The 10 secondary schools in the Learning Channel’s Top Class reality programme have many problems in common – irrespective of whether they are in rural or urban areas. The major problem for the principals is in leading their schools from a culture of dependency and inaction to a culture of enterprise and action.
To know what should be done is always much easier than to do it and this is certainly the case in the Top Class schools. As Qedilizwe School’s motto says: “knowledge conquers the nation”, but this should not remain just an impressively written statement of intent emblazoned on a school wall.
World Cup 2010 organiser Danny Jordan when visiting Qedilizwe enthusiastically endorsed the school’s motto, emphasised its relevance to all South African schools, praised the school’s vision and mission statement, but could see little evidence of the realisation of these in the school’s daily life.
We have now, in programme speak, “taken a look” at 10 schools: we have seen, shockingly depicted, the problems they face, observed the principals and the school management teams/school governing bodies, identifying development priorities, seen the responses of the CEOs, observed how and why they formulated their action plans and the level of “ownership” given to the schools in the process.
So, how will these action plans help the schools? The problems appear insurmountable, but if these 10 schools can be turned around then perhaps their improvement processes and strategies will help others – without the need for intervention from TV or big business.
All school improvement processes require understanding of context and capacity, and a willingness to address problematic, complex and often, unpleasant issues. There is widespread recognition that school improvement is not solely dependent upon money and the quantity of resources, but rather the effective use of what resources there are. However, most of the issues that confront many South African schools could be addressed by better funding as well as more efficient financial management within the school.
When faced with inadequate facilities, health, safety and security issues, in particular, the school’s inability to charge – or collect – adequate fees to meet identified needs hampers development targets.
Viewers have seen that weapons brought on to school premises, coupled with intimidation of staff and learners from the internal and external school community, are a daily problem. The cost of installing and maintaining security systems, fences and weapons’ detection screening is not within reach of poorer schools.
A recent report stated that learners – particularly girls – named the toilets as the most feared area in school. Given the grossly inadequate condition of the toilets in most of the Top Class schools, this must be a priority area for improvement. But the schools need to increase their funds to meet existing needs as well as newly identified priorities: a catch-22 situation. The CEOs suggest targeting local business, but donor fatigue is a reality and schools should not be dependent on donors for basic resources.
The viewers have seen 10 schools at their worst and, in most of these, the education department support is at its most ineffective and uncaring. This is evidenced in a variety of contexts.
For example, problems arising from of the department of education’s norms and standards funding formula. If a school is allocated to the “wrong” quintile, its allocation will not accurately reflect its needs. Westbrook School’s intake is not drawn from the area in which it is situated in Mitchell’s Plain, but from neighbouring, poorer areas. Westbrook’s parents are mainly unemployed and/or single parent households unable, or unwilling, to pay the school fees.
The impact of this severely limits the school’s ability to meet its resource needs – both in the classrooms and in the wider school environment. The principal has, unsuccessfully, approached the education department requesting a review. The question asked by CEO Martin Feinstein is why has this not happened?
The onus is on national and provincial education departments to take responsibility and review funding based on demographic reality and context. Certainly, the support offered by the departments should not be activated by the presence of influential “big business bosses” participating in a TV programme, but on the clearly identified needs and development plans of the schools. These are plans that schools are obliged to present to the department, but which, unfortunately, the department appears not to be “obliged” to act upon.
There are so many issues that the schools are dealing with and it is clear that the CEOs have helped the principals to identify many possibilities for action to assist in the improvement process. The galvanising effect of this is evident during the filmed sequences and it will be interesting to see how, in the first five weeks, the principals and their staff/SGBs took the action plans forward. This will be crucial in determining whether they can move out of the dependency mode and into enterprise and action.
Caroline Faulkner lectures on educational leadership and management at the Wits School of Educaiton