In order for organisations to thrive, to grow and succeed in their mission, it is done under the guidance of a leader that has a number of specific qualities. The opposite is also true, that when these specific qualities are not present in the leader, that organisations do not thrive, nor grow, but fail in their mission. Without a doubt, leadership is seen as critical to the success of teams, small and large organisations, including schools where it remains the nexus for school success (Bush & Jackson, 2002).
While the topic of leadership can’t be specifically defined, there is consensus around the critical importance of having effective leadership in place at schools (Commonwealth Secretariat, 1996). Coleman (2003) argues that leadership is context specific, and related to the circumstances in which it emerges. Reinforcing Coleman’s view on leadership is Leithwood, Jantzi & Steinbach (1999:5) who go further in that the notion of leadership can often be arbitrary as well as subjective, as there’s no “one” definition that can adequately describe leadership that currently exists.
There is a degree of commonality and perhaps some central elements in many definitions of leadership, which highlights that influence or the ability to assert influence is clearly present and thus becomes a compelling part of any definition (Leithwood et al.,1999:17). Yukl (2002: 3) takes a view in line with Fayol that to structure activities, functions and relationships into organised groups. Leadership is also often associated with setting organisational vision and establishing goals Christie (2010: 695).
The South African Leadership Context
The takeaway from these arguments are that leadership is subjective, situational, structural, influential and about visions and goals (Terhoven & Fataar, 2018). These are very broad aspects, also involving the ability to motivate, to encourage, to develop and innovate, to listen. Within the context of the South African education system and the autocratic system that it emerged from, there are still tendencies in the predominant approach to leadership, which is the stick (coercive) over the carrot (influencing) (Wollhutter, 2000). The contrary view offered by Christie (2010) is that consent and influence is better suited to leadership characteristics than coercion. Some of this is a result of the pre 1994 disposition, which was highly authoritarian, strictly regimented with very little individual flexibility allowed (Morrow, 1990).
Everything fit into the same box, and the same square holes regardless, and if it didn’t, it was made to fit at any cost. Not only did this stifle any resistance, which was the aim of the Apartheid government, they were able to pick out the dissenters more easily (Morrow,1990). In the education space in particular, leadership was discouraged, in favour of bureaucrats who would follow instructions provided by the relevant authority (Spaull,2013).
Fast forward to the current post 1994 dispensation and we still find remnants of this authoritarian complex in place and the evidence of the underspending in school infrastructure (Wolhutter,2006). However, there were also several changes to the education system that necessitated the movement away from this highly regimented state, to one that was brought down to the local granular level, with the creation of provincial departments and SGB’s. School governance now happens at three levels, creating the space for education leadership to be developed and for it to emerge.
The pre Apartheid legacy of school leadership is unfortunately still prevalent, where the authoritarian approach appears to be the default position (Morrow, 1990). Principal’s that crossed over the transition period were not necessarily taught any leadership skills, were not developed or trained, and did not possess the requisite tools nor are they provided with any (Spaull, 2013). Leadership however does not occur in a vacuum, as it needs to be developed and demonstrated within the context of social organisations (Allen and Mintrom, 2010). Christie (2010) suggests that leadership is really only demonstrated and framed within a social context, by means of demonstrating the ability to influence others. Christie (2010) goes further when he argues that schools are inherently social in nature, with the added dimension of being organisations that have to consider many different groups of people, and varying degrees of diversity.
Bush (2007) argues that the leadership style still favours authoritarianism and sticking to a structured hierarchy, while some principals are of the belief that their authority is thought to be preordained. Unfortunately, the by-product of this belief is the misguided belief by principals that they are in their capacity of leadership, beyond reproach, shutting down discussion as being undermining of their authority. This is in itself a failure in leadership, and not a desirable quality (Wolhutter, 2006). The realities of the past still haunt the current day, when we recognize that there was a concerted effort for many years not to expose the majority of the population to positions of leadership (Xaba, 2011). Moloi (2007) argues that the responsibility of leading and managing were deliberately withheld from certain demographic groups, and as such these same groups were never prepared for it.
While it is clear that there exists an imbalance in the preparation of leaders among the many population groups of our country as a result of the historical legacy, the unfortunate reality is that there is no mechanism in place in the public school system to correct it despite several attempts (Van der Westhuisen & Van Vuuren, 2007). The initial pilot of the ACE-SML was an attempt at addressing this shortcoming, but the programme only ran for three years, with limited results (Bush et al, 2011). At the moment, we still see the lack of mandatory leadership training, due in part to it not being an essential requirement for appointment to principalship (Government Gazette, 18 March 2016). Where there were failures in the past there is still failure today, which prevents any significant changes to the process and outcomes of education.
The International Context
For the purposes of this study and to present how the matter of school leadership is viewed and addressed in other public education systems, I have looked at several systems and models that are relevant for comparative purposes. Of course, to review every country is impractical, and therefore a few were selected based on the common legacy of being former colonies of the UK, which would therefore have many similarities with South Africa in a historical sense.
I therefore chose a sample from Commonwealth Countries that have public school systems that perform well in terms of school performance. Singapore and Canada have developed methods and processes for the preparation and training of school principals. These processes are continuously being updated, revised and evolved over time as required. Importantly, each of these countries have identified the importance of school leadership via the principal as critical to successful education and learner outcomes (Keo, 2016).
Singapore System
Singapore is interesting to examine for several reasons. As a city state, they have a high degree of diversity in terms of ethnicity, religion and language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore). Some would argue that Singapore is also not a true democracy but rather a unitary dominant democracy, with a legislative body. The Singapore school system is one of the highest performing globally (https://worldpopulationreview.com). Such remarkable success is reflective of a system that is built upon a strong foundation, one that has evolved over the years in response to changes in the national and global environment (Boon & Stott,2004). Another reason for this is that school principals are highly valued, and they are identified early in their careers and are fully trained and prepared for the role of principalship.
Education is taken seriously in Singapore, a country with limited natural resources, and who regard their citizens as part of the resource base of the country. As Singapore emerged from its colonial past to independence, the education system shifted away from a survival-driven framework since 1965 to that of an efficiency-driven system in the 1980s and 1990s (Yip, Eng & Yap, 1990). Sharpe & Gopinathan (2002) further highlight the process as a reorientation towards an ability driven mission, considering the global changes in technology and the future manpower and labour needs of the country.
Singapore has recognised that a highly skilled labour force will provide them with a competitive advantage in many service sectors, and the underpinnings of that lies within the public education system. The decision to invest in education was taken early on in the post-colonial era, and over a period more than forty years, this investment has been realised (Yip et al, 1990).
Educators are identified along a career ladder in one of three tracks. These three tracks are (a) Leadership (b) Educator and (c) Specialist. Each one of these tracks have clearly defined pathways and outcomes and specific benchmarks that must be met by educators along their determined tracks (Keo, 2016). To achieve these goals, Singapore mandates a single pathway to the principalship through the Leaders in Education programme (LEP), which in 2001 replaced the Diploma in Educational Administration (Walker, Bryant & Lee, 2013). The leadership track is for educators that demonstrate potential in becoming vice principals and being developed to the principalship.
In Singapore, selection of candidates along the leadership track is based on merit, and career opportunities and upward trajectories of teachers are essentially based on their respective principals’ assessment of their performance and potential (Boon & Stott, 2004:548). Once selected they are given significant support, sent on specialist training which is fully paid, and attend international conferences. Key to their development towards principalship is the attendance of two leadership programmes, for which they receive their full salary (Retna, 2015). This is the investment that the Singapore model has adopted and the results are evident in terms of the contribution made by principals to reach those globally leading education outcomes.