The viewers of SABC1 and Learning Channel’s Top Class programme may have observed the same reactions as I did when watching the CEOs in the schools that they are helping to turn around: curiosity, compassion, followed by frustration and culminating in a determination to make something happen.
The question is, can they?
This month we will, in programme speak, “go take a look” at some of the strategic interventions – or quick fixes – which the CEOs have suggested and the approaches used to communicate these to the schools.
The short-term, interventionist approach of the programme necessitates a lot of telling “what to do”. This is not based on in-depth understanding of the context and culture of the school, but on instant judgements by the CEOs.
It is important to remember that these are “bosses” who are used to making and taking decisions in their own businesses and who have the “luxury” of an organisational infrastructure which underpins and facilitates this process – therefore things get done.
The situation is clearly very different in “their” schools. What comes across vividly is the inaction at most levels – despite the stated good intentions of the principals, deputies and school governing bodies. The level of “paralysis” – that presumably comes from believing themselves to be “stuck” in a situation beyond their control – is entirely understandable, yet completely unacceptable.
The core business of schools is teaching and learning and, to achieve this, the school leaders have to find ways to overcome the many obstacles – or the school remains dysfunctional.
We talk glibly of schools moving from a culture of dependency to enterprise – to achieve their core purpose – but that move requires an organisational infrastructure, financial resources and autonomy, and professional competence at all levels of the organisation.
While some schools have moved successfully in this direction, the schools we are observing are in the majority and still dependent on support from the provinces which, as we have seen, is woefully inadequate.
Given all these factors, it is not surprising that the schools featured think they have little, if any, real power to pull themselves out of the situation: to “take control” and achieve their core business. But the CEOs think otherwise.
The 10 CEOs all bring their own management styles and techniques to the schools.
A “can do” approach is demonstrated by each – we are told repeatedly that there are only challenges and opportunities, not problems: so the approach is “head on” to the challenge.
The way this is done is fascinating because they bring an interest or passion as well as expertise from their own contexts. In each case goods or services from their companies are offered to help in achieving specific goals. The CEO then provides an action plan for the school in which priorities are identified: where the school team is actively involved in drawing up the plan, eagerness to “take control” of change becomes apparent.
Zeona Motshabi of Cell C used a brainstorming session with the management team of Isiphephelo School, letting them take ownership of the action plan while she skilfully directed the process. This plan addressed short-term needs but also involved long-term vision. She, as did other CE0s, introduced time frames to manage and maintain process and momentum, coupled with the identification of key personnel – involved and accountable.
In Boipatong Johnic CEO Prakesh Desai concentrated on the school’s need to accept the reality of its shared campus with another school and to focus on what it could change, not be “paralysed” into inactivity by what was beyond its control. The revelation was apparent.
While all the CEOs contributed practical advice and insight about the issues faced by the schools, some were idealistic, neither rooted in the reality of effecting lasting change nor adding much to what the schools already knew. The principals were effusive in their thanks, but some looked unconvinced: these were ideals to work towards, but the task was enormous – needing to be broken into bite-sized, manageable strategies – a gap analysis would have been useful.
This was evident when Zola Yeye, manager of the Sprinbok Rugby team, argued for a specialist sports focus and concentration on maths and science teaching. He enthused about the school in Khayalitsha and the already enthusiastic principal, but offer limited strategies for turning rhetoric into reality – unless the suggestion that volunteer ex-teachers be used is a realistic strategy.
Similarly, GG Alcock, CEO of Minanawe Marketing, advocated marketing the school in King Shaka’s home area to potential funders, by making it unique through Shaka’s story. Alcock was clearly motivated by a passionate interest in marketing and in Zulu culture, but offered little strategic help.
The schools have five weeks to move forward. They have the action plans and the commitment, but is it mission accomplished?
Next month’s article will focus on the issues facing the schools and how they addressed the challenges and opportunities identified.
Caroline Faulkner lectures on educational leadership and management at the Wits School of Education