Managing teacher leave and absence in South African rural schools

Introduction

Like any other employer, the South African Department of Basic Education has a set of policies that govern teachers’ conditions of service. Among others, these include policies that govern leave and absence from school. While these policies are meant to enhance teachers’ conditions of service, they are also aimed at safeguarding the rights of learners to good quality education by ensuring that teachers remain on task, and that the teaching and learning process is not interrupted. Within this context, as school managers, principals have the task of ensuring that, while addressing the rights of teachers to good conditions of service, including the right to leave-taking, the decisions they make do not deny learners their right to education. Such balancing is particularly challenging in contexts of multiple-deprivation, including poor rural schools in South Africa (see Chaudhury et al., 2006; Chisholm, 2005). Thus, this paper focuses on the ways in which leave policies in the South African education system influence teacher absence in schools, particularly those in contexts of multiple-deprivation. In particular, it examines the ways in which school principals manage teacher leave and absence, and the ways in which their management systems balance the rights of teachers to leave with those of learners to education.

Using data from a national study on teacher leave, this paper takes the view that as street-level bureaucrats, principals use their discretionary power when condoning teacher leave (Lipsky, 1980, 2010; Maynard-Moody and Musheno, 2003). This means that, informed by their conceptualisation of policy, principals often use their discretion to make decisions about whether to grant leave or not. Through an analysis of both discretionary power and policy conceptualisation, the paper critically explores the unintended consequences of leave policies for teachers on teaching and learning in schools located in contexts of multiple-deprivation. The paper ultimately asks: How do schools and the education system in contexts of multiple-deprivation balance the rights of teachers to good conditions of service, including the right to leave-taking, and those of learners to good quality education? In particular, the paper addresses two questions:

How do principals in rural schools facing multiple-deprivation make sense of formal leave policies in their decision-making about teacher leave-taking and absence from school?

Informed by both the notion of principals’ policy conceptualisation and coping mechanisms, this paper utilises a qualitative analysis of data from a national study of teacher leave in South Africa.

The policy context and teacher leave in South African schools

In South Africa, the Minister of Public Service and Administration determines the basic conditions of all state-paid employees, including those of educators. Basic conditions of employment, including leave measures, are primarily set out in the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 (BCEA) and the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA). In particular, the Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) is a sectoral bargaining council for educators established in terms of the LRA. This bargaining council provides a platform for public servants and teacher unions and the employer (the state) to negotiate on matters concerning educators. The leave measures for educators, which appear in the Personnel Administrative Measures (Government Gazette Vol. 404, No 19767, dated 18 February 1999) (PAM), were negotiated in the ELRC, resulting in ELRC resolution 7 of 2001. These resolutions are legislated in the amended Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998. As of 1 January 2002, all educators are considered to be on annual leave during institutional closure periods (school holidays) provided that the measures regarding the workload, duties and responsibilities do not require an educator to perform some of his or her normal duties during this period (South Africa, 1999). Educators are not entitled to any discretionary leave during the school terms.

The PAM sets out categories of leave for institution-based educators. These can be categorised into health related, family related and special leave measures. Health related leave applies to sick leave, temporary incapacity and permanent incapacity. Educators are entitled to 36 leave days per three-year leave cycle. A medical certificate is required when applying for three or more days of continuous sick leave. A medical certificate may be required for less than three days of sick leave when an employee has been absent from work on more than two occasions during an eight-week period, to prove incapacity for the duration of leave. A medical certificate is required for the third or subsequent absence of any duration. If the required medical certificate is not submitted, such leave is converted to unpaid leave (Section 23(1) of Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1997). When leave is granted for temporary or permanent incapacity, a maximum of 30 working days paid leave is granted. An educator may apply for temporary incapacity leave when their sick credits are exhausted using the Policy and Procedure on Incapacity Leave and Ill-health Retirement (PILIR, 2009).

Family-related leave measures include maternity, adoption and family responsibility leave. Family responsibility leave is granted when a spouse or life partner gives birth, is sick or dies. Family responsibility and special leave for urgent private matters fall under one category of leave. The number of days taken for family responsibility and urgent private matters may not exceed 12 working days per year.

Special leave can be granted for personal or professional development, religious observances, studies and extraordinary circumstances. With regard to leave granted in extraordinary circumstances, the employer must determine reasonability of circumstance and period. Leave is granted without pay unless the employer determines otherwise (South Africa, 1999).

Generally, the granting of leave is dependent on the submission of proof, such as a medical or death certificate. However, sick leave of one to two days every eight weeks does not require proof of incapacity. This provision is thus open to use as discretionary leave by educators. In addition, provisions regarding ‘urgent private matters’ and ‘extraordinary circumstances’ are open to interpretation. The approval of such leave is left to the discretion of the school principal.

The policy framework concerning educator leave delegates the management of leave at the school level. The PAM makes special provision for the appointment of a substitute educator. Chapter B, section 2 of PAM stipulates that:

…the appointment of an educator can be in a permanent or temporary capacity. If the appointment is in a temporary capacity it is for a fixed period. Appointments in a temporary capacity can be to a substantive vacant post or as a substitute for another educator who is temporarily not occupying his or her post (South Africa, 1999: 17).

The provincial department of education pays for the substitute educator when an educator is on leave for a predetermined period. The management of unplanned or unexpected leave is not covered by this provision. This type of leave is managed on an ad hoc basis, and is subject to the policies and practices at individual schools.

Understanding multiple-deprivation in South African rural schools

Townsend (1993: 79) views deprivation as a measure of a society’s health, and in particular, defines it as ‘a state of observable and demonstrable disadvantage relative to the local community or the wider society or nation to which an individual, family or group belongs.’ From this perspective, socio-economic conditions are used to measure deprivation, where ‘people may be said to be deprived if they do not have, at all, or sufficiently the conditions of life—that is, the diets, amenities, standards and services—which allow them to play the roles, participate in the relationships and follow the customary behaviour which is expected of them by virtue of their membership of society” (Townsend, 1993: 84).

In this paper, it is argued that while deprivation exists in a variety of contexts (both rural and urban) in South Africa, the isolation of the rural space makes for the intensity of lived experience, in this case, multiple-deprivation (Balfour et al., 2008). To illustrate, using ‘distance’ as a metaphor, Thomson (2009) argues that rural people suffer multiple forms of deprivation due to various types of marginalisation. For example, she identifies geographical distance, which makes it difficult for rural people to access services such as schools, health and other social services. This is exacerbated by the fact that they usually live far from cities and towns and other amenities, and have to negotiate bad roads and poor transport facilities. For Thomson, ideological distance, which is embedded in legacies of colonialism and apartheid, and now, globalisation, tends to sustain marginalisation, particularly of rural communities and institutions. Furthermore, emotional distance refers to the cultural and traditional norms and practices, which tend to marginalise women and girls in particular. Of particular relevance to South Africa, where fluency in English can mean access or lack thereof, to resources and services, linguistic distance, characterised by the hegemony of English in many of the country’s institutions, renders rural people, including those who inhabit schools (teachers and learners), outsiders. Finally, Thomson identifies epistemological distance, where, in knowledge production and other decision-making processes, the voices of rural people and in particular, rural women and children are often silenced.

Using socio-economic factors to measure deprivation, not only leads to a realisation that rural contexts bear the brunt of such lack, but also highlights the multiple ways in which it occurs. As such, individuals, families and communities in rural contexts tend to bear the heaviest burden of poverty, illness, poor infrastructure, limited resources and poor service delivery. For example, the negative impacts of poverty, HIV and AIDS, and climate change, lack of access to resources, among others, are more pronounced in rural areas than in urban areas (see Amnesty International, 2008; Harley and Wedekind, 2004; Joseph, 2007).

This paper focuses on how rural schools cope with and manage teacher leave in the context of multiple-deprivation; however, this does not suggest that this is the only way to view rurality. As has been suggested by researchers such as, among others, Balfour et al. (2008) in their generative theory of rurality, rural communities are also dynamic, and have the resilience and agency to respond to the various challenges that face them.

Within this context, the paper analyses the ways in which principals in rural schools, which bear the brunt of multiple deprivation characterised here, make decisions about teacher leave taking in the current policy context, as well as how they manage such leave taking so as to safeguard both the rights of teachers (to take leave) and of learners (to quality education).

Coping mechanisms: a theoretical framework

This paper is essentially an investigation of the implementation of educator leave policies at the school level. The view is taken that policy analysis should focus on the public servants who carry out policy rather than on those who formulate it (Brynard, 2004). This view sees policy implementation as occurring and being altered or adopted at the subordinate level. Parsons (1995: 469) argues that public service workers (for example teachers and principals) are those that interact directly with the public and thereby influence how policy is implemented. It is for these reasons that Lipsky (1980, 2010) refers to them as street-level bureaucrats (see also Maynard-Moody and Portillo, 2010; Meyers and Vorsanger, 2003; Saetren, 2005; Winter, 2007). As street-level bureaucrats, public service workers enjoy significant amounts of discretionary power, and their position allows them some level of autonomy from organisational authority and the discretion to determine ‘the nature, amount and quality and sanctions provided their agencies’ (Lipsky, 1980: 13). Thus, they influence how policy, including leave taking policy, is implemented at the school level (Parsons, 1995) and thereby, make their own policy to inform their activities at this level. Thus, Lipsky (1980) and Parsons (1995) both argued that public servants or street-level bureaucrats could influence or manipulate the way in which policy is implemented, leading to its success or failure.

Lipsky asserted that as street-level bureaucrats, public service workers tend to work in contexts of multiple deprivation, where there are inadequate resources and infrastructure, unqualified and under-qualified personnel, and that these conditions impact negatively on the effectiveness of organisations such as the school (see Clark-Daniels and Daniels, 1995). In such circumstances, how do street-level bureaucrats fulfil their mandates? Since schools in multiply deprived contexts often operate in environments characterised by, among others, inadequate resources to perform tasks and poor access to related services (e.g., transport, health, etc.), they require a variety of coping mechanisms in order to perform their tasks.

According to Lipsky (1980), the coping mechanisms street-level bureaucrats employ can be broadly categorised into three types. Firstly, they limit the demand for the service and maximise how the resources are used. This refers to the rationing of services by allocating them differently to different classes of people. Lipsky refers to this as inequality in service allocation. Services are differentiated because the public expects the street-level bureaucrat to respond in a flexible manner to different situations. Secondly, the clients are controlled in order to utilise available resources to achieve the objectives set out. Here, street-level bureaucrats obtain their clients’ cooperation with client-processing procedures. These procedures however conform to the street-level bureaucrat’s conceptualisation of the policy. Thirdly, the conceptualisation of work is modified. The use of discretion allows the street-level bureaucrat to develop a personal conceptualisation of the goals and purpose of their organisation. Street-level bureaucrats are thereby able to deal with the ambiguity and contradictions in their jobs. This coping mechanism enables street-level bureaucrats to cope with work limitations, and gain professional satisfaction (Lipsky, 1980). As street-level bureaucrats, they use their discretionary power when deciding on which coping mechanism to use. Understanding these coping mechanisms contributes to establishing the manner in which policies are implemented, and what their outcomes are or can be. Knowing the coping mechanisms street-level bureaucrats adopt helps in understanding how policy is translated into action.

This paper takes the view that as street-level bureaucrats, principals use their discretionary power when granting leave to teachers (Walker and Gilson, 2004). This act is informed by their understandings and conceptualisations of the policy. The paper reports on a study undertaken to explore teacher leave in South African schools. In particular, it aims to critically examine school managers’ understandings of leave policies, and the coping mechanisms they adopt to manage teacher absence and to safeguard the rights of learners to quality education within a context of multiple deprivation.

Research design and methodology

This paper draws on data from a bigger national study that examined the extent of educator leave and national educator leave rates. Rather than collect primary data to calculate the leave rate, the study interrogated existing studies and datasets to estimate the leave rate. The study took place in two phases: In the first phase, a review of literature related to teacher leave and absence was conducted. In addition, the study analysed the Personal Salary System (PERSAL) data for the months of February and August from each of the four years from 2004 to 2007 to calculate educator leave rates and trends across South African schools. In the second phase of the study, an in-depth, mostly qualitative analysis of the underlying reasons for the extent and patterns of teacher leave and the systems that were in place at school and system levels to administer and manage leave was undertaken (Reddy et al., 2010). In the larger study, the schools were selected based on such criteria as school type, school size, geographical location, poverty index, and former (Apartheid-era) education department. Thus, a total of 50 schools from both urban and rural contexts, as well as remote and sparsely populated contexts were selected for participation. Furthermore, schools ‘had to portray, at an overall level, but not within each province, variation across poverty levels or socio-economic profiles, previous education department, geo-type (urban, rural, township), type of school (primary, combined, secondary, etc.), school size and socio-economic profile’ (Reddy et al., 2010). This paper analyses data from the second phase. In particular, it analyses qualitative data collected from 12 rural schools located in five provinces in South Africa: Eastern Cape (EC n = 3); KwaZulu-Natal (KZN n = 3); North West (NW n = 1); Limpopo (LP n = 1); and the Free State (FS n = 4).

Data collection involved semi-structured focus groups and individual interviews with key stakeholders (principals and school management team (SMT) members, teachers, school governing body (SGB) members, and education officials in district and provincial offices); document analysis using various types of documents (from policy to system elements and records of leave transactions at school and district offices); and observations in the schools to record contextual detail pertaining to each site, including key demographic and other characteristics. Drawing on data collected from the 12 rural schools in particular, this paper focuses on school principals’ conceptualisations of policy and the ways in which this influences their decisions about teacher leave-taking decisions.

Data analysis for the second phase of the study involved coding and developing themes to: understand the perceptions and experiences of educators, parents and managers about the functioning of leave systems and procedures; the extent of current leave rates; and the reasons behind leave taking. This paper extends this analysis to look particularly at how principals conceptualise and make sense of the policies that govern their leave-taking practices and how, based on their conceptualisation of policy, they use their discretionary powers to make decisions about leave and the granting thereof. The paper then examines how principals manage teacher absence while at the same time safeguarding the rights of learners to education.

The sections that follow present findings from this study.

Decision-making and coping mechanisms: findings from research

This paper addresses two objectives: first, it examines the ways in which principals in rural schools facing multiple-deprivation make sense of formal leave policies in their decision-making about teacher leave-taking and absence from school; and second, the paper reflects on the ways in which schools in multiply deprived rural contexts manage teacher absence and the coping mechanisms they adopt to manage such leave taking. In essence, it focuses on how school principals, as street-level bureaucrats, balance the rights of teachers to good or fair conditions of service, including the right to leave-taking, and those of learners to good quality education in the context of teacher autonomy and discretionary power.

The analysis of the findings from the study is organised into three sections below. The first section examines the experience of teachers and principals in areas of multiple deprivation. This is followed by an examination of the ways in which principals make sense of formal leave policies in their decision-making about teacher leave-taking and absence from school. The third section examines the implications on learning and teaching of the ways in which principals use their discretionary powers to make decisions about granting leave, and the coping mechanisms they employ to manage teacher absence and leave.

Experiences of multiple-deprivation

Findings from this study suggest that as a result of the multiple-deprivation they face, teachers reported that they experienced extremely high stress and dissatisfaction levels. These all heighten the chances that teachers would use any opportunity to take a break from school and grasp every reason for taking leave, even outside the real categories that may be relevant. As the principal of FS4 pointed out:

…Coupled with being a small school with exceptional teaching loads by virtue of teachers having to cover many learning areas and grades, stress, depression, fatigue and burnout always linger, propelling the need upwards to take leave to recuperate.

In particular, the geographic isolation of rural schools in this study was found to have four general impacts on teachers’ leave taking practices. The first and second impacts relate closely to: (1) the scarcity of accommodation; and (2) the long distances that must be travelled to and from schools as a result. The schools in question are located in areas where rental accommodation is scarce. Teachers in these cases were found to live in the nearest urban area and travel as much as 101 km to and from school every day. As the principal of FS3 stated:

There seems to be very unique interactions between vast travel distances for teachers (half of the 14 stay 75 km away, costing them R1 500 per month in fuel alone) and school attendance/leave taking. Also, learners walk very far (one 27 km one-way, taking 4 hours in the morning, and 4 in the afternoon!)

In three cases the teachers who lived in these areas form shared lift clubs to lessen travelling costs. Such a system is prone to problems, especially when the primary vehicle is not functioning or the weather conditions make travelling to areas difficult, or poor road infrastructure makes travel impossible. The principal of FS1 lamented that:

…learners in this case often walk 2 hours in the morning and afternoon to cover the 10-15 km one-way. When linked to a small staff of 5 of which 4 form a drive club to town (101 km away), even doctor's visits, or car breakdown and service becomes a reason for taking leave (or being absent from school).

In these cases all of the teachers who travel together are absent from school. The findings suggest that some rural schools (often far out in the countryside), tend to be combined or comprehensive schools. Often, they have low enrolment rates and as such there is typically only one educator per grade, and sometimes multi-grade and multi-subject teaching for each of the teachers. In one Free State school (FS2) four of the five staff members formed a shared lift club; in another, seven of the 14 did the same. Any occurrence that prevents these teachers from reaching their respective schools (car breakdowns, car owner being ill, etc.) will mean that each of their classes is without a teacher, and that learning and teaching are severely hampered.

The third impact relates to the availability of resources and services in remote areas. This was reported at all the schools examined. Common activities in more urban areas become a time and resource-consuming task for those in these areas. As stated above, for teachers in rural schools, visits to doctors or the servicing of motor vehicles may require a full day to travel to and from the appointments in more urban areas located some distance away. The two competing reasons for leave taking in many of the schools involved urgent private affairs and family responsibility leave. The latter would often be to attend to a need experienced by an educator’s child (such as having to register for their next school, university, etcetera), or looking after (or taking to a doctor) a close family member who is ill. Next in line was actions related to death and bereavement, such as arranging or attending funerals. Private matters also included having to renew licences, seeing municipalities during office hours for domestic arrangements pertaining to electricity and water, among others. Due to distances and poor transport facilities in these areas, such activities usually meant that teachers took leave from school, leaving principals to manage their absence so that teaching and learning continue.

The fourth major finding was that most of the teachers in the rural schools came from outside the communities. This was due to a shortage of rural dwellers that qualify as teachers, and the few who do, tending to view urban schools as more attractive, and not returning to teach in rural schools. In addition to teachers living outside the communities and far from the schools, this also implies that making substitute- or relief-teacher arrangements poses a similar difficulty because of the mere absence of such resources locally.

Mechanisms for coping with teacher leave and absence

How do principals in rural schools facing multiple-deprivation make sense of formal leave policies in their decision-making about leave and absence from school? The coping mechanisms found in this study relate to: (1) loose application of leave policies; and (2) modifying the conceptualisation of teaching.

Impact of leave taking and management practices

For reasons outlined above, including small staff complement, shortage of resources and poor services, leave taking by teachers has numerous negative effects on a rural school. Often, it is learners, other staff members and the school management who feel the impacts of such leave taking. The extent to and ways in which principals manage such leave, and the strategies they employ to cope with it, are important elements of its impacts on teaching and learning.

The principals and teachers interviewed in this study outlined some of the impacts on their schools. First, there was an awareness and acknowledgement of negative impacts on learning and learning results, when learners are left unattended for long periods. Teacher absence often meant an uncompleted syllabus, with some schools arranging for time to catch-up on learning, and others not making up for lost time, with negative effects on learner achievement. For example, the principal of NW1 felt that:

Yes, learner attainment goes hand in hand with the presence of the educator in class. There is a high failure rate in schools where regular teaching does not take place. In the school, learner attainment is acceptable but is not good. If educators are not absent, the school can get 100% pass rate.

Leave taking was also identified as impacting negatively on the safety of learners. This is particularly true if learners are released early from school when there are just not enough teachers. This puts learners in rural areas (who travel long distances) in danger as they are then unsupervised for longer periods of time and walk home alone. In addition, in cases where teachers are reluctant to supervise learners, it impacts negatively on the learners. In such cases, learners are left to roam around the school, and often get into fights and dangerous games in the classrooms and school grounds.

Second, teacher leave taking also impacts negatively on colleagues’ (i.e., those left to look after the absent teacher’s classes) workloads. The general feeling among the teachers in this study was that absenteeism among them leads to work overload for colleagues as they have to supervise and sometimes teach the absent teacher’s classes. The impact is mostly felt when the teacher is away on emergency. For example, a scenario painted at one school by members of the SGB from LP1suggests that:

If one educator is absent, then other educators have to absorb the absent educators’ learners. But some educators are reluctant to do this and this impacts negatively on the learners. Then the learners are roaming around the school because educators did not want to absorb them. This does not happen often. It is useful to know in advance if the educator is attending workshops but it is difficult to predict sick leave. When an educator teaching the higher grades was absent often, the principal moved him to the intermediate grades so that it didn’t impact on the matric exams.

Obviously, moving the problem (of teacher absence) to the lower grades does not amount to solving the problem. Putting it more succinctly, members of the LP1 SGB interviewed felt that:

… when an educator is absent, the learner is naked. If the educator is not there, there is no order in the class. If the subject teacher is absent, the learner is deprived of learning. In the secondary grades, if one educator is absent, it creates the wrong impression for the other educators. They think that nothing is being done. Educators forget that when they are absent the learner suffers and loses a day [of learning].

What are the unintended consequences of leave policies for teachers on teaching and learning in schools? While most of the teachers acknowledged the supremacy of the rights of the child, for example, to education, a few felt that considerations of leave must play a balancing role between these and those of the teacher. As one teacher from KZN1 stated:

Rights are equally important and parallel. If an educator has a serious domestic problem that isn’t attended to and comes to school, the educator won’t be in a position to teach and the learners will not learn. Educators have a right to leave but it needs to be used responsibly. Learners also have a right to learn.

Overall, in this study, all stakeholders agreed that teacher leave of absence has negative impacts on teaching and learning, particularly in schools where principals are unable to efficiently and effectively manage such leave, either because they are unable to identify or develop appropriate strategies or because they lack the resources to do so.

Conclusion

First, this paper focused on the ways in which principals in schools facing multiple-deprivation make sense of formal leave policies in their decision-making about teacher leave-taking and absence from school. Findings from the study suggest that teachers in school contexts facing multiple-deprivation tend to experience high stress and dissatisfaction levels. As a result, they tend to be more likely to take leave, including unsanctioned leave, than their counterparts in less deprived contexts. This means that their classes are often left unattended, and that teaching and learning is compromised.

Second, the paper examined the various coping strategies principals in rural schools utilise to manage teacher leave and absence from school and the ways in which they attempt to balance the rights of teachers to good conditions of service, including the right to leave-taking, and those of learners to good quality education. In the schools involved in this study, as ‘street-level’ bureaucrats, the principals used their discretionary power to grant such leave (Lipsky, 1983; Walker and Gilson, 2004). Their decisions were not only informed by their understandings and conceptualisations of the current policy on teacher leave, but were also restricted by the conditions of multiple deprivation their schools faced (including teacher shortages, poor transport services, poor access to social services, and long distances to and from school). Due to teacher shortages in these contexts or inappropriate replacement resources and systems, principals in these rural institutions tend to modify the role of schools from that of educating to that of learner supervision (or baby-sitting), where, for example, parents, often without the requisite skills, were brought in to ‘look after’ classes that were without teachers. Due to high workloads, even where other teachers were used to look after these classes, it was mostly in a supervisory role rather than in a real teaching role. As such, the principals often made decisions that compromised curricular ideals for learner safety and school order, where either parents or other teachers, were asked to ‘look after’ the absent teacher’s learners. In this context, while the teacher’s right to leave-taking was ensured, teaching and learning was often interrupted or lost, and the learners’ right to quality education compromised.

The findings from the study raise significant questions for policy and practice, both at institutional (school) and system (district, provincial and national) levels. For example, how might the principals in these schools better manage teacher leave taking and absence within the contexts of multiple-deprivation (and poor material and human resources) in which they function so that there is minimal negative impact on teaching and learning? Second, how can the education and other systems better monitor and support schools in these contexts to minimise the negative impact of teacher absence on the quality of education? What resources and skills are needed in and around the schools to minimise or eradicate the negative impacts of teacher leave on teaching and learning? For example, could those closest to the schools, at the circuit and district level, play a more active role in making the few available resources accessible to schools, and ensuring that school principals are trained in the procedures for optimising substitute and relief arrangements when teachers are absent from school? It is only when these questions have been adequately addressed, and their implications heeded, that principals working in contexts of multiple- deprivation can hope to effectively balance their teachers’ rights to leave taking and their learners’ rights to quality education.