The importance of leadership in schools is widely recognised. Research studies globally support this and also show that of even greater importance is the role of the school principal (headteacher).
At stakeholder level, anecdotal evidence from parents and other interested parties gives credence to this: they talk of the principal who “turned our school around — she gives one hundred percent”, or the principal who “is never there, there’s no leadership so the school’s gone downhill”.
The Department of Education endorsed the importance of the principal’s role in a 2004 policy document, saying it “fully supported the research findings on school improvement, that it is the principal who is central to the successful school”. This echoed the statement of a UK Education Minister that “nothing matters more to a school than the quality of the headteacher”.
The Department of Education (DoE) went further and in 2005 developed a Standard for Principalship intended to underpin a national pilot programme to professionalise the role of school principals in South Africa. The policy was clear and the intention located within global findings on school improvement.
More specifically it was intended to serve the transformation agenda of the education system post-1994 and the new roles, responsibilities and accountabilities assigned to those leading, or aspiring to lead schools. It was a national priority and it was a matter of principle — and principal!
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines a principle as a fundamental truth or proposition serving as the foundation for belief or action, and a principal as the most senior, or most important, person in an organisation.
What then is the significance of these definitions and their application in the educational context? In short it is a matter of principle, of putting principles first and holding to these. In this case the principles on which the DoE based its stated priority to improve schools by putting principals first. This was to be done through better training and development of principals — and ensuring their accountability for all aspects of schools’ performance.
These principles informed, or appeared to inform the actions needed to transform education and move government schools from the bottom of most world league tables, and turn abysmal school performance statistics on their head: from majority dysfunctional to majority functional schools.
There was optimism in educational circles that the professionalisation of principals would be a priority in the drive to improve schools through developing, recruiting and retaining the best for the ‘top job’.
But, five years after the Policy and the Standard were gazetted and ministerial statements were made which endorsed both the principle and the principal, the optimism has dissipated. It was always evident that the needs of principals already in post are different to those aspiring to this position, but no uniform national (or provincial) programmes have been developed. This has given rise to ad hoc development by, or between provinces, universities, Higher education institutions, NGOs and private companies — professional programmes which in themselves are often useful and worthwhile but which lack the coherence and cohesion of a planned national initiative.
There’s a real risk that this type of provision will perpetuate inequality and disadvantage, particularly in areas not well served by universities or by service providers and where district level support and development initiatives are also lacking. There is also the risk that service providers’ financial needs may affect delivery and so allow quality to be compromised.
Another problem inherent in this situation is that there is little or no use of the national standard designed to underpin principalship programmes. In fact there is little awareness that such a standard even exists.
So in reality little has happened to put principals first. The national pilot principalship programme is unlikely to be rolled out in 2010 as a national priority — and yet there are still rumours of it being made a mandatory qualification for short listing and appointment. There is a reluctance, it seems, to make the decision on whether the programme will target aspiring or existing principals and this is compounded by the lack of clarity on whether the responsibility for this professionalisation and development will now lie with the Basic or the Higher Education Ministry.
President Jacob Zuma recently addressed principals in KwaZulu-Natal, reminding them of the importance of their role and the responsibility they carry: implicit in this was that to be a good principal requires an adherence to first principles. It may be opportune now for him to remind the Department of Education that in order to ensure that the policy of principals first is implemented they will need to revisit the first principles on which that policy was based. As they say: use it or lose it!