TWO PILLARS FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT: HEADTEACHER’S BELIEFS AND EXTERNAL MANDATORY PROGRAMME
by
Sultan Alam and Darvesh karim
PDCN Gilgit
INTRODUCTION
It has often been a common practice in schools that a headteachers have to wear more caps at a time than other members of the school. At the same time, the role inquires the cap of manager and administrator, instructional leader, pedagogical leader, curriculum leader and coach at different times in a day (Day, 2004). The position demands a balancing act to respond to these changing roles. Many times, due to focus on one important task creates opportunities for other teachers to perform leadership roles. This ultimately affects the teaching and learning approaches of teachers. Being the most important position-holder in the school, it is essential for the headteacher to sustain a flexible attitude towards all academic and non-academic tasks for school improvement.
The headteachers varied leading role in school improvement has been widely recognized. Indicating towards these obligatory roles, Smith (2008) describes that:
Effective school leaders, who serve as successful change facilitators, cannot afford to be just managers, or to look for silver bullet solutions. They must resist modeling themselves after figures, real or imagined who may temporarily provide dynamic, exiting, and even inspirational leadership. Today, school leadership is more demanding and dynamic. It requires a principal with a different profile. (p.242)
The question arises that how a headteacher could perform his/her role quite effectively despite being surrounded by so many challenging tasks. Our simplest response would be that those headteachers deal effectively who are sound in their professional aptitude.
To develop such aptitudes among the headteachers, different initiatives have been undertaken in Pakistan by the financial support of the public sector, international donor agencies and other Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) working in this field. Their main objective in bringing about these initiatives is to bring improvements in the school through improving the quality of education within the schools. Being the most influential professional in the school, the success of these initiatives mainly relies on the headteachers’ skills as all these initiatives are directly or indirectly implemented by these headteachers inside the school. As Fullan (2001) has righty pointed out that, “the principal has always been the ‘gate keeper’ of change, often determining the fate of innovations coming from the outside or from teacher initiatives on the inside” (p.59).
Like other parts of Pakistan, government is the main provider of education in Gilgit-Baltistan. There are other systems that contribute to the provision of education in the region. They include few semi-government schools, private schools and other community-based (not-for-profit) schools. These school systems are using their own resources, approaches and capacities to bring improvement in their schools.
Professional Development Centre North (PDCN), located in Gilgit-Baltistan[1] is one of the organizations working in education sector. This institution aims to provide professional support to schools. PDCN’s mission is to improve the quality of teaching and learning in schools, build local capacity with a particular emphasis on gender awareness, develop partnerships with education providers (systems) and above all, serve as a Centre of Excellence and Quality in teacher education in Gilgit-Baltistan. Although PDCN offers different school improvement and staff development programs to achieve its goals, however, since July 2010, AusAID (the funding agency of Government of Australia) has very kindly approved a school improvement project called the Educational Development and Improvement Program (EDIP), which is managed by the Aga Khan Foundation, Pakistan (AKF, P) and implemented by AKU-IED/PDCN and AKESP as major partners. The major goal of the EDIP is to contribute to the overall socio-economic development of Gilgit-Baltistan through enhancing access and equity; improving the quality and relevance of education; and strengthening the governance and management of the Government Education Department of Gilgit-Baltistan.
Under the EDIP, in each of the seven districts of Gilgit-Baltistan, two large secondary schools have been identified to transform into Learning Resource Schools (LRSs). This intervention is not only result in the capacity building of schools for inspiring student learning outcomes, but also assist in developing a sustainable network between secondary and primary/elementary schools which is a very important step. PDCN takes full advantage of the latest Information and Communication Technologies available in GB to accelerate the achievement of EDIP goals.
The newly inducted EDIP project directly supervised by PDCN is an external program aiming at bringing improvement in the whole Gilgit-Baltistan by building capacities of headteachers and teachers through face to face and field based approaches. To achieve successes, other supporting functions include management training of school heads and middle and senior level educational managers, curriculum development and research. In this connection, and in an effort to improve both government and private schools, PDCN through EDIP project is paying special attention to professional development of headteachers working in both government and private schools in Gilgit-Baltistan. It places great emphasis on the professional training of headteachers and teachers. It underscores the need for building close working relationship with headteachers. In this regard it has created provisions and contexts to engage headteachers of the project schools in the work of school improvement. Apart from on the spot support through a field based PDT, it also offers a programme named CE:ELM to equip the headteachers with modern approaches needed for a school improvement. By considering those supportive roles, this study aims at exploring the role of such external mandatory programme in developing the professional capacities of two project schools headteachers who have participated in the whole cycle of the programme.
EMERGENCE OF THE STUDY AND RATIONALE
There were many factors who contributed our motivation towards choosing this study. First, during our almost ten years schooling career as teachers, subject coordinators and working as heads of the schools, we noticed that majority of headteachers are lacking in the required professional capacities and they mainly focus on management aspects only in their schools. They seem to be the implementers of the given rules by their system’s higher authorities. Our understanding was further strengthened by Khaki (2005) study that the public school systems in the developing nations allow heads little room for leadership and enforce them towards a more managerial approach. To meet this challenge and to develop the headteachers professionally, EDIP’s CE:ELM programme along with other components of school improvement including improving teaching and learning, community participation and students’ holistic development, is trying to develop leadership skills among the headteachers.
Although the faculty members at PDCN are focussing their efforts to build the professional capabilities among these headteachers, but the capacity of the headteacher in managing the intervention and responding to the demand of the project stand out as a critical variable in the successes achieved or failure experienced in the project. Therefore it is important to explore such influences from the perspective of headteachers who are centrally positioned to negotiate between the demands of the initiatives, externally mandated innovations and the internal conditions of the school. This was one of the key factors which motivated us to select this area for research study.
Furthermore, Shafa (2003) studies in the context of Gilgit-Baltistan also recommended that more studies are necessary to fully understand the school improvement challenges of headteachers in the contexts of the Gilgit-Baltistan. He pointed that to gain a much wider and deeper understanding of headteachers’ school improvement challenges; it would be helpful to include more headteachers representing more than one of the school systems that impart education in the region. Therefore, his recommendations also encouraged us towards such study.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The findings of the study may also have a significant importance for other school headteachers of the region who are interested in understanding the headteachers roles and willing to bringing improvement initiatives in their schools. The most recent learning approaches needed for school improvement learnt by the headteachers may help the other headteachers in the whole context and they can also adopt such initiatives to bring similar improvements in their respective schools as well.
As this study focus on understanding the impact of first year’s intervention for headteachers, therefore the findings may help to revisit the intervention plans for the upcoming years of project life.
PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTION
The purpose of the study is to explore the experiences of a project school headteacher who have participated in the CE:ELM intervention through EDIP project. The following main and subsidiary questions guided our study:
1. How do the headteachers perceive the role of CE:ELM in their professional growth?
Subsidiary Questions
1. What do the headteachers believe about the ways and the extent to which CE:ELM has influenced their perceptions and approaches towards school improvement?
2. What challenges do the headteachers generally face in bringing improvement in school and how CE:ELM remained effective to overcome those challenges?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Literature reveals different perspectives of research studies about the role and practices of headteachers in the context of school improvement. Research studies undertaken in both Pakistan and other countries establish a relationship between school leadership and school improvement. Various studies (Morse, 2001; Hoban, 2002; Harris & Chrispeels, 2006) highlight holistic approach of headteachers for school improvement, where, to increase students’ outcomes, effective headteachers use instructional leadership approaches to analyze students’ data, and determining appropriate staff development activities. Sergiovanni and Starrat (1998) also emphasize that an instructional principal is a significant factor in developing, improving and promoting teachers’ and students’ progress. Here Mendez-Morse (1991) points that if some students are unable to read and write, the principal as the instructional leader should take steps to alleviate the problem by supporting teachers' instructional methods, allocating resources and materials, visiting classrooms frequently, providing feedback on instructional methods and techniques and using data to focus attention on improving the curriculum and instruction. Research studies conducted by Viviane, Claire and Kenneth (2008) also verified that the average effect of instructional leadership on student outcomes was three to four times than that of transformational leadership.
Regarding professional traits (Phyllis & Marsha, 2004; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006) argue that principals as professional development leaders are in the best position to provide teachers with the professional development strategies needed to improve skills and raise student achievement. And, the more leaders focus their relationships, their work, and their learning on the core business of teaching and learning, the greater their influence on student outcomes. Rizvi & Elliott (2007) also found that teachers felt more capable about performing different tasks when they have relevant professional knowledge as compared to the teachers who are untrained.
Several other studies (Sergiovanni, 1998; Muijs & Reynolds, 2005) indicate another important dimension of the headteacher’s role in terms of pedagogical perspectives and comment that pedagogical leadership of the headteacher is the one which develops capital by helping schools become caring, focused and inquiring communities within which teachers work together as members of communities of practice.
Unlike above mentioned studies that associate major responsibilities with teachers for students’ outcomes, Rutherford (1984) presented a broad picture for school heads which led to success. He depicts that those principals who have clear goals for their schools provide active, visible leadership in pursuit of those goals, and closely monitor the schools’ progress in accomplishing the expected improvement. Likewise, Stewart and Prebble (1993) explicitly describe principals’ roles as:
In a very real sense the principal personifies the school, its culture and its mission… at the head of the institution, showing the way, leading by example, and extremely visible. Staying with the analogy, the principal is an important figurehead for staff and students of the school, and in a unique position to demonstrate and reinforce the core values of the school culture. (p.191)
Mangin (2007) also discusses that the principal’s role as a leader, manager, and change agent is very vital. Principals are responsible for working with the entire spectrum of stakeholders; from students to school board members, parents to policy makers, teachers to local business owners, and support staff to union officials.
It is very difficult to declare that all the change initiatives remain successful. It is the school head again who possesses responsibilities to devise actions for the failure programmes. Indicating towards headteacher’s role, Hargreaves and Hopkins (1991) say:
The most difficult task for the head is to accept that he or she must take some responsibility for the failure rather than blaming everybody else, cannot take all the blame because that becomes self-destructive and has the power to help everyone involved to interpret the failure as a positive learning experience. (p.103)
As a solution to what Hargreaves and Hopkins have pointed out, Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe and Meyerson (2005) express that:
Teachers are the front lines of learning but principals at the school level are uniquely positioned to provide a climate of high expectations, a clear vision for better teaching and learning, and the means of everyone in the system adults, and children to realize that vision. (p.2)
Similarly, various experts also recommended that success of change initiatives mainly rely on school headteachers and their effective leadership approaches. Such kinds of approaches are highly appreciated by parents; they become motivated and play their part for school improvement. In contrast, when the principal roles are focused on managing school functions, then parents may perceive such principal as impeding construction of active parental roles, not feeling an efficacious instrument in their children’s learning, or not perceiving active invitations to involvement (Griffit, 2001; Jeremy, 1998).
Various other studies (Mitchell & Sakney, 2000; Lovely & Buffum, 2007; McDermott, 2008) also pointed out that leadership is an important catalyst for building students’ awareness that their views are important to staff in the school and that they can have an influence on what happens to students in the school.
Contrary to the developed world which mainly theorizes the headteachers’ role in broader perspectives, research studies taken in developing world including Pakistan present somehow different pictures of a headteacher’s role in school improvement. Memon (2003) for example, accepts the important role of school headteacher to bring improvement but he submits that in the Pakistani context, principals possess very limited role in the school. They mainly interact with students to resolve conflicts and maintains students’ fee record. In the public school system which is the mass education provider in Pakistan, the situation is very critical. According to Khaki (2005),…“the public school systems in the developing nations allow heads little room for leadership enforcing more managerial approach” (p.69). These limited roles in the public system schools are due to the lack of professional capacities of headteachers and they are severely limited by the rules of the system which encourages top down approach (Memon, 1998).
Another difficulty in the public educational system is that, “headteachers are recruited and promoted on the basis of their teaching rather than their leadership and management experience or qualification. Hence, most schools are functioning without qualified and trained headteachers” (Memon & Bana, 2005, p.163).
Contrary to public system, there seems a difference in headteachers’ roles in private sector. Referring to these system schools, Memon (2000) articulates that some headteachers serve as educational leaders by providing academic leadership in their schools, especially in the private sector. Similarly, presenting a comparative scenario between public and private educational systems in Pakistan, Memon, Nazirali, Simkins and Garrett (2000) also depict that:
In public schools, the headteachers seem to be less proactive and more interested in maintaining the status quo because of the influence of the “top bottom management model”. They have limited choices and many constraints because of the influence of the bureaucratic system. Their counterparts in non-government schools seem to be more proactive in making the best use of available choices and in maintaining equilibrium between the role demands, choices and constraints. (p.52)
Reflecting on various literature perspectives form the literature that emphasize headteachers important roles in school improvement and our contextual realities helped me to think through the possibility of improving the quality of education in Pakistan. The question is what type of initiatives are brought about to deal with these critical situations, particularly the public sector which is the major source of education in Pakistan. Pointing towards possible solutions Farooq (1993) suggests development of secondary resources in the form of teachers as future leaders by giving the opportunities for training and professional development. Kanwar (2000) recommends that “principals need to be aware of the latest approaches in school leadership” (p.101). They need to develop visionary approaches by modifying attitudinal changes.
To address the aforesaid recommendations required for the head teachers, CE:ELM has been designed to facilitate the head teachers in bringing about improvement measures within their schools through their improved professional skills. So, the purpose of the study is to explore the learning experiences of the head teacher after participating in the whole cycle of CE:ELM programme.
RESEARCH DESIGN
Methodology
As the purpose of our study is to explore the post CE:ELM experiences of a headteachers who have participated in the whole cycle of the intervention, therefore to study about successful learning stories, case study method is more applicable to get the required data. We will particularly use the case study method because it allows the researcher to use different tools such as interviews, observations, document analysis etc. Creswell (1998) demonstrates that, “Case study provides the researcher with an opportunity to involve multiple sources of information which are rich in context” (p.61). Therefore, these multiple tools under case study method can help us in triangulation of the data which will ultimately enhance the validity of the research findings.
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE
We will use the following tools to generate data in this study:
Interview
In-depth interview will be the major tool for data collection as “an interview is used to gather descriptive data in the subject’s own words so that the researcher can develop insight on how subjects interpret some piece of work” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p.96). Using interview method, we can ask open ended questions and go deeper for elaboration and clarification. According to Maykut and Morehouse (1994), “ by probing an interviewee’s responses, we are likely to add to the richness of the data, and end up with better understanding of the phenomenon we are studying” (p.95). We will also record the learning experiences shared by the participants. Additionally, we will take running notes and after each interview session, we will review the whole conversation. This can help us to make clarifications regarding questions asked and to prepare further probing questions on a need basis. To get participants’ responses, we will use a loosely structured interview guide to facilitate our conversation.
Researcher’s Journal
Maintaining a methodological journal will be an ongoing activity throughout the whole data collection process. We will use this journal to write down the experiences during school visits and noting down our observations. We can also write down our reflections during the visits to the project schools. All these processes will remain helpful in documenting our personal experiences during field work and while reflecting on them.
Document Analysis
Yin (1994) emphasizes that documents play an important role in data collection in a research that uses case study method. So we will collect applicable documents and analyze them. These documents included reports about meetings records (teachers meetings, parents meetings, and staff meetings), headteachers’ diaries, records of curricular and co-curricular activities, training materials such as CE:ELM course handbook, etc., carried out to improve the school. The information collected from this source will help in triangulation of data.
Additionally, we will observe the physical environment of the school particularly different pictures displayed on classroom walls and headteachers’ offices. They will be included the displays inside the classes and other visible places of the school, the school development plan, teacher’s diaries, school timetable and year plan. Therefore, analyzing these all documents will allow us to make a link between the research participants’ responses and their practical work.
DATA ANALYSIS
Glesne (1998) stresses that data analysis should be done simultaneously with data collection process which enables the researcher to focus and shape the study as it proceeds. In line with these thoughts, data analysis in this study will continue throughout the data collection process. Additionally, during collection of data, this process will be carried out in an organized way. For instance, we will read the data several times and make summaries. Then, we will carry out another level of data analysis. For example, we will identify key ideas and group them in similar categories. We will further analyze these categories to identify key themes. The recurring themes will be interpreted into research findings.
SAMPLE
Good sampling is considered to finding ways to give all population members an equal chance of being selected. Keeping this phenomenon we intend to select two headteachers working in the EDIP project schools who have gone through the whole cycle of CE:ELM. To get comprehensive and appropriate data, the research participants will be purposefully selected (Patton, 1990) by considering the following criteria:
· School headteachers have participated in the whole cycle of CE:ELM (six month programme);
· The intended headteachers must have successfully completed the assigned tasks as part of their learning into practice;
· Have shown willingness and volunteer to participate in the study and interested in sharing their experiences.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Possibly for job security and relationships with their organizations, the participants may not share the whole experiences and information. Therefore it becomes very difficult to mention that this research study will explore the participants’ full learning and achieved modern approaches as a whole.
Moreover, the study will be conducted in two of the rural schools. Therefore, the learning and experiences shared by the participant may not represent the voices of the all the headteachers, working in urban and other rural areas of Gilgit-Baltistan.
Ethical Consideration
As we are intending to carry out an academic or educational setting research, so, we have to consider and be aware of the ethics as “Ethics in research are the principles of right and wrong that a particular group accepts” (Bogdan and Biklen, 1998, p.49). To ensure the dignity, privacy and interests of the participants we will use sodiniums.
We will seek permission of the people whom, we will be studying to conduct research involving them. We will not do anything that would cause physical or emotional harm to our research participants. We will be reporting research findings accurately representing what we will get through our measurement tools.
As researchers we must pay attention to the ethical principals as the term research ethics indicates a moral enterprise between the researcher and the research participants (Vazir, 2004). It refers to the question of right or wrong, and it is conforming to the standards of conduct specified in research (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006).
Therefore, first of all we will inform the research participants about the purpose of the research and expectations. We will write the purpose of the study on the covering page along with the consent forms and invitation letters for the participants.
We will also assure our respondents that the information provided by them would be used for the study purposes only. The privacy of the records would be maintained and no one would have access to them before analysis and report-writing. After completion of the study the records would be destroyed in accordance with the Institute’s policy and the dissemination of research findings would be done in accordance with the ethical considerations of not harming the personal and academic lives of participants involved. We will also write letters of thanks to the headteachers as a token of our appreciation and in the spirit of reciprocity.
REFERENCES
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Ally & Bacon.
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. London: Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School Leadership study: Developing successful principals. Retrieved on April 10, 2009 from http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/csi/pdf/seli_sls_research_review.pdf.
Day, C. (2004). The passion of successful leadership: School leadership and Management, 24(4), 425-437.
Farooq, R. A. (1993). Education System in Pakistan. Islamabad, Pakistan: ASPIRE.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fullan, M. (2001). The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Routledge Falmer.
Glesne, C. (1998). Becoming qualitative researchers. New York: Longman.
Griffit, J. (2001). Principal leadership of parent involvement. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(2), 162-186.
Hargreaves, D. H., & Hopkins, D. (1991). The Empowered School: The management and practice of development planning. London: Cassell.
Harris, A., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2006). Improving schools and educational systems. USA: Routledge.
Hoban, G. F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University press.
Jeremy, F. D. (1998). Parental engagement that makes a difference. Educational Leadership, 55(8), 20-24.
Kanwar, F.A. (2000). Secondary school head teachers’ leadership styles and their implications for school improvement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, American University in London, United Kingdom.
Khaki, J. (2005). Exploring beliefs and behaviors of effective head teachers in government schools in Pakistan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201-227.
Lovely, S., & Buffum, A. G. (2007). Generations at School. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication Company.
Mangin, M. M. (2007). Facilitating elementary principal's support for instructional teacher leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 319-357.
Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A Philosophic and practical guide. London: The Falmer Press.
McDermott, D. (2008). Developing Caring Relationships among Parents, Children, Schools, and Communities. California: SAGE Publication, Inc.
Memon, M. (1998). The future of head teachers as educational leaders in Pakistan: Implications for pedagogical leadership. Education 2000, 3 (3), 23-28.
Memon, M. (2000). The future of head teachers as educational leaders in Pakistan: implications for pedagogical leadership. Education 2000, 3(3), 23-27.
Memon, M. (2003).Prospects and challenges of school leadership in Pakistan. SHADE, 4(5), 1-4.
Memon, M., & Bana, Z. (2005). Pedagogical Leadership in Pakistan: Two Headteachers from the Northern Areas. In J. Retallick, & I. Farah (Ed.), Transforming schools in Pakistan: Towards the learning community. Oxford University Press.
Memon, M., Nazirali, R., Simkins, T., & Garrett, V. (2000). Understanding the headteacher’s role in Pakistan: Emerging role demands, constraints and choices. International Studies in Educational Administration, 28(2), 48-55.
Mendez-Morse, S. (1991). The principal’s role in the instructional process: Implications for at-risk students. Issues about Change, 1(2), 1-5.
Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2000). Profound Improvement: Building Capacity for a Learning Community. Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlingar Publishers.
Morse, M. S. (2001). The principal’s role in the instructional process: Implications for at risk students. Austine: Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://www.sedl.org/ change/issues13.html.
Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2005). Effective Teaching. London: SAGE Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Phyllis, L. H., & Marsha, S. (2004). The principal as professional development leader. London: SAGE Publications.
Rizvi, M., & Elliott, R. (2007). Enhancing and sustaining teacher professionalism in Pakistan. Teachers and teaching: Theory and practice, 13(1), 5-19.
Rutherford, W. (1984). Styles and behaviors of elementary school principals: Their relationship to school improvement. Education and Urban Society, 17(1), 9-28.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1998). Leadership as pedagogy, capital development and school effectiveness. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and practice, 1(1), 37-46.
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R.J. (1998). Supervision: A redefinition (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shafa, M.D. (2003). Understanding How a Government Secondary Headteacher addresses School Improvement Challenges in the Northern Areas of Pakistan. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, Canada.
Smith, L. (2008). School that Change. Evidence-Based improvement and Effective Change Leadership. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press, SAGE Company.
Stewart, D., & Prebble, T. (1993). The Reflective Principal: School Development within a Learning Community. Massey University, New Zealand: ERDC Press.
Vazir, N. (2004). Research ethics: significance, application and obligation to the practice of research. Journal of Educational Research, 7, 3-11.
Viviane, R. M., Claire, L., & Kenneth, R. (2008). The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: An Analysis of the Differential Effects of Leadership Types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674.
No comments:
Post a Comment