out of touch with the realities of what it takes to run a modern school” (Hess & Kelly, 2006). Maybe, school visits to functional schools or getting functional school principals to describe their game plan might be more effective in South Africa as most urban schools are dysfunctional and need real-life experiences. The demotivated principal will be inspired to perform when listening to a “comrade,” that is, a person from similar circumstances. A study by Steyn (2008) indicates that the curricular of principal preparation programs do not address the real needs of educational leaders. The same sentiment is highlighted by Lashway (2003), by concluding that, preparation programs for principals are generally not highly effective. Fenwick and Pierce (2001) furthermore said, “The curricula are out balance, and most courses are heavy on theory and light on actual practice.”

Berry (2004) noted that principals do not feel confident dealing with the ethical dimension of decision making in schools. What is confusing is that some studies sing praise songs about the successes of principals’ preparation programs. Daresh, Gantner, Dunlap, and Hvizdak (2000) state that, some principals’ preparation programs have shown success in addressing the changing environment of schooling. A national survey by Mentor, Holligan, and Mathenjwa (2005), has positive conclusion about principals’ preparation programs. In the study, statements like “The programme enhanced my ability to support others”; “the programme has made me a more reflective practitioner”; “the programme extended my professional practice”; “the programme increased my effectiveness as a leader”; and “the programme was effective in developing my professional values” were made Steyn (2008).

Nonetheless, the fact that one principal has been able to create an effective, functional school in a dysfunctional setting demonstrates that it can be done. However, the persistence of ineffective school principals in dysfunctional areas indicates that the DOE school authorities either are incapable of identifying the necessary characteristics of an effective principal or are unable to communicate those characteristics to future and existing principals.

Students in dysfunctional South African schools have virtually no opportunity to transfer to functional schools, but, then, the same lack of opportunity can exist as well for U.S. students under the NCLB. What is important for South Africa, because of the great distances to effective schools and the grinding poverty that exists in urban and township settings, is the imperative of effective leadership as the most important mechanism for effecting change in the school setting. Data from the study in this article concerning a dysfunctional and a dysfunctional principal in dysfunctional school settings, as well as similar data from past studies, reflect that school authorities seem to know how an effective administrator should act. What is sorely needed, though, is on-site interaction with functional principals. The challenge for the future of effective education in South Africa is that the country is trying to build its airplane of successful principals whereas the plane is in the air. Can South Africa’s urban education system afford to take the few functional principals out of the classroom to serve as on-site mentors to dysfunctional principals without having the entire educational system collapse into dysfunctionality?

Conclusion

The findings in the above themes display that leaders must have most of the competencies in emotional intelligence in order to be able to embed a strong culture in his or her school. If the organizational culture of a school is strong, the school will perform well. Thus, the role of the leader in changing the culture of a school ensures the functionality of the school. Leadership and organizational culture are two sides of the same coin which are linked to whether a school is functional or not.

Of course, some will argue that emotional intelligence cannot be taught. The argument would go that emotional intelligence is a function much easier to identify in a person than to instruct that person in. Where so many ineffective leaders are working in schools, the task of preparing persons to become effective leaders is a daunting one.

Schools do make a difference to learners. Leaders in the school need to realize their role and responsibility in creating a culture of teaching and learning. This research project proves that the role of the principal in creating a culture of the school is essential in a functional school. Children from dysfunctional areas come from dysfunctional cultures, and it is up to the leader of the school to change the culture to ensure a better future for the learner. The principal needs to be self-aware and socially aware in order to be able to detect, and correct the deficiencies in the community culture. The principal can only create a functional culture if he possesses the competencies of emotional intelligence.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Ralph D. Mawdsley is Professor of Law and Roslyn Z. Wolf Professor of Education, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio. He is the author of over 600 publications and serves on numerous journal boards. He teaches School Law, Special Education Law, and Sports Law.

Keshni Bipath is senior lecturer at the Department of Education Management and Policy Studies, Education Faculty at the University of Pretoria. She has presented papers at national and international conferences. She is the coordinator of the ACE principal preparation program at the University of Pretoria. She teaches human resource management in education and globalization, marketing, and education.

James L. Mawdsley is an English instructor at Stark State College and an adjunct professor at the Cleveland State University. He is a member of the Education Law Association (ELA) and the Australia New Zealand Education Law Association (ANZELA). He writes regularly on school law.

References

Abbott v. Burke, 693 A.2d 417, 433 (N. J. 1997).

Advanced Certificate in Education. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://web.up.ac.za/default.asp?ipkCategoryID= 13636&sub=1&parentid=43&subid=13332&ipklookid=6

Berry

M. A. R.

(2004). Succession to school leadership: Challenge and response for principals. Cited in Steyn

G.M.

(2008). The influence of school leadership preparation programmes: Identification of possible focus areas. South African Journal of Education, 27 (2)

Bipath

(2005). The leadership of a functional school in a dysfunctional area. Johannesburg, South Africa: University of Johannesburg Press.

Booyse

J. J.

le Roux

C. S.

Seroto

Wolhuter

C. C.

(2011). A history of schooling in South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik.

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa , 1996 [1996] ZACC 26, 1996 (4) SA 744, 1996 (10) BCLR 1253 (6 September 1996), Constitutional Court (South Africa)

Daresh

J. C.

Gantner

Dunlap

Hvizdak

(2000, January 10). Word from the “The trenches”: Principals’ perspectives on effective school leadership characteristics. Journal of School Leadership, 1, 69-83.

Department of Education 2004. South African National Professional Qualification for Princip alship (SANPQP). Directorate: Education Management and Governance Development. Concept paper, September.

Department of Education. (2005). Leading and Managing South African schools in the 21st Century. The South African Standard for Principalship. Directorate: Eduaction management and Governance Developemnt. Third Draft, August.

10.

Department of Education. (2007). Education Laws Amendment Bill. Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printer.

11.

Earley

Weindling

(2004). Understanding school leadership. Noida, India: Gopsons Papers.

12.

Elmore

(2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. New York, NY: The Abert Shanker Institute.

13.

Fenwick

L. T.

Pierce

M. C.

(2001). The principal shortage: Crisis or opportunity? Principal, 80(4), 24-32.

14.

Goleman

(1997, October). Beyond IQ: Developing the leadership competence of emotional intelligence. Paper presented at the Second International Competency Conference, London, UK.

15.

Head of Department, Mpumalanga Department of Education v. Hoerskool Ermelo, (2) SA 415 (CC) (2010).

16.

Hess

F. M.

(2003). A license to lead? A new leadership agenda for America’s schools. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.

17.

Hess

F. M.

Kelly

A. P.

(2006, April 4). What school leadership texts teach: An analysis of leading volumes used in principal preparation. Fayetteville, AR: Education Working Paper Archive.

18.

Lashway

(2003). Transforming Principal Preparation. ERIC DigestED473360: Eric Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene. Accessed on 25 November 2011.

19.

Liebman

J. S.

Sabel

C. F.

(2003). The Federal No Child Left Behind Act and The Post- Desegregation Civil Rights Agenda, 81 N.C. L. Rev. 1703-1749.

20.

Levine

(2005). Educating school leaders. New York, NY: Teachers College, The Education School Project.

21.

Mentor

Holligan

Mathenjwa

(2005). Reaching the parts that need to be reached? The impact of the Scottish qualification for headship. School Leadership and Management, 25, 7-23.

22.

Moloi

(2007). An overview of education management in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 27, 463-476.

23.

Moss

P. A.

Pullin

D. C.

Gee

J. P.

Haertel

E. H.

Young

L. J.

(2008). Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

24.

National Education Policy Investigation. (1993). Education planning systems, and structure. Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press.

25.

No Child Left Behind—(20 U.S.C.A. §§ 6301 et seq.).

26.

Parents Involved in Community School v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (Brief of 553 Social Scientists as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents) (2007).

27.

Pullin

(2011-2012). Getting to the Core: Rewriting the No Child Left Behind Act for the 21st Century. Rutgers Law Record, 39, 1-17.

28.

Risberg

(2011). National standards and tests: The worst solution to America’s educational problems . . . except for all the others. George Washington Law Review, 79, 890-925.

29.

Ruffin

C. A.

(2007). A phenomenological study of instructional leadership and preparation: Perspectives of urban schools (Unpublished master’s thesis). Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.

30.

Shipengrower

J.A.

Conway

J.A.

(1998). Expecting excellence: creating order out of chaos in a school district. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

31.

South Africa Constitution, ch. 1 (2001).

32.

Steyn

G. M.

(2008). The influence of school leadership preparation programmes: Identification of possible focus areas. Pretoria, South Africa: University of South Africa Press.

33.

Thrupp

(1999). Schools making a difference: Let’s be realistic. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

34.

Tucker

(2003). Out with the old. Education Next, 3(4), 20-24.

35.

Wilson

E. K.

(2011). Leveling Localism and Racial Inequality in Education Through the No Child Left Behind Act public choice provision. 44 U. Mich. J.L. Reform, 625-655.