Dimensions of successful leadership in Soweto township secondary schools

Abstract

This paper argues that the success of schools in disadvantaged township communities is shaped by an interplay of four dimensions: strategy, regulation, pedagogy and compensation. The paper presents these dimensions of successful leadership in secondary schools by drawing on a research study focusing on cases of three Soweto township secondary schools. Data sources included interviews, informal discussions and focus groups. The participants included principals, other members of the school management teams, teachers and parents. The case studies generated outcomes that contributed towards an emerging model of successful school leadership in township secondary schools facing multiple factors of deprivation. The successful school leadership practices explored in this study revealed that there were three discernible ways to characterise leadership practices in the case schools: principal-driven success; participative leadership driven by senior management; and teacher-led success.

Keywords

Pedagogic compensatory regulatory principalship township leadership

Introduction

The research reported in this paper presents a picture of successful principals in South African township urban schools, facing multiple factors of deprivation. Special attention was paid to the leadership strategies that were used by the school principals and four discernible dimensions signified the work of the successful school principals. These discernible dimensions are strategic, regulatory, pedagogic and compensatory. The four dimensions were common in the three case schools, but not uniformly and they form the basis of the discussion in this paper.

The study focused on school principals in disadvantaged communities in South Africa, specifically in the context of township schools. Within the South African context, the notion of a township could be associated with conceptions of a shantytown. Christie and Lingard (2001) noted that South African township schools are characterised by irregular attendance by both staff and students; conflictual relationships within schools – between principals, teachers and students; discontinuous learning and poor results; and violence, criminality, rape and substance abuse within and around schools. However, Taylor (2008: 73) observed that ‘a tiny band of schools situated in the poorest communities provide some of the highest quality education. They are performing heroic deeds under difficult conditions, and serve as role models for the rest of the system.’ Three of this ‘tiny band’ of schools are the focus for this study.

Soweto has all or most of the characteristics shared by other townships and it was therefore suitable to be selected for the study as a prototype of socio-economic and educational challenges facing schools in township communities. Located 24 km south-west of Johannesburg, Soweto was established in the 1940s as a residential centre for black men who worked in the gold mines. In 1963, the name Soweto (an acronym for South Western Townships) was officially adopted for the sprawling settlement. Soweto came to the world’s attention on 16 June 1976 through the events that took place during the Soweto student uprising, when mass protests erupted over the apartheid government’s policy to enforce education in Afrikaans rather than English. The impact of Soweto’s student protests had far-reaching consequences throughout the country and across the world (Christie, 1998). At the time of the study, there were 64 secondary schools in Soweto, of which fewer than 10% obtain above average Grade 12 (school leaving) pass rates, based on national and provincial norms (Education Statistics, 2004). Since 1994, one of the major challenges has been to address the historical imbalances that existed as a result of apartheid and the huge disparity in investment per learner that exists between the schools in previously white suburbs in other parts of the city, when compared with those in previously black townships such as Soweto (Statistics South Africa, 2004).

An understanding of how schools perform when faced with multiple factors of deprivation is essential to inform possible new insights into leadership practices and the understanding of leadership as being ‘framed by social, geographic, political, economic and cultural settings’ (see Oduro and MacBeath, 2003). Harris and Thomson (2006) show that schools located in challenging circumstances suffer a myriad of socio-economic problems, including low educational achievement. Fleisch (2008: 53) further adds that ‘South African studies of academic achievement consistently find strong and positive correlation between socio-economic background and academic performance.’

Background and context of the three case schools

School A

School A is situated in the north-western part of Soweto, and it was established in 1979. In 2011 it had an enrolment figure of 1425 learners and a teaching staff of 43. School A does not charge any school fees and it relies greatly on the grant provided by the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE). The school has a computer laboratory, only recently installed at the time of the study, but there is no fully-equipped library.

Learners in this school are drawn from the community in which the school is located. This area is notorious for high rates of crime and violence is prevalent. The school experienced serious disciplinary problems (especially among the learners) during the early 1990s. This was compounded by the changing political situation in the country. The school was severely vandalised and was on the verge of closure at that time. The buildings had no window panes or doors and the classrooms were sparsely equipped with broken chalkboards and too few desks. The school has a culture of high achievement and it is results-driven. School A also has a very strong collegial culture and members of staff enjoy lunches together in the staffroom. As part of documentary analysis, the school profile states that the staff (and school governors) are determined to continue working hard to provide quality education at the school. Also stated in the school profile are values such as high commitment and ambition.

School B

The school is situated in one of the newer suburban areas on the outskirts of Soweto, with a middle-class catchment area. Records from the department of education show that the school was originally built as a primary school in 1995. However, when a neighbouring secondary school was closed down and demolished in order to be refurbished, learners were moved temporarily to the newly built primary school. The decision by the GDE to temporarily ‘house’ secondary school learners in an area that did not have a secondary school was questioned by a strong teacher union operating in the area. The school had to cope with turbulence and uncertainty at that time as the Department of Education was still determined and adamant that the school should remain as a primary school, although temporarily ‘housing’ secondary school learners.

The aftermath of this decision taken by the GDE meant that learners at the school did not live in the local community as they had been moved from a neighbouring school. Only 3% of the learners at the school come from this community. With the changing demographics of post-1994 South Africa, parents from the middle-class homes in the area were moving their children to schools perceived to be better resourced than local schools. The school now serves the poorest areas, mainly comprising learners from the shanty towns surrounding it. As in School A, School B places emphasis on achieving results at the end of year.

School C

School C was established in 1971 and is situated in an area south-east of Soweto. In 2011 the school had an enrolment of 981 learners and 29 classroom teachers. The school is in an impoverished area and it accommodates learners who come from the nearby community. Many of the learners are raised by grandparents, in single-parent families, or in families where no immediate family members are employed. Many of the learners at the school come from families with a number of siblings, with, in some instances as many as 10 children in one family. This often results in parental care problems. The school focuses on a culture of caring for its learners and the community that it draws its learners from. The culture of the school is one of high commitment to academic achievement by both teachers and learners.

Literature review

A significant international literature has emerged on the particular case of schools operating under difficult conditions, or in disadvantaged communities. However, there is very little literature to provide insight into South African township schooling and the difficult challenges facing these schools. Whilst international literature points to contemporary interest in schools facing challenging circumstances or as they are sometimes referred to, as schools ‘in difficulty’ (see MacBeath et al., 2007), Maden’s (2001) view is that there is still a need for a better understanding of schools facing difficult contexts, such that will provide richer descriptions of leadership practices within such schools. Maden’s view is hugely applicable to the South African contexts, given the inadequacy of research in the area of successful leadership in schools facing multiple factors of deprivation. Lupton (2004) suggested that while schools in disadvantaged areas are much more likely than others to fail, by no means all of them offer a poor quality education. Lupton added that a socio-economic context of deprivation does not in itself determine school failure, and that the problem of low achievement in many schools in deprived areas lies within the schools themselves, accounted for more directly by poor management and professional practice.

Many South African township schools face acute levels of socio-economic deprivation compounded by external factors that adversely affect their ability to perform. There was a need, therefore, to have an understanding of the context within which these schools and their principals operate. Incidences of crime, drug abuse and violence tend to be significantly higher within areas of urban deprivation and social disadvantage. In addition to the socio-economic challenges, South Africa has seen a surge in the movement of learners, which is prevalent in the township schools. The Human Sciences Research Council analysed demographic trends in learner enrolments following the end of formal racial segregation in schools, and paid particular attention to the ways in which racially integrated schools respond to issues of race, language, religion and culture (Sekete et al., 2003). The phenomenon of learner migration has seen learners move from the township into former racially disintegrated schools. On the other hand, learners have migrated from rural into urban areas, settling in the so-called informal settlements. Sekete (2003: 1) added that this trend has seen an influx of learners from informal settlements into neighbouring township schools. The significance of this issue is the instability that is caused by the migration, meaning that principals are required to deal with the state of influx and still manage to produce positive learner outcomes.

The central significance of the study was that township secondary schools serve a large proportion of the South African population, in communities quite different from rural, inner-city or urban schools, but little is known of what principals do in practical terms, or the ‘how?’ and ‘why?’ of what they do. Many township communities are battling with HIV and AIDS, child-headed households and general poverty. These issues frame the conditions under which township secondary school principals operate and this study provides insights into how some of the schools ‘effectively overcome severe poverty-related odds, such as hunger, homelessness, illiteracy, unemployment, gangsterism, drug abuse, and a fatalistic mindset’ (Taylor, 2008: 73). In this regard, Wachs (2000) argued that children’s academic performance is affected by three main areas of influence. The first is the quality of the school, the so-called ‘in-school’ factors (for example, facilities, quality of teaching and allocated teaching time).The second area of influence is family characteristics such as socio-economic status and parents’ educational level. The third area identified by Wachs is attitudes toward school. What is missing from Wachs’ areas of influence is the influence of the community on the child. MacBeath et al. (2007: 40) maintain that ‘what happens outside schools is more telling than what happens within them’. This is an important claim as it relates to the importance of home background and the ‘arguable’ inability of a school to counteract social disadvantage.

Whilst some factors may be ‘external’ to the locus of influence of the school, such as the influence of family and community, many other factors, such as leadership, have a direct influence on issues such as teaching and learning. However, when conducting a systematic review of the literature on school management in South Africa, Bush et al. (2005: 162) found very few sources on this topic. The limited literature base (Hoadley and Ward, 2008 is something worth noting, given that South African school principals are subjected to pressure to perform. Bush et al. (2010: 162) examined the significance of leadership and management in enhancing classroom practice and improving learner outcomes in two provinces of South Africa, ‘given the increased recognition, internationally and in South Africa, that managing teaching and learning is one of the most important activities for principals and other school leaders’. Drawing on case studies of eight schools in disadvantaged contexts, Bush et al. (2010) showed that the management of teaching and learning is often inadequate, and largely fails to compensate for the social and educational problems facing learners and their communities.

There is an influential body of literature regarding the impact of family background on schooling outcomes (e.g. Rumberger and Palardy, 2005). Studies conducted by Leithwood and Jantzi (2006), for instance, point to the important influence on children’s academic success of family work habits, academic guidance and support provided to children. But the picture of poverty, as experienced by a majority of South African school-going children, does not adequately explain the successes achieved by the few schools in challenging circumstances. In this regard, a different lens is required to show how principals in successful schools negotiate the socio-economic conditions.

Burns (2001: 179) cites ‘two channels of family background influence which can be identified: Parents’ education and private household resources’. One area of interest is the role that parents play in their children’s education. It is argued that parents who are better educated may rank education more highly as a household priority, and thus be willing to devote more money, time and other resources to their children’s schooling. Van der Berg and Louw (2006: 5–18) add that this may include choosing schools for their children, thus providing them with superior schooling opportunities (Van der Berg and Louw, 2006: 18). For township schools, it is unlikely that parents will be involved in the education of their children to the extent of assisting with homework.

Scholars such as Kamper (2008) have noted that in poverty contexts, many parents are illiterate and this makes it difficult for them to reinforce learning at home. Even worse is the situation facing those many learners who have no parents and whose families are headed by grandparents or older siblings. Fleisch (2008) noted that there are also few, if any, books at home to help learners to master the basics of literacy and numeracy. Fleisch (2008) also noted that there are other challenges, such as teenage pregnancy, which impede the education of secondary school girls, while hunger – which is widespread despite the well-functioning feeding schemes in the primary schools, is known to have a serious impact on learners’ ability to concentrate.

May and Govender (1998: 9) maintain that ‘poverty essentially concerns the inability of individuals, households or communities to reach and maintain a socially acceptable minimum standard of living due to a lack of resources’. What further compounds the challenge in high-poverty communities are social problems such as gangsterism, drug abuse and a fatalistic mindset (Day, 2005; Harris, 2002; Jacobson et al., 2005). Within the South African context, alcohol abuse remains a major problem among school going adolescents (Moleya, 2007: 3). The high rate of substance abuse, in particular, has devastating consequences such as ill health, crime, delinquency, unemployment and violence, all of which lead to the destruction of individuals, families and communities. These seemingly insurmountable circumstances beg the question, what are the features of successful principals in township secondary schools that enable them to negotiate their specific social conditions?

The relationship between the school, its context and the practices of the principal is a dynamic relationship between people and their environment. South African township schools are faced with a myriad of socio-economic challenges. These include crime, violence in and around the school, and substance abuse. Bell et al’s (1991) views are that people histories, social space and values are key social constructs that cannot be divorced from learning about social existence and the dynamic relationship between people and their environment. Taylor (2008: 73) observed the conditions of schools in many South African poor communities, stating that ‘nearly 80% of schools provide education of such poor quality that they constitute a very significant obstacle to social and economic development’. Some authors (e.g. Fleisch, 2008) have reported that the most serious problems facing principals in developing countries include: students who cannot pay school fees and buy books, shortage of school equipment and shortage of physical facilities. The principals of the majority of South African schools face a daunting challenge. This being the case, principals in developing countries such as South Africa face problems that differ greatly from developed countries such as the USA, the UK and Australia (see Bush and Oduro, 2006: 1).

The conceptual framework

The conceptual framework for the study was informed by what Leithwood et al. (2006) identified as four core (or basic) practices of successful school leaders.

Creating vision and setting directions, i.e. helping to develop a set of shared goals that encourage a sense of common purpose.

Developing people, i.e. influencing behaviour towards the achievement of shared goals through the provision of intellectual stimulation, individual and collective support.

Restructuring the organisation and redesigning roles and responsibilities, i.e. facilitating the work of the school community in achieving shared goals.

Managing teaching and learning.

Broadly speaking, it should be noted that Leithwood and colleagues studied successful school leadership practices in a context different to that of South Africa. Nonetheless, these practices were significant for the study as it was assumed that they would throw light on how success was achieved by the township school principals. Leithwood and colleagues further maintain that these core practices are necessary, but insufficient, for success regardless of context. The significance of understanding these core practices within the South African township contextlies in the fact that there is little work published on successful principals that details the kinds of everyday challenges that they face in their disadvantaged township communities.

Research methodology

The aim of the study was to explore successful leadership practices in challenging contexts. Three secondary schools were purposely selected from the Soweto township. The case schools represented ‘extreme’ cases of high-performing Soweto secondary schools. This was based on the average school performance of high schools in Soweto. Also, these schools were extreme cases in that whilst Soweto has a total of 64 secondary schools, less than 10% of schools have consistently performed above the national average in Grade 12 results. The second purposive sampling strategy used was that of ‘typicality’. The cases were chosen on the basis of the ‘typicality’ of the socio-economic and educational context. This is consistent with Cohen, Manion and Morrison’s (2011: 156) view that ‘the cases to be included in the purposive samples are handpicked on the basis of judgement of their typicality or possession of the particular characteristics being sought’. The 64 secondary schools in Soweto constituted the population for the study. However, given that only 10% of these schools are high-performing schools, it was necessary to consider both ‘extreme’ and ‘typicality’ strategies for sampling. Therefore, the 10% of high-performing schools in Soweto formed the sampling frame for the study, from which the three case schools were ultimately drawn.

Two essential dimensions were also used in the selection of the sample schools: Grade 12 results and socio-economic and educational conditions of the township. These dimensions further provided the basis for the selection of the sample schools. The dimension of Grade 12 results was useful in exploring the impact of principals’ practices on learner outcomes. The selected schools are schools that have principals who were able to maximise learner achievement irrespective of how they were stretched by a challenging socio-economic and educational context. The selected schools consistently managed to obtain results above national and provincial norms for Grade 12 pass rates. Given these dimensions, and the rationale for constructing them, the schools were chosen on the basis of Grade 12 results over a 3-year period.

Data was collected in the study with the purpose of answering the question: how do successful principals in township secondary schools create conditions for success? From each school, the principal, deputy principals and heads of department were selected for individual semi-structured interviews. McMillan and Schumacher (2006: 350–353) see the value of in-depth interviews as being useful ‘to obtain data of participant meanings – how individuals conceive of their world and how they explain or make sense of the important events in their lives’. While in-depth interviews were employed for the school principals and the deputy principal, focus group interviews were used for four teachers and four parents included in the study. The justification for using focus group is captured in Krueger and Casey’s (2000: 360) view that ‘by creating a social environment in which group members are stimulated by one another’s perceptions and ideas, the researcher can increase the quality and richness of data through a more efficient strategy than one-on-one interviewing’. They add that the strength of the focus group interview is that it brings an improved depth of understanding (Krueger and Casey, 2000) and it allows one to probe certain claims and obtain additional data (Krueger and Casey, 2000). Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Gauteng Department of Education. Informed consent was also obtained from the participants and they were informed that their involvement was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study. They were further assured of anonymity and confidentiality. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded. Themes and categories were generated from the analysis of the transcripts. In order to address the research questions, the study utilised a qualitative approach to the analysis of data. In the qualitative approach, various methods of data analysis are employed. This study adopted a thematic content analysis strategy to develop tentative and preliminary ideas during the analysis. Rogers et al. (2005) add that social researchers use the term ‘thematic content analysis’ to encompass an even wider sphere that includes all of the social practices, individuals and institutions that make it possible or legitimate to understand a phenomenon in a particular way.

Findings and discussion

The final cross-case analysis of the case studies, grounded in the data, generated four dimensions of successful school leadership in the context of township secondary schools. The dimensions are discussed below.

Strategic dimension

The strategic dimension dealt with three related elements: goal setting, an organisational climate of high expectations and building capacity. The first element of goal setting was strategic in that it signified how the principals set school goals through articulating the vision and values of the case schools. International research shows that vision is an important component of leadership (e.g. Leithwood et al., 2006). Harris (2002) suggests that putting in place a well-defined vision, along with established values, can raise staff morale as well as learner expectations, and can communicate a sense of direction for the school to all who participate in it.

…what I like the most about the school is that the school is aiming for a 100% pass rate in all the grades. (School A – Parent 2)

…I think when he came here, he had a clear vision of what he wanted this institution to become. And from my interactions with him in this time that I’ve been here, he’s a person [who] always stands by that vision. Whatever comes, he looks at it in relation to the vision. (School B – Teacher 3)

The other elements are linked to strategy as they showed how the principals created a positive school climate for achievement, thereby also building leadership capacity in their schools. The research further showed that, within the context of township secondary schooling, the strategic dimension required the support of three other dimensions in order to be meaningful. These dimensions are pedagogic, regulatory and compensatory.

Pedagogic dimension

Elements related to the pedagogic dimension are managing teaching and learning, and frequent monitoring of learner progress. Bush and Glover (2009) suggested that a principal focused strongly on managing teaching and learning would undertake activities such as ensuring the availability of appropriate learning and teaching support materials (LTSM); ensuring that lessons take place; evaluating learner performance through scrutiny of examination results and internal assessments; monitoring the work of heads of departments (HoDs) through scrutiny of their work plans and portfolios; and arranging a programme of class visits followed up by feedback to educators. These activities were of particular significance in this study because South African schools are characterised by a lack of focus on managing teaching and learning. Bush et al. (2010) concluded that in South African townships, management of teaching and learning is often inadequate, and largely fails to compensate for the social and educational problems facing learners and their communities. The case study schools put a high priority on managing teaching and learning, and this is a central aspect of their success.

I spend [the] better part of my day visiting classes and ensuring that teaching and learning takes place. Every morning I take rounds to ensure that there is ‘meaningful education’. I spend 60% of my time ensuring that teachers teach and learners learn. The other 40% I spend in the office doing administrative work. (School A – Principal)

As the principal I must make sure that teachers are teaching and learners are learning and I achieve this by what I call managing by walking. I always make rounds to check if teachers are in class and all learners are in class. (School C – Principal)

From the two extracts above, we can see that the principals recognise the need for a greater focus on managing teaching and learning, with less time spent on administrative responsibilities. Bush et al. (2010: 162) state that ‘it is increasingly recognised, internationally and in South Africa, that managing teaching and learning is one of the most important activities for principals and other school leaders’. Bush et al. (2010) further acknowledge the significance of leadership and management in enhancing classroom practice and improving learner outcomes (Bush et al., 2010). Robinson (2007: 21) stressed that ‘the impact on student outcomes is likely to be greater where there is direct leader involvement in the oversight of, and participation in, curriculum planning and co-ordination’. The participants’ responses corroborate these views and they provide some insights into what makes the principals successful in the case study schools.

There was also individual interaction between teacher and student which provided the teacher with opportunities to evaluate progress. All three case schools implemented teacher–learner joint reviews of learners’ work. This enabled an accurate evaluation of progress, and provided teachers with valuable suggestions for interventions where necessary. There was also positive feedback offered to the learners. This provided learners with valuable motivation and encouragement, which helped to change learners’ perceptions of their abilities, often from a negative outlook to a positive one.

In School A, teachers said that they conducted what they called ‘academic interventions’. These were short tutoring sessions with individuals or small groups of learners and these sessions were conducted in the morning and the afternoon. In School B, this involved teachers working with high-risk learners on a regular basis. This was done to continuously monitor learners’ levels of understanding and to determine ways in which to address any problem areas. In School C, teachers said that they relied on evaluating learner portfolios (collections of learners’ work completed over a specified time period). Teachers saw portfolios as useful for providing an in-depth look into learners’ progress in specific subject areas, as well as an overview of their overall achievement.

In all three case schools, poor quality teaching was not ignored. When it did arise, support systems were put in place to assist any teacher who required help and guidance. This manner of teacher support is exemplified in School B, where a combination of structured support, monitoring, and an individual development programme addressed the problem of poor quality teaching. For instance, in the year 2008, the school obtained an average Grade 12 pass rate of 64%. This was lower than the school had achieved in the past three years. This result was attributed to one mathematics teacher whose performance was considered to be questionable. However, the teacher received the necessary support and the results improved again thereafter.

The principal of School A focused on monitoring teachers’ work in the classroom, observing and commenting on what worked well and what did not. This was accompanied by keeping track of teachers’ professional development needs. The principals of schools B and C did not conduct classroom visits. However, the principal of School B ensured that the deputy principals and HoDs spend time with teachers to discuss their work, although this was done in the staffroom and no classroom observations were conducted. It would seem that School B relied on ensuring that HoDs monitor the work of teachers within their departments. This is exemplified in meetings held with individual teachers, in which teachers were required to account for the performance of learners in each subject within a department. In School C, the principal did not make classroom visits to observe teachers’ work. However, School C has managed to achieve excellent learner outcomes over the years, even prior to the arrival of the incumbent principal, and this through a strong culture of teacher collaboration.

Overall, teachers in the three case schools worked hard and in a co-operative way to provide high quality education, including voluntary extra lessons, especially for all Grade 12 learners. In Schools A and B, teachers said that they even keep registers of extra lessons in order to ensure that learners knew it was not optional to attend extra-tuition classes. In School C, there was no obligation for learners to attend extra-tuition classes arranged by the school. However, learners knew that it was compulsory to attend the Senior Secondary School Improvement Programme (SSIP) which was arranged by the GDE for all secondary schools in the province. Teachers at School C commented that they always derived intense satisfaction from seeing their learners achieve well. As a result, they are always looking at ways to produce even better results every year.

Regulatory dimension

The regulatory dimension signified the way in which the principals ‘regulated’ the school environment. This dimension also points to the way in which the principals worked towards creating a safe and orderly space for teachers and learners to work in the schools. Safety and order are necessary conditions for effective teaching and learning (Chubb and Moe, 1990). A notable feature of the case schools was that they had clear disciplinary practices in place, although these practices were not identical in all three schools. Blandford (1998: 5) stated that ‘managing discipline is an essential element in educational practice and at a time when teachers and managers are anxious about reported increases in violence and other forms of anti-social behaviour’. This is consistent with Mabeba and Prinsloo’s (2000) observation, and Van Wyk’s (2001) comment, that discipline is a major concern in many township schools in South Africa.

In the three case schools, disciplinary action against late-coming, absenteeism and substance abuse were directly linked to enforcing school attendance; and this further improved learner achievement, mainly in Grade 12. The following extract exemplifies the focus that the school adopted on safety:

…my role has been to look into the safety first of these children and the safety of the teachers as well, everybody must be safe in terms of stopping this infiltration of drugs coming from outside, because people do come to the fences and sell all those things [sic]. (School C – Deputy Principal)

Further, it seemed also, that class attendance was essential for the success of the three case study schools. In controlling attendance, for example, School A would contact parents in the case that a learner was found to be absent from school, if even for a day. In School B, learners would be locked out of the school premises for coming late and, when the day’s programme of teaching and learning had begun, the late-comers would be let in and led to the principal’s office to account for their lateness.

There is evidence, however, that not all of the three schools used accountable and legitimate disciplinary practices. For example, in School C, one teacher pointed out that the school still used corporal punishment as a measure to control late-coming and absenteeism. The teacher acknowledged that they were aware that corporal punishment was against the law. Since the abolition of corporal punishment (1997), cases have been reported in the media in which teachers have failed to comply with the law in this regard (see Erasmus, 2009; Rossouw, 2003).

A further distinction to make amongst the three case schools is that the external environment was less of a threat to School B than it was to schools A and C. Given that School B is in one of the newer suburbs of Soweto, it appears that crime and substance abuse in this area is not as acute as in other parts of Soweto. However, School B still had to deal with issues of late-coming and absenteeism. Participants in the study emphasised that the deputy principal consistently worked towards curbing lateness of both teachers and learners. One way in which all three schools also maintained order and discipline was in sustaining close personal interactions with the learners. Participants across case schools affirmed that every learner was personally known to at least some members of staff, even if not to all. What this implied was that if there were problems with individual learners, these would be easily noticed and action could be swiftly taken. School C presents a particular feature in this regard. Teachers were instrumental in forming personal interactions with the learners, whereas in schools A and B closer links with the learners were encouraged by either the principal (in School A) or the school management team (in School B).

Overall, in all three case schools, lateness and absenteeism on the part of both staff and students was not condoned and was kept at a minimum. All three principals mentioned that drastic measures were taken if a teacher was late, especially what they called ‘habitual latecomers’. Charles (2002: 13) argues that ‘the management of discipline requires that educators make learners feel emotionally comfortable and physically safe so that learners can develop intrinsic discipline and accountability for their actions’. The deputy principal of School C was particularly firm on the need for maintaining order and stability at the school and he strongly expressed the need to protect learners from negative external influences. This is exemplified in repairs made to the school fence each time there was a case of vandalism. The school also arranged regular police patrols around its perimeters. School C also formed strong links with community organisations such as the Local Community Police Forum.

The central feature of the regulatory dimension is the maintenance of discipline. This dimension can be seen to be regulatory in that it signified how the principals regulated the school environment. The theme also points to how the principals worked towards demarcating a safe and orderly space for teachers and learners to work in the schools. Safety and order are also necessary conditions for effective teaching and learning (Chubb and Moe, 1990). The following quote attests to the focus on discipline: ‘if there is a lack of discipline among educators, then it spills over to the learners’ (School A – Principal).

From the outset, this principal focused on setting direction for the school and he did this by targeting an important goal, the restoration of discipline. In this school, the principal inherited a difficult environment with problems ranging from student ill-discipline, to low teacher morale to general apathy. However, with the focus on this one goal, the principal gave a clear message that he intended to transform the school.

It was also evident that the case schools focused their attention on managing time:

We go round checking if both teacher and learner are in class when they are supposed to be in class. To be at school on time is non-negotiable and to be in class is non-negotiable. (School A – Deputy Principal)

The deputy principal of case school B described what he called ‘a key experience’ that had led to the success of the school:

…the key challenge was learner and teacher discipline. We had to deal with issues of late-coming. We had to deal with issues of absenteeism, but we have tried to motivate teachers as well as learners, so that everybody sees the importance of the school being successful.

Compensatory dimension

There were two elements related to the compensatory dimension. The first element focuses on building and strengthening home–school relations, linked to addressing the social and educational needs of the learners. The significance of this element is that it is consistent with what Christie and Potterton (1997) called the culture of concern. This showed the schools’ sense of agency and responsibility towards creating favourable conditions for learner success. The second element looks at parent and community involvement and it resonates with Prew’s (2009) view that community involvement is central to the success of the school.

The case study schools focused strongly on compensatory actions in order to address the peculiar challenges facing township schools and communities. According to the HoDs, teachers at the school also provide pastoral care because they understand the socio-economic backgrounds of the learners in their care:

…learners are given support, you know, like domestic problems at home and talking to the children individually. I’m talking about serious problems – problems that can even involve court cases. The social problems that these kids are experiencing are very severe [sic]. (School C – Head of Department 1)

Parental involvement is also key to the success of the school: ‘we invite the parents to come, especially parents of the learners who were struggling with a specific subject’ (School B – Head of Department 3).

Given the prevalence of poverty in the school community, learners face the risk of reduced capacity to learn as a result of nutritional deprivation and social needs. It was evident that the school focuses on catering both for learners’ nutritional and social needs in the hope that their concentration and performance levels will improve and ultimately influence their learning:

…we identify learners, we check their background, we speak to the parents. We give priority to the learners who are struggling, in the true sense of the word ‘struggling’. Then those learners would get their lunch. (School B – Head of Department 1)

…we encourage the previous year’s Grade 12s to donate their uniform when they leave the school, to donate their shoes, their trousers, etc. In the case of learners who are struggling, we’d give those learners the uniform. So we are always trying to help. (School B – Head of Department 4)

It appears that a strong commitment to the welfare of all learners in the three case schools led to a sense of belonging on the part of the communities associated with the schools, albeit to varying degrees. In School A, the school prided itself on the fact that teachers, learners and parents viewed the school as being a ‘family’ and that most of the learners come from the nearby community. In School B, the demographics are such that only 3% of the learners live in the immediate local community. The school serves the poorest areas further afield, mainly comprising learners from so-called informal settlements. However, the principal commented that the success of all learners at the school, through education, was a concern shared by all the stakeholders at the school.

In schools A and B, principals mentioned that learners who are really struggling at home were adopted by individual members of staff. This is reflected in the visits that the principals of schools A and B personally made to learners’ homes to discuss any critical issues pertaining to the learner. This was further seen in School C, which liaised with voluntary and welfare agencies in order to assist learners with their social and educational challenges. This was expressed by one of the deputy principals as ‘we have to go beyond the call of duty to assist our learners’.

Stakeholders in all three schools mentioned that they depended on family support as a source of strength. Schools A and B seem, however, to have managed to build much stronger relationships with families than School C.

Conclusion

This study aimed to verify and substantiate evidence of Leithwood et al.’s core practices through providing a contextualised understanding of successful leadership in three carefully selected township secondary schools as sites for the study. Four discernible features that signify the work of these successful school principals emerged from the study and these were strategic, regulatory, pedagogic and compensatory. These four features were common in the three case schools, but not uniformly. The findings also show that the success was not solely due to the principal. However, it is notable that all three focused on managing teaching and learning as the core purpose of schooling. Furthermore, the successful schools in this study have shown what Christie (2001: 103) calls an ‘exceptional imagination, courage and commitment that human beings [can] bring to bear under the most intolerable of circumstances’.

A prominent element observable in the three case schools is that they viewed teaching and learning as their primary purpose. This finding was important in the study for two reasons. First, it contributes to the limited research and literature on managing teaching and learning in South Africa (see Bush et al., 2005). The study supports other research on the importance of managing teaching and learning to achieve enhanced learner outcomes (see Bush et al., 2010). Second, the finding that lies at the heart of this study is that the participating principals were aware of the importance of teaching and learning and this was unexpected in this research. This unexpected outcome is informed by research conducted in South Africa (for example, Bush et al., 2010: 162). In their study, Bush et al. (2010: 162) have shown the inadequacies of the South African schools in managing teaching and learning and ‘largely failing to compensate for the social and educational problems facing learners and their communities’.

The study also showed that one of the biggest challenges facing township secondary schools is a concern for the safety of teachers and learners. Whilst the communities surrounding the schools are affected and often characterised by crime, substance abuse and teenage pregnancy, these township schools reduced the effects of such problems spilling over into the school and negatively affecting learner achievement. This is evidence of their commitment to learner safety. This finding in the study aligns with other research studies on safety and order in schools. For instance, Hill and Hill (1994: 16) say that learners learn to the best of their abilities in an orderly and safe environment. The negative impact of a disruptive environment on teaching and learning was seriously considered, and addressed, by the township schools.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Bell

Caplan

Karin

(Eds) (1991) Engendered Field: Women, Men and Ethnography. London: Routledge.

Blandford

(1998) Managing Discipline in Schools. London, Routledge.

Burns

(2001) Inheriting the future: The role of family background and neighbourhood characteristics in child schooling outcomes in South Africa. Paper to the DPRU/FES conference held in Johannesburg, 15–16 November.

Bush

Glover

(2009) Managing Teaching and Learning: A Concept Paper. Johannesburg: MGSLG.

Bush

Bisschoff

Glover

Heysteck

Joubert

Moloi

(2005) School Leadership, Management and Governance in South Africa: A Systematic Literature Review. Johannesburg: MGSLG.

Bush

Joubert

Kiggundu

Van Rooyen

(2010) Managing teaching and learning in South African schools. International Journal of Educational Development 30(2): 162–168.

Bush

Oduro

(2006) New principals in Africa: Preparation, induction and practice, Journal of Educational Administration 44(4): 359–375.

Charles

(2002) Building Classroom Discipline. 3rd edn. Hawthorn: ACER.

Christie

(1998) Schools as (dis)organisations: The ‘breakdown of the culture of learning and teaching’ in South African schools. Cambridge Journal of Education 28(3): 283–300.

10.

Christie

(2001) Improving school quality in South Africa: A study of schools that have succeeded against the odds. Journal of Education 26: 40–65.

11.

Christie

Potterton

(1997) School Development in South Africa: A Research Project to Investigate Strategic Interventions for Quality Improvement in South African Schools: Final Report. Johannesburg: University of Witwatersrand Press.

12.

Christie

Lingard

(2001) Capturing complexity in educational leadership. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American educational Research Association. Seattle, WA, April 10–14.

13.

Chubb

Moe

(1990) Politics, Markets and America's Schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

14.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2011) Research Methods in Education. London, Routledge.

15.

Day

(2005) Sustaining success in challenging contexts: Leadership in English schools. Journal of Educational Administration 43(6): 573–583.

16.

Education Statistics in South Africa (2004) Pretoria: Department of Education.

17.

Erasmus

(2009) An exploration of disciplinary approaches to classroom management in selected northern area schools in Port Elizabeth. Master in Education Thesis, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.

18.

Fleisch

(2008) Primary Education in Crisis. Why South African Schoolchildren Underachieve in Reading and Mathematics. Cape Town: Juta & Co.

19.

Harris

(2002) Effective leadership in schools facing challenging contexts. School Leadership and Management 22(1): 15–26.

20.

Harris

Thomson

(2006) Leading schools in poor communities. What do know and how do we know it? Paper presented at International Congress of School Effectiveness and Improvement. Fort Lauderdale, 3–6 January.

21.

Hill

(1994) Creating Safe Schools. United Kingdom: Corwin.

22.

Hoadley

Ward

(2008) Managing to learn: Leadership of curriculum and instruction in South African secondary schools. Unpublished monograph prepared for ESSD, HSRC, March.

23.

Jacobson

Johnson

Ylimaki

Giles

(2005) Successful leadership in challenging US schools: Enabling principles, enabling schools. Journal of Educational Administration 43: 607–618.

24.

Kamper

(2008) A profile of effective leadership in some South African high-poverty schools. South African Journal of Education 28:1–18.

25.

Krueger

Casey

(2000) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

26.

Leithwood

Day

Sammons

Harris

Hopkins

(2006) Seven Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership. Nottingham: National College of School Leadership.

27.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2006) Transformational school leadership: Its effects on students, teachers and their classroom practices, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2): 201–227.

28.

Lupton

(2004) Schools in Disadvantaged Areas: Recognising Context and Raising Performance (CASE paper 76). London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics and Political Science.

29.

Mabeba

Prinsloo

(2000) Perceptions of discipline and ensuing discipline problems in secondary education. South African Journal of Education 20(1): 34–41.

30.

Maden

(2001) Success Against the odds, five years on: Revisiting Effective Schools in Disadvantaged Areas. Falmer: Routledge.

31.

MacBeath

Gray

Cullen

Frost

Steward

Swaffield

(2007) Schools on the Edge: Responding to Challenging Circumstances. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

32.

May

Govender

(1998) Poverty and inequality in South Africa. Indicator South Africa 15: 53–58.

33.

McMillan

Schumacher

(2006) Research Methods in Education. Evidence-based Inquiry. 6th edn. University of Michigan: Longman.

34.

Moleya

(2007) Factors related to adolescents violence and behaviour in secondary schools. MA Thesis. University of South Africa, Pretoria.

35.

Oduro

MacBeath

(2003) Traditions and tensions in leadership: The Ghanaian experience. Cambridge Journal of Education 33(3): 441–455.

36.

Prew

(2009) Community involvement in school development: Modifying school improvement concepts to the needs of South African township schools, Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 37(6): 824–846.

37.

Robinson

(2007) School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why. William Walker Oration. Published as part of the ACEL Monograph Series, 41, October. Melbourne: Australian Council of Leaders.

38.

Rogers

Malancharuvil-Berkes

Mosley

Hui

O’Garro

(2005) Critical Discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research 75: 365–416.

39.

Rossouw

(2003) Learner discipline in South African schools – A qualitative study. Koers 68(4): 413–435.

40.

Rumberger

Palardy

(2005) Does segregation still matter? The impact of student composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College Record 107(9): 1999–2045.

41.

Sekete

Shilubane

Moila

(2003) Deracialization and Migration of Learners in South African Schools: Challenges and Implications. Pretoria: Human Science Research Council Press.

42.

Statistics South Africa (2004) Ten Year Review of Statistics in South Africa. Annual Report 2003/4. Pretoria: Department of Statistics.

43.

Taylor

(2008) What’s wrong with South African schools? Paper presented to the What’s Working in School Development Conference. JET Education Service. 28–29 February.

44.

Van der Berg

Louw

(2006) Unravelling the mystery: Understanding South African schooling outcomes in regional context. Paper presented to the CSAE Conference. Oxford. March.

45.

Van Wyk

(2001) Perceptions and practices of discipline and punishment in urban black schools in South Africa. South African Journal of Education 21(3): 195–201.

46.

Wachs

(2000) Necessary but not sufficient. The respective roles of single and multiple influences on individual development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.