Abstract
The paper suggests that multiple deprivation is a concept as yet lacking in substantial theoretical analysis and that its application as a research framing tool in education is relatively recent. As a concept, multiple deprivation suggests a confluence of factors which depress learning and place unique challenges on leadership and which act in combination rather than in isolation. Given that more than three quarters of schools in South Africa are officially described as dysfunctional and that many of these schools serve communities facing multiple deprivation, the article calls for a new theoretical approach which focuses on how best schools in these circumstances can best be led. Based on extant evidence in the field, the paper identifies generative leadership practices upon which a new theory of leadership for these contexts could be constructed. Specifically, it suggests that a cocktail of leadership forms which include transformational, distributed, instructional, ethical and asset based leadership could offer the most promise for schools faced with multiple deprivation. The paper also provides an overview of the articles selected for this special edition.
Introduction
The notion of multiple deprivation is a relatively new concept in education and as such has not been adequately theorised and conceptualised. Although there is a significant amount of research on factors which enhance or depress learning (see for example Hattie, 2012), the impact of socio economic factors on educational performance (Muijs et al., 2004), and how poverty affects learning and learner achievement (Colley and Barker, 2013), there is very little in the public domain that explains the combined effect of deprivation on learners and learning and even less on the nature and extent of challenges experienced by those who lead schools facing multiple deprivation. Given that in South Africa nearly three quarters of the schools are officially described as dysfunctional (Weeks, 2012), implying that they do not serve the purposes for which they are meant, it can be argued that schooling in South Africa is precariously unsatisfactory for the majority of learners and that there is much potential for ‘miseducating’ which occurs in classrooms across the nation. The colonial and apartheid eras, characterised by deliberate policies of racial segregation, based on assumptions of racial superiority and inferiority, meant that South Africa has had a deeply divided and divisive past which continues to affect South African society, including education, to this day. Much has been done to democratise education, including the widening of access to previously marginalised communities, the redistribution of resources to previously disadvantaged schools, increasing subsidies to learners through ‘no fee’ policies, assisting with transport, and providing free school meals to learners in schools falling within the highest ranks of disadvantage among other interventions. However, there is little evidence that these interventions have equalised or significantly enhanced educational outcomes and gains amongst learners in schools that exist in circumstances of multiple deprivation. As such, this special edition makes a critical and timely contribution to our understanding of what it is like to lead schools that face multiple deprivation.
Multiple deprivation is a multifaceted concept. As applied to education, it connotes a confluence of factors that conspire to undermine the educational benefits intended and anticipated for groups of learners. These factors, prevalent in environments and communities facing socio economic hardships and disadvantage, include poverty, lack of educationally stimulating environments, and cultural and social dissonance. Communities that face multiple deprivation are exposed to all or most of such factors simultaneously, not in isolation. While there is an abundance of research which explores the impact of these factors, the tendency has been to examine the effects of single factors on the educational gains and performance of learners in schools. To date, research that examines the combined impact of these factors on educational performance and learner outcomes is limited (see, for example, Cassen and Kingdon, 2007; Leitch, 2014). For instance, using the lens of disadvantage, Cassen and Kingdon examined factors underlying low levels of achievement in the British (that is, in England) education system, while a current study by Leitch is aimed at examining the influence of structural, social/community, family, school and individual factors on differential learning among students in multiply deprived communities. With regard to South Africa, research for this article found no work analysing the combined effects of multiple deprivation on learning. The purpose of the articles in this volume is to lay a foundation for a new generation of research in education, especially in poor, under-developed and developing countries where severe inequalities and poverty exist. Children living in conditions of multiple deprivation experience the combined forces of disadvantage and not just the impact of single factors. Unfortunately, most of the solutions and interventions used to date to circumvent the impact of multiple deprivation tend to emanate from studies based on single factors. We argue that while there is a lot that we have learned from such studies, they provide only a partial picture and cannot represent a holistic basis for mitigating the impact of multiple deprivation on teaching and learning. However, we acknowledge the fact that the term ‘multiple deprivation’ tends to drive deficit approaches. The assumption is that poor people living in depleted, non-stimulating and under-resourced environments lack different forms of intellectual, social, cultural, economic and political capital, which places them at a disadvantage compared to those living in more privileged conditions. This assumption is only partially true because it completely ignores the resilience of individuals and groups in groups in these efforts, and the efforts some social institutions, including schools located in such communities, often make to mitigate successfully the effects of such multiple deprivation. The problem lies not in the people but, rather, in the nature, purposes and processes associated with the education we expose them to and the assumptions we hold about the importance and value of that education. We are not suggesting that we should have different forms and types of education for different people, because that would only serve to perpetuate and, in a sense, accentuate difference and disadvantage in our societies. What we are arguing, though, is that we know very little and perhaps harbour severe prejudices about the capital and potentialities poor children bring to school. Consequently, education and leadership tend to be based on the application of values of the middle classes at the expense and often at the complete exclusion of the values of the poor and marginalised working classes. In ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’ Freire (1970) has argued: No pedagogy which is truly liberating can remain distant from the oppressed by treating them as unfortunates and by presenting for their emulation models from among the oppressors. The oppressed must be their own example in the struggle for their redemption. (Freire, 1970: 54)
Education and leadership as currently practiced in our schools tend to impose the values of the privileged, and in the process, tightening the grip of oppression on the already oppressed. Again, Freire stated it eloquently thus: The myth of the ‘absolutizing of ignorance’ implies the existence of someone who decrees the ignorance of someone else. The one who is doing the decreeing defines himself and the class to which he belongs as those who know or were born to know; he thereby defines others as alien entities. The words of his own class come to be the ‘true’ words, which he imposes or attempts to impose on the others: the oppressed, whose words have been stolen from them. Those who steal the words of others develop a deep doubt in the abilities of the others and consider them incompetent. Each time they say their word without hearing the word of those whom they have forbidden to speak, they grow more accustomed to power and acquire a taste for guiding, ordering, and commanding. They can no longer live without having someone to give orders to. Under these circumstances, dialogue is impossible. (Freire, 1970: 69)
Structurally, the paper will be developed in pursuit of four key objectives: To examine in some detail the origins, meanings and applications of the concept of multiple deprivation; To explore the nature and dynamics of leadership and multiple deprivation, and the forms of leadership that work in multiply deprived schools; To provide an overview of the articles that have been selected for this special edition; and To consider the state of the field and some of the much-needed research in the field.
We begin though with a brief contextual discussion of schooling and education in South Africa.
The context of schooling in South Africa
Colonialism and apartheid provided a legal framework for a racially segregated South Africa. Unfortunately, despite the attainment of democracy in 1994, the South African education system continues to resemble what some have referred to as a ‘two nation or two economies state’ (Fleisch, 2008). The first system, originally meant for the white and, to a lesser extent, Indian children, is well-resourced and produces the majority of university entrants and graduates. It comprises former white schools (also known as former Model C schools) and an increasing independent schools sector. This system of schooling continues to cater for the white and Indian children with an increasing number of black children from the new emerging middle classes. These schools also produce the majority of students who go on to study in key STEM subjects, leading to some of the most rewarding careers in engineering, medicine, law, IT, science and technology which almost guarantee access to leadership positions in critical areas of human endeavour.
The second system of schools caters for children (mostly black African and. to some extent, Coloured) of the poor working classes in townships, rural areas, farming, mining and informal settlements. The schools are for the most part poorly resourced and have poor infrastructures, have relatively fewer well-trained staff, many of who routinely seek posts in communities with less deprivation and exist in communities which face different forms of deprivation. For good reasons, children in these schools are taught the same curriculum and are entered for the same examinations. Inevitably, they do less well than their counterparts in privileged schools and, as a consequence, their opportunities for becoming successful in life (as measured by standards that privilege the middle classes) are severely restricted. On average and at all levels of schooling in South Africa, learners in schools facing various forms of deprivation perform less well than their counterparts in privileged schools, they have lower rates of progression to higher forms of learning, and they experience higher levels of dropping out of school, including non-completion of studies. Those who defy the odds (Christie et al, 2007), and manage to proceed to post-school learning, experience further shocks and disappointments through failure, non-completion and other forms of educational wastage. Success remains a mirage for many of them because the systems are ill-equipped, incapacitated and often unwilling to alter the status quo which protects the privileges of the more powerful segments of society while banishing the weak to their positions of servanthood and worthlessness. Fleisch summarises this schooling context and how it apportions benefits in the following words: In seven years of schooling, children in the second system do learn, but acquire a much more restricted set of knowledge and skills than children in the first system. They read, but mostly at very limited functional level. They write, but not with fluency and confidence. They can perform basic numeric operations but use inappropriately concrete techniques that limit application. (Fleisch, 2008: 2)
As is the case in many parts of the world, especially in the less-developed nations, South Africa has appointed, and continues to appoint, principals to head schools without any training for the job of leadership. All that is required to become a principal in many parts of the world, including South Africa, is a teaching qualification and teaching experience (Bush et al., 2011). However, in 2007 the South African education department introduced a new threshold qualification, the Advanced Certificate in Education (ACE) for both practising and aspiring principals: participants acquired formal leadership training in various aspects of school leadership. Because the project is still in its infancy, to date only 5000 of a total of 75,000 principals in the country have received some leadership training. Masinire et al. (2014) further suggest that the challenge of leading schools, especially those in circumstances of deprivation, is compounded by the fact that teacher training in South Africa is a very urban-centric business. Most of the institutions (universities in particular) are located in urban settings, provide a teacher education curriculum that is highly biased towards the urban environment and, with a few exceptions, do not provide opportunities for teaching practice (practicum) in rural settings. Due to severe financial constraints in higher education, with the exception of institutions located in rural settings, only a handful of the major universities (for example, the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, the University of KwaZulu Natal, the University of the Witwatersrand) offer programmes that include a practicum in rural schools. Student teachers undertake their school teaching practice experience in schools in rural settings (see for example, Balfour et al., 2008; Mukeredzi and Mandrona, 2013).
It is safe to suggest that schools in circumstances of multiple deprivation in South Africa experience double jeopardy, in that the principals who lead them are unlikely to have had previous leadership training and, in addition, their initial teacher training provided little or no grounding in understanding and in experiencing what is involved in teaching in rural disadvantaged environments. Given that the majority of schools in South Africa are located in the rural, farming, mining and informal settlements, where levels of deprivation are highest, the notion of multiple deprivation needs urgent interrogation. Such interrogation must examine the multiple deprivation in the context of schooling, and how the affected schools are led, and could be better led, in order both to deliver decent outcomes and narrow achievement gaps between them and the more affluent schools in the country.
In the next section, we provide a detailed account of the notion of multiple deprivation which, we hope, can be used as a basis for much-needed further research in this area.
Multiple deprivation: origins, meanings and applications
The concept of multiple deprivation originated from a concern about the effect of poverty on communities in different parts of the world. There was a growing dissatisfaction with aggregate estimates of poverty derived in particular from census statistics which generally deal with gross or macro issues at national level. The proposal was that the smallest administrative units, such as municipalities, needed to have a clearer picture of the extent of poverty within their jurisdictions that would be a useful basis for designing and targeting local interventions to ameliorate the lives of the disadvantaged communities therein. In theory, it is possible to calculate indices of deprivation for any local area such as a ward, village, township, informal settlement, suburb, district, province or region. However, in general, the bigger the population unit, the more inaccurate the indices become. For example, a district or province normally has wide variations and could contain pockets of severe deprivation, while other population groups within those units might be relatively affluent. While the aggregate measures of larger population units might be useful in relative terms, they could obscure the dire needs of smaller communities within those larger entities. Thus the concept of Multiple Deprivation Indices was proposed. In general, a Multiple Deprivation Index (MDI) measures the number of people in a specified area who experience different forms of deprivation. Higher indices indicate more acute levels of deprivation in the specified area. In England, from which the South African indices were modelled, the first MDIs were calculated in 2004 and later refined in 2007 (Noble et al., 2007). However, while the English Indices are based on seven dimensions, South Africa opted to develop its own Indices on the basis of five dimensions or domains of deprivation, as outlined briefly below. Each domain or dimension has a number of indicators selected to represent measurable evidence of deprivation which characterises the domain. The South African MDI was developed from the 2001 census data and comprises 5 domains and 13 indicators in all. Table 1 shows the five South African domains and the respective indicators.
Domains and indicators of deprivation.
The domains and indicators might appear to exclude other factors which people ordinarily expect to be included. It is important to note that the indicators used to represent the domains are selected because the data for them are gathered formally in standardised Census questionnaires.
The applications of MDI data are diverse. For example, it is possible to determine the geographical distribution of deprivation in the country or in areas of the country or any other units of measurement which belong to, for example, 10% of the highest levels of deprivation, and to determine which domains of deprivation are the most prevalent in specified communities. In addition, and depending on the availability of data, sub-domains can be created. For example, England has created sub-domains to estimate educational deprivation for young people based on data such as: Average test scores at key stages of learning (in South Africa this could be based on scores from the Annual National Assessments (ANA) at year 1, 3, 7 and 9); Average test scores in school leaving tests (in South Africa this could be based on the Grade 12 or Matric examination results); Proportions of young people dropping out of school before completion of designated cycles of study; and Proportions of young people not proceeding to post-secondary learning.
Such data could be deployed to create sub-domains in order to make comparisons between communities such as provinces, districts, circuits, schools and municipal areas, amongst others. Interesting projects could be developed aimed at discovering what causes differences between communities, in different contexts, that face multiple deprivation. As such, interventions that were more relevant and appropriate might be conceptualised and targeted for specific communities.
The discussion so far might be criticised for using a variety of terms associated with multiple deprivation in a way which assumes commonality or homogeneity of meaning. Two of these terms have been selected for some detailed discussion: poverty and deprivation.
Poverty and deprivation
The notions of poverty and deprivation are often but erroneously used interchangeably. To be poor is often taken to mean the same thing as to be deprived. While the concepts are closely interconnected, they have very distinct meanings. For example, poverty is a contested concept with a wide range of clusters of meanings (see for example Noble et al., 2007; Townsend, 1987). Seven of the most widely used meanings include the following.
Income poverty: people experience this when they earn less than specified amounts of income per day; for example, people earning less than US$1 a day are defined as experiencing severe poverty.
Material poverty: people experience this when they have no accommodation, or live in very poor quality accommodation such as shacks and have no access to material goods such as television, radios, and so on.
Capability poverty: informed by Sen’s (1989) capability approach, this relates to failure to achieve certain minimum capabilities such as the ability to read and to perform basic numeric operations, amongst others (Alkire, 2002).
Health poverty: the lack of access to basic health facilities and involuntary exposure to health threatening environments.
Nutritional poverty: the lack of access to minimum food and nutritional resources which sustain good health.
Ethical/moral poverty: a lack of consideration of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and lack of concern and respect for other people’s rights.
Epistemological poverty: being excluded, either intentionally or otherwise, from life-empowering processes and those processes which increase human dignity, knowledge and understanding.
People can be rich (in terms of material resources) and yet be deprived of certain life-defining characteristics. For example, drug barons can be extremely rich, but they can equally be ethically/morally poor. Following Townsend (1987), we see deprivation as a lack of access to those assets which alleviate or eradicate poverty. In contrast, poverty is the lack of resources needed to escape deprivation. Accordingly, schools facing multiple deprivation are those schools which do not have access to resources that can help them escape poverty. Such schools tend to be subjected to a wide range of poverty-inducing deprivations, not just one or two.
When schools face one or two poverty-inducing factors, the appropriate phrase to use in such circumstances is ‘schools facing challenging circumstances’, a term that has wide application in many developed countries. In the UK, for example, even schools operating in some of the most deprived communities will have basic resources and facilities. There is no school in England without running water in the toilets, without electricity and without some form of physical security structures to ensure the safety of children: in South Africa, many such schools lacking these facilities still exist.
Poverty and schooling in South Africa
As discussed in this special issue, many schools in South Africa tend to experience multiple forms of deprivation. The state, civil society, communities and individuals have responded by implementing a variety of interventions to mitigate the effects of these forms of deprivation. Table 2 provides a summary of the manifestations, challenges associated with the notion of poverty in schools and some generic interventions aimed at addressing them.
Poverty dimensions, interventions and impact.
There have been notable interventions in South Africa designed to mitigate the effects of various forms of poverty on educational performance and attainment. However, the improvements have been marginal and modest, especially in terms of raising learner performance levels and the quality of learning outcomes. We hypothesise that schools, and indeed the government, tend to provide single-track solutions to the poverty stricken educational environments of schools that face multiple deprivation. We believe that multiple deprivation burrows deep into the fabric of communities and affects the children’s lives in highly insidious ways. The effects are thus multi-dimensional and difficult to erase. Multipronged and multidimensional interventions are needed which involve multiple agencies and which will therefore be more likely to provide better solutions to those schools facing multiple deprivation.
The question then arises: what leadership forms appear to work better in schools that face multiple deprivation?
Leadership and multiple deprivation
Leadership has been known to have direct, mediated or reciprocal effects on the effectiveness and success of organisations (Bush, 2010; Huber and Muijs, 2010). For example, studies have generally shown a positive relationship between good leadership and the culture of the organisation; leadership and teacher commitment; and leadership and instructional organisation, with direct effects on school improvement (Huber and Muijs, 2010). Other studies suggest mediated effects, which result from an indirect relationship between leadership and organisational performance or effectiveness (Huber and Muijs, 2010). For example, in schools, what leaders contribute is always mediated by other people such as teachers, parents and learners. Leadership effects are also mediated by school contextual and other antecedent variables. Finally, reciprocal effects of leadership are those which are manifested through interaction with other variables within the organisation; for example, how leadership produces effects through staff development (Muijs and Harris, 2003).
While there are multiple views that shape our understanding of the concept of leadership, the literature seems to give prominence to four broad perspectives on leadership. First, leadership involves influencing other people to perform at levels which generate organisational improvement, effectiveness and efficiency (Leithwood and Reihl, 2003). Second, leadership involves empowering others to achieve the goals of the organisation (Leithwood et al., 2007). Third, it involves working with others and through others to achieve the goals of the organisation (Spillane, 2005). Fourth, it involves creating a vision for the organisation through which and towards which other people work to achieve the goals of the organisation (Bush et al., 2011).
Clearly, leadership provides a means to an end which, in very broad terms, includes the achievement of organisational effectiveness, improvement and efficiency. In the context of schools facing multiple deprivation, the question is: what leadership forms can contribute positively to school effectiveness, school improvement and school efficiency? While there is a strong tradition of research which examines the relationship between leadership and these three broad ends (see for example Harris and Muijs, 2004), there are limited data only that relate specifically to leadership which is successful in circumstances of multiple deprivation. For example, drawing from a wide range of studies and evidence, Leithwood et al. have identified seven strong claims about leadership that works in schools. These include the understanding that school leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on pupil learning; almost all successful leaders draw on the same repertoire of basic leadership practices; the ways in which leaders apply these basic leadership practices – not the practices themselves – demonstrate responsiveness to, rather than dictation by, the contexts in which they work; school leaders improve teaching and learning indirectly and most powerfully through their influence on staff motivation, commitment and working conditions; school leadership has a greater influence on schools and students when it is widely distributed; some patterns of distribution are more effective than others; and a small handful of personal traits explains a high proportion of the variation in leadership effectiveness (Leithwood et al., 2007).
Related to this is the fact that leadership features highly in the hierarchy of factors that are most strongly related to school improvement. These include a mission and goal driven school, a safe and orderly environment, the presence of a climate of high expectations, a strong instructional leadership focus, a time-on-task ethos, frequent and learning-directed assessment, and home school relations that work.
In addition, specific forms of leadership have been shown to have considerable effects on school improvement. Four such forms seem to dominate the literature laying claims for the strongest effects on school improvement: teacher leadership (Harris, 2003); distributed leadership (Gronn, 2000); instructional leadership (Zepeda, 2003) and transformational leadership (Bass, 1985). While such evidence is useful with regard to educational improvement in a broad sense, its application to schools facing multiple deprivation has seemingly not been adequately explored.
Examining leadership that works in multiply deprived schools
Recognising the heterogeneity of schooling environments, and the social justice imperatives of equity and equality of educational opportunity internationally, concern has increased about the inequalities existing in communities of deprivation. This recognition and concern is particularly strong in South Africa, well known for its very high inequality indices. Two strands of research appear to be prominent in this respect. The first is research which explores leadership forms and approaches which work in challenging circumstances (see for example Harris and Chapman, 2002). Leaders working in such environments tend to be successful if they are able to manage conflict, tensions, unpredictability and dissent, are people-centred and place people’s needs above organisational needs, and are able to combine a strong moral purpose with collaborative team working approaches.
The second set of studies focuses on factors which promote success in schools and which defy the odds (Christie et al., 2007). This has led to a growing body of research on leadership in rural environments, in farming, mining and informal settlements. Such research has tended to track the activities of principals whose schools succeed despite being in circumstances of severe deprivation. Principals working in schools facing severe deprivation have been noted, among other factors, to establish very strong ties with their communities and other constituencies, to be strongly philanthropic and generous with their time, to be strongly focused on alleviating and deleting visible signs of poverty from learners, and to be strongly focused on ensuring high quality teaching and learning and especially learner entitlement in the educational processes (see for example Mbokazi, 2014).
Although there no specific leadership theory has yet been developed with regard to leading schools facing multiple deprivation, it appears to the present authors that a ‘cocktail’ of forms of leadership, including transformational, instructional, distributed, ethical and asset based leadership, holds the best promise for schools faced with multiple deprivation, especially in the context of South Africa. The articles in this special edition hint at such a formulation and we are excited about the possibilities this work will open up for a new generation of leadership research in communities of multiple deprivation.
Overview of articles in this special issue
In this introductory article we have set out to map some conceptual and contextual dimensions of leading schools in the context of multiple deprivation in South Africa. To do this we have explored the origins, meanings and applications of the concept of multiple deprivation, particularly as it applies to educational contexts. This is followed by an examination of the nature and dynamics of leadership and multiple deprivation, and the forms of leadership that are successful in schools experiencing multiple deprivation. We then provided an overview of the special issue and the articles that constitute the edition; and we concluded the article with an exploration of the state of the field and some of the much-needed research that will contribute to our understanding of leadership in schools in contexts of multiple deprivation, as well as interventions that might work to improve schooling in these context.
In the second article, Maringe, Masinire and Nkambule address the question: ‘what do schools in multiply deprived contexts look like?’ They analyse data from a study conducted in three schools in one of the provinces, examining the challenges and leadership issues that schools in multiple deprived communities face. From their findings, the authors conclude that educational policies need to take seriously the contextual realities of schooling and school leadership in circumstances of multiple deprivation. They conclude with an exploration of some of the available frameworks and strategies, arguing in particular that asset-based leadership and servant leadership are two of the more generative approaches that work to mitigate multiple deprivation in schools.
In the third article, Moletsane, Juan, Prinsloo and Reddy examine the significance of place and context in understanding the challenges that face schools, and their effects on school leadership in circumstances of multiple deprivation. The article reports on a study that explored teachers’ leave in South African schools and the use by principals of their – the principals’ – discretionary powers to make decisions about teacher leave-taking. It examines the coping mechanisms principals of schools in circumstances of multiple deprivation use to manage teacher absence in order to safeguard the rights of both teachers and learners, as required by the country’s Constitution.
The fourth and fifth articles investigate the ways in which gender impacts on school leadership in schools facing multiple deprivation. Lumby examines female principals’ understandings of gender and leadership in schools subject to multiple deprivation. The author identifies a highly complex relationship between the material conditions of the school community in terms of multiple deprivation, the ways in which gender is understood, and individual principals’ histories and characteristics. Informed by this, Lumby concludes that while gender does constrain leadership in these schools, principals also challenge the constraints of gender in their practice and lives. Furthermore, the article concludes that efforts to improve schools in these settings must take into consideration contextual realities in and around the institutions and the resilience and possibilities for both the school leadership and learners. Next, drawing on data collected from a longitudinal life history study with female leaders in selected rural and peri-urban schools in South Africa, Faulkner examines principals’ personal and professional pathways to principalship, in the context of gender disparities that favour men in leadership positions at high school level in particular. Reporting on data from two female principals of rural high schools, the article concludes that problems of authority and power, and the manifestation of deeply entrenched cultural traditions and patriarchy, tend to have a negative effect on women’s leadership in these rural communities.
Concluding the set of articles examining the challenges that face schools in the context of multiple deprivation, Mestry and Bodalina explore the management of physical resources in such schools. Their analysis is informed by an understanding that the effective management of physical resources has a significant effect on the quality of teaching and learning in these schools. Informed by findings from a structured questionnaire administered to management teams and teachers, the authors report that the lack of financial skills necessary to develop financially prudent budgets and procure physical resources among school governing bodies in these schools tends to lead to wasteful expenditure. In addition, teachers in these schools tend both to maintain and productively use the available physical resources badly.
The last two articles in this issue explore the resilience of schools facing multiple deprivation and explore how, in spite the odds against them, some of the schools, with effective leadership, successfully overcome the problems. Chikoko, Naicker and Mthiyane examine some of the leadership practices that are successful in schools facing multiple deprivation. Informed by the notion that effective leadership is key to school and learner performance in these contexts, the authors investigated the nature of such leadership in the schools in a qualitative study involving five principals,. They found that some of the factors that contributed to effective leadership and success in these schools were time, commitment and accountability. The authors conclude that internal school effectiveness and success, informed by such frameworks as servant leadership and asset-based thinking, led to further successes within the broader community and national context.
The final article, by Mbokazi, examines the dimensions of successful leadership in three township secondary schools in Soweto, Johannesburg. The author concludes that successful leadership, and the resultant academic success of learners in schools subject to multiple deprivation, are influenced by an interaction among four dimensions: strategy, regulation, pedagogy and compensation. In particular, findings from these schools suggested that a commitment to teaching and learning as the core business of schooling was key to the success in the three schools: learner (and teacher) safety, good school–home relationships and discipline were also important.
Conclusion
As the articles in this special issue indicate, research on schooling and school leadership in the context of multiple deprivation is gathering momentum. Such research contributes to our understanding of the features of these schools and their implications for effective leadership and management. However, this scholarship tends to be dominated by work that focuses on the challenges these schools face and the ways in which school management and leadership struggle to address them. What we know little about is how and why some schools in similar contexts manage to produce effective teaching and learning. In particular, what is the role of school leadership and management is such schools? What enables them to succeed against the odds?
For example, a Ministerial Committee on Schools that Work conducted ‘a pilot study on a sample of schools in middle quintiles that succeeded in achieving good Senior Certificate (grade 12) results, while others in similar circumstances did not’ (Christie et al., 2007: 4). Like Chikoko et al. and Mbokazi in this special issue, Christie et al. found ‘highly motivated schools, with dedicated staff and busy learners, using additional time before and after school, on Saturdays and in holidays. Schools were focused on achievement in the Senior Certificate exams, and celebrated their achievements to motivate themselves further’ (Christie et al., 2007: 4). While this report provides a snapshot of the features of successful schools subject to multiple deprivation, studies that analyse schooling qualitatively in these contexts are needed. For example, in their report, Christie et al. recommended that such research should focus on a ‘closer, more in-depth examination of the teaching/learning practices of these schools, as well as their leadership and management strategies and structures…’ (Christie et al., 2007: 94).
Studies in this area also tend to be dominated by a focus on the influence of individual factors, rather on the combined effects of multiple deprivation. As such, research that examines the combined effects of the various dimensions of multiple deprivation is needed. This will help governments in developing and implementing interventions that address the combined factors that make up deprivation in various communities together, rather than in isolation.
In South Africa, and many parts of the world, while teaching is a feminized profession (dominated by women), leadership and management positions, particularly at the secondary school level, tend to be dominated by men. Schools facing multiple deprivation are no exception. However, research focusing on how the few women who are employed to lead these schools fare and how their gender and the patriarchal contexts in which they work influence their management and leadership in these schools is limited (the articles by Faulkner and by Lumby in this special issue address this gap). Further research is thus needed which focuses on how women principals in these contexts negotiate their contexts and work in the schools.
A third area of research that needs further investigation relates to the ways in which schools suffering multiple deprivation access resources available to them (from the Ministry of Education and others, for example), and how they manage the limited resources available in and around the schools (see Mestry and Bodalina in this special issue). For example, action research could be conducted that seeks to understand the assets these schools have at their disposal and how they might identify, access and manage them effectively in order to optimize teaching and learning.
While this is not an exhaustive outline of the gaps in the literature on schools and school leadership in situations of multiple deprivation, it provides a starting point for our understanding of the dynamics of such schools, the challenges they face and the ways in which, through effective management and leadership, they might address the problems in order to optimize teaching and learning. One area of research explored in this special issue illustrates this. Moletsane et al. ask, ‘How might the principals of schools in contexts of multiple deprivation (including poor material and human resources) better manage teacher leave taking and absence within the contexts of multiple deprivation 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 minimize the negative impact of teacher absence on the quality of education? What resources and skills are needed in and around the schools to minimize or eradicate the negative impacts of teacher leave on teaching and learning? 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 these?’. It is only when questions such as these have been adequately addressed and their implications heeded that principals working in an environment of multiple deprivation might be empowered to lead their schools effectively and optimise learning for all children.
We exhort the research community in the area of school leadership to join us on a journey that goes beyond single factor investigations of deprivation and poverty in relation to school learning and teaching. Schools that face multiple deprivation require explorations which take into account the confluence of multiple factors which act in combination, not in isolation, and how these factors can be mitigated in order to achieve equity of opportunity for the poorest and most disadvantaged in our societies. Because such schools are unlikely to be led effectively in traditional ways, we have to look hard and determinedly for new leadership forms that work best in circumstances of multiple deprivation. It is the case, we believe, that the majority of learners in South Africa, as in other parts of the less-developed world, do manage to learn in such schools. There is thus both a moral and ethical imperative to reconceptualise how best such schools can be led. The articles in this special edition provide a good basis for beginning that conversation.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.