The Nexus of Autonomy and Instructional Leadership in Selected School Clusters in Zimbabwe

Abstract

This article examines the nexus of autonomy and instructional leadership in school clusters in Zimbabwe. Using the Better Schools Programme of Zimbabwe cluster, teachers and school heads were interviewed on their perspectives on how autonomy influences instructional leadership practices. Results established that clusters provide schools with the freedom to determine the activities deemed necessary to improve student learning. However, although autonomy is prescribed in the policy, inadequate resources provided to schools render them less autonomous and ineffective in this endeavor. The article argues for a more deliberate and deeper discourse about the challenges of balancing autonomy and control.

Keywords

autonomy control decentralization instructional leadership school clusters and school reform

Introduction

How much power should schools have in relation to the Local Education Authorities (LEAs) in a centralized education system, like that of Zimbabwe? In any decentralization project, the degree and nature of autonomy given to schools and the powers that remain with the LEAs continue to be a source of contestation. School clusters or interschool collaborations are considered to be some of the most promising educational reform strategies to bring about efficiency by granting schools some autonomy in the delivery of services (Dillon, 2011). However, very little has been explored on how autonomy and/or control in school clusters contribute to school improvement. Various scholars (e.g., Aipinge, 2007; Giordano, 2008; Uirab, 2006) have explored the utility of clusters in improving the quality of teaching and learning in schools, particularly in African countries and the developing world, but skirted around the dynamics of autonomy in these interschool collaboration initiatives. Giordano (2008), for instance, presents a rather comprehensive discussion of clusters but nowhere in her discussion does she address the dilemma around autonomy and control in relation to clustering. Similarly, other authoritative sources that have explored the experiences of developing countries with clustering, such as the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF, 2009), Aipinge (2007), and Uirab (2006), have all ignored the question of the balance between autonomy and control in school clusters. In this discourse, autonomy and control are conceived of the space or authority given to school heads and teachers inter alia by their Ministry or Local school authorities to carry out their instructional leadership roles. Mizmirav (2014) perceives principal autonomy as the “principal’s authority to execute organizational actions and make organizational decisions regarding issues such as the school budget, staffing, curriculum, and strategy” (p. 3). Autonomy is dispensed with control. Hargreaves (2010) avers that autonomy provides leaders with more power and control to drive improvements in their schools and across the education system. The phenomenon of autonomy may even be more critical in relation to decisions about what to teach, how to teach, with what resources, when and where? Hence, it is more important to consider this balance in relation to how such instructional decisions are made in schools.

Decisions about how to improve teaching and learning in schools fall under the purview of what is called instructional leadership (Duze, 2012). While not examining the autonomy and control debate directly in their research, Jita and Mokhele (2014) raise questions about the locus of control for curriculum and instructional decisions in teacher clusters of South Africa. On the contrary, Dykstra and Kucita (2008) report on the positive impact of granting autonomy to schools. However, the critical question on how much autonomy and/or control should be granted has still not been addressed, especially with regard to curriculum and instructional decision-making or what we refer to in this article as instructional leadership. Thus, the article sought to close this gap.

A few scholars (Aipinge, 2007; Jita & Mokhele, 2014; Lieberman & Miller, 2008), who study school clusters, have made passing comments on the autonomy versus control debate. However, even within this group of scholars, there is no unanimity, with some advocating for guided autonomy while others propose complete autonomy for the clusters. Hashim (2009) claims that guided autonomy is most difficult to practice because cluster schools are still expected to comply with the standards as outlined by their LEAs such as the District Education Offices. On the contrary, Cole (2011) argues in favor of some autonomy, wherein the clusters receive guidance from the school authorities in their exercise of what they refer to as negotiated autonomy. On the contrary, Caldwell (2005) posits that autonomy is important but it should be balanced with capacity or it will not have no impact at all. Resolving the debate around autonomy and control has implications for improving teaching and learning in the cluster schools.. That is, how autonomy is perceived and exercised in schools and clusters is likely to shape curriculum and instructional decisions. Research on how this dilemma is resolved will help to inform policy on curriculum and instructional reforms. Briggs and Wohlstetter (2003) concur that school autonomy increases teacher outcomes and improved student results. This article examines the question of how autonomy and control play out within the Better Schools Programme in Zimbabwe (BSPZ) cluster. Specifically, the article explores how teachers and school heads perceive autonomy or lack of it in the context of school clusters in Zimbabwe.

BSPZ Clusters

The BSPZ clusters were established in the early 1990s, to improve the quality, relevance, and efficacy of teaching and learning in Zimbabwe. The Chief Education Officer Circular Number 1 of 1994 mandated all schools to be grouped into clusters. According to Madungwe et al. (2000), the BSPZ cluster is

a group of schools within the same geographical location that have agreed to come together to share human, material and financial resources in order to overcome their individual challenges, to achieve common goals and improve the quality and relevance of education in their respective institutions. (p. 17)

Although it is mandatory for all schools to belong to a cluster in Zimbabwe, members have the autonomy to elect their leadership and decide on how and what they can do to improve on their schools. This includes budgeting. The first phase of the cluster initiative was dominated by school heads meeting to share ideas about how to overcome their respective challenges through the cluster. It appears that the guiding principle at the time was the belief that the school is as good as its head and that capacity building of the heads would, in turn, lead to improvements in the quality of the schools. However, in reality, the expected improvements in the BSPZ schools did not materialize, necessitating the introduction of a second phase of cluster development in 1996, when Zimbabwe signed an agreement with the government of Netherlands to fund BSPZ activities for a specified period¹ (Madungwe et al., 2000). The second phase witnessed a much greater involvement of the teachers in the management of the clusters and in staff development activities generally. It was during this phase that the innovation of teacher leadership emerged in the form of cluster resource teachers and district resource teachers who were responsible for the management and coordination of cluster and district center activities, respectively. Madungwe et al. (2000) provide some reflections on the activities of the teachers in the management of the clusters, but they stop short of engaging with the issue of teacher leadership as a major theme. Critical to the second phase of the cluster development was the contribution of the community in terms of funding the cluster and district activities through BSPZ levies.²

Although it has been more than a decade and a half since the launch of the BSPZ clusters in Zimbabwe, a lot still needs to be understood about the dynamics of cluster operations in promoting teaching and learning. The degree of autonomy school clusters have, its impact on teaching and learning, and how it is exercised provide a source of debate. Furthermore, more research is needed to establish clearly the viability of clusters as a reform strategy for school improvement. A baseline study by Madungwe et al. (2000) established that teachers and the community are often marginalized in cluster activities. The same views have been expressed by Chikoko (2007), in his case study of BSPZ clusters in one of the districts. On the contrary, Makaye (2011) found in his study of two urban clusters in Zimbabwe that there was moderate implementation of the key cluster activities pertinent to student learning. To date, there have not been studies that have focused on the issues of autonomy and control and their interplay in the context of the cluster reform initiative in Zimbabwe.

Research questions

The study sought to address three related questions with respect to autonomy and control in clusters:

Research Question 1: What are the teachers’ and school heads’ perceptions of autonomy for schools within the BSPZ clusters?

Research Question 2: How do schools exploit the autonomy from the LEAs, if at all, to improve teaching and learning in the school clusters?

Research Question 3: How can the challenges school clusters encounter be overcome?

These questions have become more critical now that the donor funding period has expired and the schools have to contribute their own funds to run the cluster and its activities.

Literature and Conceptual Framework

The rationale behind decentralization and school clustering in particular is to provide schools with the autonomy to be innovative and creative enough to enhance student learning (Giordano, 2008). This article employs two conceptual pillars, namely, the autonomy (and control) literature and the instructional leadership literature, to make sense of the decentralization initiative in the BSPZ. Using the two bodies of scholarship helps the researchers to locate the analysis of the dilemmas and challenges of autonomy and control within the context of the reformers and schools’ efforts to improve instruction and student learning. Dillon (2011) argues that the implementation of school clusters is based on the decentralization process that involves the empowerment of schools through the provision of autonomy. However, although autonomy is in certain circumstances something valued and worth defending or promoting, it does not override every other good and is not always and everywhere a good thing (Cribb & Gewirtz, 2007). To make judgments about the value of autonomy (or control), the researchers had to unpack patterns of autonomy and control within the clusters.

Autonomy is viewed as both in process and ubiquitous. Although several scholars claim positive payoffs of autonomy for student achievement, Cribb and Gewirtz (2007) are of the view that autonomy is only a precondition for the exercise of teachers’ expertise. This implies that teacher expertise is also critical. Given that teaching is not a narrow technical job (Biesta, 2005), teachers need to make technical and normative discretions with regard to what and how to teach. Similarly, autonomy can be viewed as a precondition for the clusters as they have to decide on what activities to pursue and how they should go about those activities to promote effective teaching and learning. Citing the Malaysian experience, Ismail (2011) posits that “. . . school clusters enjoy the autonomy to make decisions on the management and administration spheres, translating national curriculum into various teaching approaches and the autonomy of selecting trainers in their niche areas” (p. 2). Autonomy has also been viewed by several researchers as a source of job satisfaction, creativity, experimentation, and variety, all of which bring school effectiveness (Cribb & Gewirtz, 2007 ; Dillon, 2011). In support of this view, Giordano (2008) points out that clusters counter the effects of isolation among teachers. There is growing literature that also suggests that the curtailing of autonomy in England, for example, has increased teacher stress and led to a decline in morale (Cribb & Gewirtz, 2007). However, there are some overarching questions to be asked with regard to the initiatives to provide more autonomy. For instance, over what should the schools be autonomous? Should they be accorded total autonomy and whether there is adequate capacity within them to take advantage of such autonomy? The issue of visionary leadership to stir school or cluster operations and build its capacity to realize effective student learning within the autonomy dispensation has also been raised as a critical point to consider. This supports Caldwell’s (2005) view that autonomy should be balanced with capacity lest it will not have any impact at all.

Contributing to this district–school autonomy debate, Ismail (2011) argues, “. . . school or cluster autonomy should be made within a framework of local, state and/or national policies and guidelines to ensure that the cultural and structural dimensions of autonomy are aligned” (p. 5). This type of autonomy is viewed as a negotiated or guided one (Hashim, 2009) and is supported by most centrally structured education systems to encourage, support, and resource schools. In the same vein, Cribb and Gewirtz (2007) are of the view that state control of schools ensures that learners are protected from harm and that equal access and commonality, including cohesion, are upheld. The issue of balancing state or district control with school or cluster autonomy continues to be a source of debate in many education systems across the world. While Hashim (2009) views guided autonomy as problematic, Dillon (2011) argues that standardization serves as a hedge against the risk that schools or clusters might make decisions that send achievement in the wrong direction. Thus, autonomy is the space to do what you want within the box and districts should help and support schools with the capacity to work within that box. Autonomy cannot operate independent of control. This article seeks to explore the type of autonomy school clusters perceive as ideal.

While acknowledging that granting schools more freedom encourages them to be innovative and to improve their educational practices (Dillon, 2011), three overarching questions, however, need to be addressed. First, over which areas should schools have autonomy over? Second, how much control over those areas should they have? And how much control should be retained by the central office? Ouchi (2009) argues that autonomous schools should have freedom over at least four areas, namely, control over budget, control over staffing, control over curriculum, and control over scheduling. Little is known about how much support central offices or districts give to schools or clusters to exercise such autonomy in Zimbabwe. Thus, the current study seeks to fill up this gap by establishing how much freedom has been granted to schools and the effect thereof on instructional leadership within BSPZ clusters Furthermore, Honig (2003) argues that schools should operate within defined autonomy in terms of school-level capacity and districts should loosen their reign and give schools more support to make their own decisions. This article analyzes how autonomy and instructional leadership play out in the school clusters.

Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) Instructional Leadership Model

Duze (2012) and Hallinger and Lee (2012) concur that all efforts to promote growth in student learning in schools are conceived of as instructional leadership. Marks and Printy (2003) posit that principal instructional leadership is everything a principal does during the day to support the achievement of students and the ability of teachers to teach. In spite of a general lack of agreement on what district instructional leadership entails, Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model was used to inform this study. The model proffers three major roles that principals or instructional leaders should play to improve curriculum and instruction. The roles include the following:

Defining the school’s mission that involves framing the goals and communicating them;

Managing the instructional program that covers supervising and evaluating instruction, coordinating curriculum, and monitoring student progress and finally;

Promoting school learning climate. This role implies protecting instructional time, maintaining high visibility, promoting staff development, providing incentives for teachers and for learning.

Furthermore, Hallinger and Murphy (1985) provides instructional leadership behaviors that include the making of suggestions, giving feedback, modeling effective instruction, soliciting opinions, supporting collaboration, providing opportunities, and giving praise for effective teaching.

Moreover, Hallinger and Murphy (1985) underscores the issue of climate building as a cornerstone of instructional leadership. Thus, Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model provides the lenses through which we analyze the autonomy school clusters/principals have and how they use this autonomy, if any, to discharge their instructional leadership roles. Acknowledging that autonomy is critical in discharging instructional leadership roles, and Caldwell (2005) argues that autonomy must be balanced with capacity or it will have no impact at all.

Cole (2011) conceives of “capacity and will” in terms of autonomy (vs. control) and argues that schools granted such space by the district are strong in consistent instruction, tend to recruit highly professional teachers who welcome feedback and focus on continual improvement, and have solid ties with parents and the community. Such schools also tend to be student-centered learning environments with safe orderly classrooms and have high expectations for learners, and their leaders are focused on sharing responsibility for instructional improvement. These practices are perceived by most scholars as necessary conditions for instructional leadership in schools (Duze, 2012; Hallinger & Lee, 2012).

Envisaged in generating will and support is capacity building, which reflects the district’s ability and capability to enact its will to improve teaching and learning. Firestone and Martinez (2007) argue that building capacity requires mobilization of resources, developing functions related to change (providing and selling a vision, obtaining resources, providing encouragement and recognition, adapting standard operating procedures, monitoring the reform effort, and handling disturbances), and creating district and school linkages. However, the ability of a district to build capacity depends on its managerial competencies. Lineburg (2010) views such capacity as an interplay of both the principals’ (and district’s) practices and the context. The principal (or district) needs to create an enabling environment for teachers to collaboratively work toward improving their instructional practices.

The foregoing discussion on autonomy and Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) model demonstrates the complementarities of the literature on autonomy-control and that on instructional leadership in terms of their concerns for student improvement. Instructional leadership cannot take place in an environment devoid of autonomy and more so in a context where the autonomy is defined in terms of positive student achievement. Framed in this way, the scholarship on autonomy and that on instructional leadership become useful contexts for locating our research on what support do districts give to the clusters, and whether they have the will and capacity to support the clusters to take and implement their own instructional leadership decisions and how the clusters conceive of such support or lack thereof. We also acknowledge that analyzing how school clusters discharge their instructional leadership roles calls for a qualitative approach.

Method

Research Approach and Design

The study employed a qualitative multicase study design to analyze the interplay between autonomy and control in three selected school clusters in Masvingo district and the effects thereof on the efforts to guide and direct teaching and learning. Using purposive sampling within BSPZ school clusters and schools, the researchers selected three school heads (principals) and six teachers, two from each of the clusters to provide the required data on the internal workings of the clusters with respect to curriculum and instructional decision-making. In Zimbabwe, all schools belong to a cluster and these are under the Ministry of Education’s BSPZ. The three selected clusters were among the few clusters that appeared active after the expiry of the donor support in 2003. Hence, our study wanted to find out what and how these clusters and the schools under mediate the autonomy and control debacle to achieve instructional leadership. The participants were selected on the basis of their being conversant with school clusters and active participation in cluster activities, who hence seemed to be information-rich sources (Yin, 2003).

Data Collection Instruments

Semi-structured interviews that lasted for not more than an hour each were held with both the school heads and the teachers at their respective schools. The interviews enabled a rigorous exploration of the phenomena of autonomy-control and the dynamics of instructional leadership within the clusters. Cohen and Manion (2011) posit that interviews permit the researchers the opportunity to seek clarification from participants, thereby increasing the chances of gathering more detailed information. Using semi-structured interview schedules validated by instructional leadership experts and pilot tested, the researchers asked participants questions about their perceptions of autonomy and instructional leadership in general within their clusters. The questions covered areas of instructional leadership that school clusters have control over, issues of support from the LEA, and, finally, the challenges of operating their clusters to achieve instructional improvement and better learning outcomes and how these could be overcome.

Issues of Ethics, Trustworthiness, and Confirmability

Before the participants were interviewed, permission was obtained from the Ministry of Education in Zimbabwe, the districts, and the participating schools. The researchers explained the purpose of the study and sought informed consent in writing (Creswell, 2012). Interviews were tape-recorded, and thereafter, data were transcribed and coded for recurring themes around the issues of autonomy and control. Data were presented using thick narrative descriptions and direct verbatim quotations for trustworthiness. Emerging trends and themes such as perceptions on autonomy, activities in pursuit of autonomy, and district support were linked and analyzed to illustrate the nexus between autonomy and instructional leadership in school clusters. For confirmability of results, the interviewed participants were invited to check on the captured responses before the final compilation of the report.

Findings of the Study

The study brought to the fore interesting and contesting views between teachers and school heads (principals) with regard to the phenomena of autonomy and control in school clusters. Data are presented using the following themes: perceptions on cluster autonomy, cluster activities, district support, and suggestions.

Perceptions on Autonomy and Control

There was general consensus from the interviewees that the institution of clusters provides teachers and heads of schools in general with the space to decide on what activities they deem necessary for the improvement of teaching and learning in the schools. Both the teachers and heads concur that they were vested with full autonomy by the districts to pursue their own activities for improving learning in schools. One school principal argued as follows: “There is no hindrance at all from the district. We just plan our activities; send a copy to them for approval. They are even more happy . . . particularly the area education officers.”

One of the teachers in the cluster schools also confirmed this view on the full autonomy of the schools: He had this to say: “We don’t have any problems at all with the district. They are very supportive of our activities as a cluster. They just need to be informed of our plans.”

The responses from both the teachers and the school heads suggested that the district education offices were willing to provide the cluster with the space to determine their own pedagogical and professional activities. This implies that school clusters were provided with autonomy to formulate and define their missions and visions to improve on their schools. The plans of activities can be construed in terms of Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) instructional role of defining the mission. The quotes above further suggest that the clusters could operate within what Cole (2011) refers to as negotiated autonomy, where they have to seek approval from the district offices for their activities. However, the excerpts above indicate a seemingly open relationship between the responsible authorities and the clusters. The issue of approval could ensure that clusters need to define their missions or activities in terms of the broader ministry goal.

District support, in this instance, seems to be very tacit and less formal. That is, as long as the clusters have informed the district about their activities, all seems to be well. For this reason, many of the teachers and school heads began to perceive this as “total autonomy,” instead of negotiated autonomy. Here is how one of the teachers characterized the situation of autonomy in the clusters:

There is total autonomy, since everything is left in the hands of the cluster, we decide on the activities as well as how we can fund those activities. We don’t have even problems with the community as we involve them as we meet with them. In some instances the district even provides us with facilitators at our workshop. So definitely we are free to do whatever we want.

This view of “total autonomy” granted by the district seems to support Cribb and Gewirtz (2007) who argue that the mode of autonomy contributes greatly to how clusters/schools perceive and act on such autonomy. For instance, where persuasion rather than coercion is used, a spirit of self-drive is likely to be injected into the clusters and everything seems to move in the right direction. Similar observations were made by Jita and Mokhele (2014) in their study of teacher clusters in South Africa, where they posit that clusters provided teachers with the space to take initiative and leadership on the curriculum. The latter scholars, however, also cautioned us about the role of the districts when they appeared to constrain this autonomy of the clusters. In trying to understand the issue of autonomy versus control in the case of the BSPZ, the authors posed a question on whether there were [are] any instances where the cluster plans were [are] turned down. We wanted to explore Dillon’s (2011) idea that schools or clusters should operate within district guidelines of “negotiated autonomy” and that approval by the district ensures that the clusters operate within the Ministry’s regulations. All the participants interviewed, however, concurred that almost all their plans have been approved and that the Area Education Officers (AEOs) were always willing to avail themselves whenever the clusters have their activities. One school head affirmed as follows: “We don’t have any problems at all with the district particularly our E.O.s. Once you inform them they are even willing to come and witness whatever activity we do.”

Similarly, another school head from another cluster concurred, “Like Mr . . . (E.O.) even if you phone him he always responds positively and he can come if he is free.”

While there was unanimity from both principals and the teachers about “total autonomy,” we felt that approval of cluster plans or granting of permission by the district was in conformity with Ministry regulations and hence “ negotiated” autonomy. In contrast, one teacher had reservations about whether the heads of schools were themselves willing to give such autonomy to the teachers in the cluster schools. Here is how he laughed off our question about autonomy: “Oh Yes! Autonomy from the district, but most of the activities are determined by the heads.” This interviewee spoke strongly about how teachers were neither given the space to decide nor their work and total autonomy to share effectively with other teachers by the cluster school principals. He was therefore cynical if not suspicious of the whole phenomena of autonomy within the cluster schools.

Another teacher could not conceal his feelings in this regard: “E-e-e-e, while this idea of clusters is noble but it appears everything is run by school heads. Ya-a-a that area needs improvement as most of what is done is determined by heads!”

The views on the constraining role of the school principals with respect to teacher autonomy were not as widespread as illustrated by another teacher’s comment on the matter: “We meet as teachers from different schools and decide on the cluster action plan. School heads don’t interfere at all. What limits us is money. Of course heads often say we don’t have money!”

The quotes from teachers, however, would appear to raise some concerns about whether and how the school heads extended the total autonomy to decide on the cluster activities to the teachers. Some teachers seem not to be at liberty to decide on professional and instructional issues affecting them. This makes the issue of autonomy and control quite dicey and interesting in that while the school heads enjoyed some autonomy from the district to define their visions and missions, they, in turn, struggled to provide the same autonomy to the teachers who are at the chalk face in teaching and learning. Thus, the issue of balancing autonomy and control becomes critical even within the school clusters. Should teachers be left to decide on their own activities without the direction from the school heads? Where should the balance be? The dichotomy in autonomy and control is also discussed by Cribb and Gewirtz (2007) in terms of the more or less rigid, crude, or coerciveness of the leadership styles. Interestingly, in one of the clusters, the teachers seem to have the prerogative to decide on their instructional activities although limited by the availability of resources. The issue of autonomy thus becomes questionable when resources become the constraining variable.

Areas of Autonomy and Control

Asked about the nature of the activities that clusters carry out within the (negotiated) autonomy and how they exploit on such autonomy to effect teaching and learning, respondents listed a series of activities that varied from being instructional, administrative, and professional. Such activities included the setting of common tests for the cluster schools, staff development workshops, peer supervision, and sporting activities and thus confirming Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) role of managing instructional program. All these activities were common to all the clusters we studied, although they varied on how, when, and by whom they were executed. In one of the clusters, for example, both teachers and heads of schools were satisfied with the annual arts festival and the common school tests within the cluster. One of the teachers noted that

This cluster managed to create synergies with a foreign partner who funds the festival in a bid to promote education through drama, art and music. Every year we meet and compete in drama, music and performing arts like public speaking and poetry, we select themes that we want which uplift our children and community. For example HIV/AIDS, drug abuse or student drop out. The performances assist greatly as they act as vices for some of these social evils. They teach both the students and the community. The local university chips in with expertise on how to go about these . . .

In trying to find out how the festival was used to improve student learning for example, one participant explained that they decided as a committee (inclusive of teachers, school heads, and members of the community) on the action plan and allocated subjects to individual schools for leadership. The committee met to moderate the tests, submitted them for typing, and distributed them to the schools for writing and analysis. This practice seemed to be common to all clusters and had proved to be helpful in improving student performance in some of the cluster schools. One of the teachers remarked as follows: “Oh yes! This has worked wonders in our cluster. One of our schools has its pass rate (Grade 7)³ improved remarkably from 4% to 20%.”

Another participant, from another cluster, narrated their cluster activities as follows:

We engage in cluster tests, workshops for teachers on areas identified by us for example teaching comprehension and essays. We make use of our secondary school. For instance at this particular workshop, facilitators came from the local secondary school. One interesting thing is that we meet together with SDCs (School development committees). As we do our peer supervision the SDC will be sharing experiences with others while Heads also supervise their counterparts.

These findings suggest that with much autonomy at their disposal, the clusters managed to engage in a variety of instructional activities. While most of the BSPZ clusters consisted of primary schools, the quote above suggests that the cluster in question had managed to collaborate constructively with its secondary school to help improve instruction and student performance. Hallinger and Murphy (1985) views practices such as supervision, giving feedback, and boundary spanning as critical to instructional leadership. The variations in terms of the activities, from cluster to cluster, can be attributed to the ingenuity, commitment, and initiative of the cluster coordinators. This is the view by Dillon (2011) and Cole (2011) who argue that strong leadership, with a clear instruction vision, is vital for school success. How clusters exploit the “bestowed” autonomy thus seems to vary from cluster to cluster. One of the clusters, for instance, managed to develop strong networks with outside partners to improve its instructional programs: “We network with the . . . University department of Arts as well as the Teachers’ college. They coach our students in performing arts and they are doing well . . .”

The data revealed how the partners, in this case, had donated computers, a printer, and several laptops to the schools. One respondent captured the benefits of the partnership as follows:

All our schools are twined to schools overseas! Our partner has donated to us computers, laptops and a printer. As you can see we are printing some of the school syllabi available in the form of discs and distribute them to other schools in the cluster.

The quote above provides evidence on how, given the space, clusters can go all the way to find partners and networks that help to improve the welfare of their schools and student teaching/learning in particular. The findings support Rorrer et al.’s (2008) view that generating will and building support are key to supporting educational reforms, particularly when resources are limited. One school head summed up the cluster schools’ approach to autonomy in the following words: “We don’t have any problem at all since all our activities are needs driven. We decide on what we want, contribute the money as schools, and then meet as a cluster.”

Data on what clusters do within their autonomy tend to support Ouchi (2009) who posits that schools should have freedom in at least four areas, namely, staffing, curriculum, budget, and scheduling. It is interesting to note that none of the interviewees mentioned anything on staffing, which may suggest that staffing is not the preserve of clusters in Zimbabwe.

Challenges and Suggestions

The researchers were also interested to explore the challenges that both the teachers and the school heads confront in their work within the clusters.

Data from the interviews revealed that the major challenges for cluster activities are transport and finance. Considering the geographical areas of the cluster schools, the researchers observed that many of the cluster schools are located in isolated areas with poor roads, where teachers travel at least 10 km to the next school for a meeting. The challenge of transport in most rural areas was also noted in a study by Giordano (2008). One of the teachers (who was a cluster leader or cluster resource teacher) explained how he used his own vehicle to facilitate cluster activities. Money for traveling and subsistence featured also as a challenge during the interviews with the teachers. Participants attributed financial challenges to the slow economic growth of the country. Finance was a major challenge, especially in the context of communities being expected to fund the school cluster activities themselves. Most of these participants pleaded for government to complement cluster autonomy with (financial) resources to motivate teachers. One of the teachers shared the view that “Cluster activities are negatively affected by the negative attitude in some schools largely because of poor remuneration. People want money and they don’t just gather for nothing. Only a few like me are motivated by sharing knowledge.”

The need for government support is also argued for by Cole (2011) who sees it as a way for government to encourage, support, and resource schools to exercise autonomy. One suggestion that emerged from the interviews was the need to develop and fund resource centers within the clusters so that more workshops can be organized for teachers. In most developed countries, clusters often receive some form of funding support from government or the private sector, unlike in Zimbabwe where they rely on the community or donor funds (UNICEF, 2009).

Another emerging suggestion was for the teachers, especially those who lead clusters (cluster resource teachers) should be supported financially by the Ministry or to be provided with incentives as they often use their personal resources to coordinate the cluster activities. One of the participants suggested, “The cluster resource teacher needs some allowance for her or him to coordinate cluster activities particularly in this poor economy.”

The discussed challenges that clusters encounter, including inadequate resources, could militate negatively against the discharge of instructional leadership by clusters Thus, one way to understand the autonomy and control debate is in terms of how clusters address the issues of will, support, and capacity.

Discussion

The success story of the school cluster as a reform initiative to improve student learning can best be understood in terms of how autonomy and control interact. Although contesting views exist on the nature of autonomy and how it is exercised, findings from this study would seem to support the view that total autonomy provides school clusters with the space to decide on what activities they deem necessary to improve the learning of the students and welfare of their schools. For instance, in the present case, the clusters were able to use the autonomy to engage in instructional activities and practices such as cluster tests, staff development workshops, and peer supervision. The dominant view was that these activities had assisted greatly in improving the performance of students in the cluster schools. With such autonomy, some of the clusters managed to network with other stakeholders such as universities and other partners to support their educational activities. This confirms Dillon’s (2011) view that autonomy makes schools creative and willing to engage in various kinds of activities that improve student learning. Rorrer et al. (2008), however, conceive of such autonomy in terms of “will and support.” That is, where clusters have the will, they seem to always find ways and means to use the available resources to solve their own problems. As one of the participants described it, “Cluster activities are needs driven hence we always find means to resolve those problems.”

The issue of “capacity and will” as one of the district instructional leadership roles has thus become critical, especially where autonomy is viewed by most instructional leadership scholars (Duze, 2012; Hallinger and Murphy, 1985; Rorrer et al., 2008) in terms of resource provision or lack thereof. Findings from the study also reveal that autonomy can manifest effectively even against the tide of resources. Thus, the issue of a positive climate espousing collegiality, support, and shared vision become critical recipes for positive autonomy, which promotes teaching and learning. This perspective confirms Hallinger and Murphy’s (1985) assertion that climate is a key ingredient of instructional leadership. Interestingly, findings seem to support earlier views in the literature that suggest that clusters or schools should operate under guided autonomy. Contrary to previously alluded arguments by Hashim (2009) that autonomy thwarts creativity, the data established that the studied clusters exploited the granted autonomy to plan their activities, schedule, and engage in instructional leadership they deem necessary. One participant noted that “We don’t have any problems at all from the district, we decide on what to do, when and how to do it. The district only needs to be informed and it is very supportive.”

Perhaps, what is critical is not whether clusters have absolute autonomy or not but how the autonomy and control can and are mediated through establishing partnerships with governance structures such as the districts. The sense of partnership, as suggested by the participant above, may be what is needed to overcome the autonomy–control dichotomy.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Drawing from findings and the literature, the study concludes that it is possible to move beyond the dichotomies of autonomy and control in understanding the relations between clusters and the state (LEAs) in discharging their educational mandate. There was much evidence that school clusters could provide some notable instructional leadership that positively affected student achievement. Although the concept of guided autonomy provides a useful lens through which to view the symbiotic relationship between LEAs and the clusters, for example, it is still limited by its connotations and reference to authority and control. Perhaps, one way to think about the relations between the clusters and the state is to see them as partners in the reform agenda for instructional improvement. Both the clusters and LEAs are involved, albeit in different ways and at different levels, in what we have called instructional leadership. That is, they both collaborate in a process of providing support, guidance, tools, and visions for improving teaching and learning in the participating cluster schools. Thus, they both have the potential to transform the educational terrain of the schools and learners in particular only when they know the limits of how they should exercise the autonomy bestowed on them and the mandate of their institutions. The case of the BSPZ cluster has illustrated a somewhat kind of symbiotic relationship which using Spillane’s lens of distributed leadership, either the state institutions or districts in this case and the clusters can be viewed as vehicles for collaborative instructional leadership. The researchers argue that viewing both institutions as partners for school and curriculum leadership, who play different roles using different artifacts and tools to achieve their common purpose may be one way to reconstruct the sometimes flagging relationship between the LEAs and the school clusters in Zimbabwe.

The study further recommends that while the autonomy and control discourse cannot be wished away completely, there is need to reconceptualize the terms of the debate and to see other ways of viewing the relationship between the state and the clusters and how this debate can be extended to school level in particular.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Jeriphanos Makaye

Notes

References

Aipinge

(2007). Cluster centre principals’ perceptions of the implementation of the school cluster system in Namibia [Unpublished masters’ dissertation]. Rhodes University.

Biesta

(2005). The role of educational ideals in teachers’ professional work. Changing teacher roles, identities and professionalism seminar series: Identity, agency and policy in teachers’ professional lives. King’s College London. http://www.tlrp.org/dspace/retrieve/1484/paper-biesta.pdf downloaded on 12 June 2016.

Briggs

K. L.

Wohlstetter

(2003). Key elements of a successful school-based management strategy. School Effectiveness and School Management, 14(3), 351–372. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1076/sesi.14.3.351.15840

Caldwell

B. J.

(2005). School-based management. IIEP- UNESCO.

Chikoko

V. C.

(2007). The school cluster system as an innovation: Perceptions of Zimbabwean teachers and school heads. Africa Education Review, 4(1), 42–57.

Cohen

Manion

(2011). Research methodology in education. Croom Helm.

Cole

(2011). Autonomy and school leadership, Report of a national invitational symposium hosted by Queensland Education Leadership Institute (QELI) and The Centre for Strategic Education. http://ptrconsulting.com.au/sites/default/Report of the School autonomy and System Leadership Symposium 0.pdf (accessed 21 April 2017).

Creswell

J. W.

(2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education.

Cribb

Gewirtz

(2007). Unpacking autonomy and control in education: Some conceptual and normative groundwork for a comparative analysis. European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 203–213.

10.

Dillon

(2011). The road to autonomy: Can schools, district, and central offices find their way? Education Sector.

11.

Duze

C. O.

(2012). The changing role of school leadership & teacher capacity building in teaching and learning. Journal of Emerging Trends in Education Research & Policy Studies, 3(1), 111–117.

12.

Dykstra

A. H.

Kucita

(2008). School-based management through cluster schools: A case study from Cambodia. www.eric.ed.gov (accessed 23 September 2017).

13.

Firestone

Martinez

(2007). Districts, teacher leaders, and distributed leadership: Changing instructional practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 3–35.

14.

Giordano

(2008). School clusters and teacher resource centres. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

15.

Hallinger

Lee

(2012). A global study of the practice and impact of distributed instructional leadership in International Baccalaureate (IB) schools. Leadership and Policy in School, 11(4), 477–495.

16.

Hallinger

Murphy

(1985). Assessing instructional leadership behavior of principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–248.

17.

Hargreaves

(2010). Creating a self-improving school system. National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services.

18.

Hashim

H. R.

(2009). Sekolah Kluster Lonjak Institusi Pendidikan [Cluster school accelerate the educational institutions]. Majalah Pendidik (Educators Digest), September 2009, 18–21.

19.

Honig

(2003). The view from the edge: Oakland’s progress in the implementation of site-based decision-making and new small autonomous schools (2002–2003). Center for Education Policy and Leadership.

20.

Ismail

(2011). Accelerating cluster school excellence within guided autonomy periphery: A Malaysian case. University Sains.

21.

Jita

L. C.

Mokhele

M. L.

(2014). When teachers clusters work: Selected experiences of South African teachers with the cluster approach to professional development. South African Journal of Education, 34(2), 1–15.

22.

Lieberman

Miller

(Eds.). (2008). Teachers in professional communities: Improving teaching and learning. Teachers College Press.

23.

Lineburg

P. N.

(2010). The influence of the instructional leadership of principals on change in change in teachers’ instructional practices [Master’s thesis]. Polytechnic Institute and State University.

24.

Madungwe

L. S.

Mavesera

Moyana

Seremwe

(2000). Baseline study on clusters. Better Schools Program in Zimbabwe.

25.

Makaye

(2011). Better Schools Programme (Zimbabwe) cluster: In pursuit of a better model to develop teacher professional infrastructures. Lambert Academic Publishing.

26.

Marks

H. M.

Printy

S. M.

(2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397.

27.

Mizmirav

(2014). Could principal autonomy produce better schools? Evidence from the schools and staffing survey (published master dissertation). Georgetown University, USA.

28.

Ouchi

(2009). The secret of TSL. Simon & Schuster.

29.

Rorrer

A. K.

Skrla

Scheurich

J. J.

(2008). Districts as institutional actors in education reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307–358.

30.

Uirab

M. J.

(2006). Clustering as a model for effective management of schools in Namibia (Master’s thesis.). North West University. http://dspace.nwu.ac.za/handle/10394/1209

31.

United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund. (2009). Child friendly schools manual.

32.

Yin

R. K.

(2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.