Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
KwaZulu- Natal, Private Bag X03, Ashwood, 3605. South Africa. Email: muthukri@ukzn.ac.za
- 4883 -
- 4884 -
possible but highly valued, and feel that their contributions to the
achievement of organizational goals are recognised and valued.
There have been numerous empirical studies conducted
internationally that have investigated
leadership practices in
schools, including the role of the school principal in creating
sustainable school environments (for example, Juma,
Enose,
Simatwa & Ayodo, 2011; Bentley, 2011; Germaine & Quinn, 2006;
Kamper, 2008; Msila, 2012; Mestry & Singh, 2007; Zame, Hope &
Repress; 2008). However, the majority of studies reviewed were
undertaken in ordinary school settings. Very few studies explored
leadership practices in special school contexts. Naidoo (2012)
conducted a critical review of empirical studies on the leadership of
the school principal in the last decade undertaken in the African
context. Of the twenty four (24) studies identified, none investigated
the leadership of the school principal in the special school sector. The
study reported in this article aimed to address this gap and
investigated the issue of school leadership in five special school
settings.
Since 1994 when the new democratic government came into power,
South Africa has seen a precipitation of education legislation and
policies which without doubt has had an impact on school leadership
behaviour and practices. These include inter alia, the South African
Schools Act of 1996; Education White Paper 6: Building an Inclusive
Education and Training System (Department of Education, 2001);
Curriculum 2005 (Department of Education, 1997); the Revised
National Curriculum Statements (Department of Education, 2002),
and the National Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statements Grades R-12 (Department of Education, 2011). In the area of special
education, in the last few years there have been various Education
White Paper 6 implementation strategy documents that have directly
impacted on special schools, for example, National Strategy on
Screening, Identification, Assessment and Support (SIAS)
Operational Guidelines (Department of Education, 2008a); Guidelines
to Ensure Quality Education and Support in Special Schools and
Special School Resource Centres ((Department of Education, 2008b);
Conceptual and Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of
Inclusive Education: District Support Teams (Department of
Education, 2007), and
Guidelines for Responding to Learner
Diversity in the Classroom through Curriculum and Assessment
Policy Statements (Department of Education, 2012). While all these
- 4885 -
- 4886 -
- 4887 -
Frequency
Percentage
10
20
10
20
10
20
10
20
10
20
Male
11
22
Female
39
78
Gender
- 4888 -
6-10 Years
10
11
22
13
18
26
36
11-15 Years
16-20 Years
More than 20 years
Post Level
1
41
82
14
Age
0-25
26-30
16
31-35
36-40
20
40
41-45
10
20
46-50
51-55
- 4889 -
Visions (M=0, 18; SD = .83), and in School C the factor was Shared
Decision Making (M=0, 18; SD = .76).
However, in School B, School D and School E the negative mean
scores indicate that, on average, the teachers disagreed with the
statements which describe good leadership by the principal. The
majority of the teachers in their ratings indicate that there is no
evidence of the five leadership factors in their principals leadership
styles.
Across the three schools, the factors least evident was Collegial
Supportive Relationships: School B (M = -0, 46; SD = .17; School D (M
=-0, 62; SD = .19); School E (M = -.61; SD = .20), suggesting School D
had the lowest rating.
Table 2: Teacher perceptions of leadership characteristics by factor
Report
and school
Collegial
supportive
relationships
School
School A
Mean
.1750
.3600
.3833
10
10
10
10
Std. Deviation
.66844
.83375
.63105
.62386
.63955
Mean
-.4611
-.2250
-.3800
-.1500
-.3000
10
10
10
10
10
.16779
.62860
.17512
.22839
.22973
.3667
.5500
.4600
.1833
.5750
10
10
10
10
10
Std. Deviation
.66316
.69522
.58916
.75951
.54070
Mean
-.6167
-.3500
-.1000
-.3667
-.4750
10
10
10
10
10
Std. Deviation
.19502
.21082
.14142
.25820
.24861
Mean
-.6111
-.4750
-.1200
-.3500
-.4750
10
10
10
10
10
Std. Deviation
.19598
.41583
.16865
.19954
.29930
Mean
-.2189
-.0650
.0440
-.0600
-.0400
50
50
50
50
50
.60696
.68848
.50352
.54478
.62344
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
School D
School E
Total
Shared decision
making
10
School C
Professional &
personal growth
.2278
School B
Communicates
goals & visions
Recognition of
professional skills
&
accomplishments
N
Std. Deviation
- 4890 -
.4750
- 4891 -
Figure 2: Box whisker graph showing teacher ratings of leadership behaviours of the school principal
by school (N=50)
4892
4893
Post level
1
Mean
-.0671
.0293
-.1260
-.0854
41
41
41
41
.57401
.68013
.47867
.52146
.61900
.0635
.0357
.2000
.3810
.3214
Std. Deviation
.80917
.85912
.70238
.58305
.64087
Mean
-.6389
-.3750
-.2000
-.2500
-.3750
Std. Deviation
.03928
.17678
.00000
.11785
.17678
Mean
-.2189
-.0650
.0440
-.0600
-.0400
50
50
50
50
50
.60696
.68848
.50352
.54478
.62344
Mean
N
Total
Shared decision
making
41
Std. Deviation
Professional &
personal growth
-.2466
Communicates
goals & visions
Recognition of
professional skills
&
accomplishments
N
Std. Deviation
4894
- 4895 -
- 4896 -
Report
Table 4: Teacher perceptions of leadership
behaviours by gender
Collegial
supportive
relationships
Gender
Female
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Male
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Total
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Communicates
goals & visions
Professional &
personal growth
Shared decision
making
Recognition of
professional skills
&
accomplishments
-.1268
.0128
.1231
-.0085
.0641
39
39
39
39
39
.65436
.72762
.53037
.59598
.66074
-.5455
-.3409
-.2364
-.2424
-.4091
11
11
11
11
11
.16633
.45101
.25009
.23995
.23110
-.2189
-.0650
.0440
-.0600
-.0400
50
50
50
50
50
.60696
.68848
.50352
.54478
.62344
- 4897 -
- 4898 -
Collegial
supportive
relationships
Experience
0 - 5 years
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
6 - 10 years
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
11 - 15 years
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
16 - 20 years
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Total
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Communicates
goals & visions
Professional &
personal growth
Shared decision
making
Recognition of
professional skills
&
accomplishments
-.0741
.3333
.3333
.0556
.0000
.65105
.62915
.61101
.82215
.90139
-.1556
.0000
.3200
.0333
.0000
.84747
.63738
.54037
.67082
.82916
-.1970
-.2500
-.0727
-.0758
.0682
11
11
11
11
11
.59957
.76649
.51593
.55460
.56003
-.3376
-.1154
-.1231
-.0897
-.1538
13
13
13
13
13
.49403
.76114
.45854
.49822
.58219
-.1883
.0000
.1111
-.0741
-.0417
18
18
18
18
18
.66507
.64169
.49096
.55490
.64881
-.2189
-.0650
.0440
-.0600
-.0400
50
50
50
50
50
.60696
.68848
.50352
.54478
.62344
- 4899 -
- 4900 -
Two of the above items (marked *) were tied. The above suggests that these
leadership behaviours or characteristics are rarely displayed by the school
principal. Four of these leadership behaviours belong to the factor:
Collegial, Supportive Relationships. Two belong to the factor: Personal and
Professional Growth.
If one ranks the composite means for the five factors, the ranking emerges
as follows:
1. Professional and Personal Growth (M = .04; SD = .50)
- 4901 -
2.
3.
4.
5.
Results reflect that the leadership behaviours that relate to the above
factors are minimally displayed at their schools by the school principal if
one examines the low mean ratings. The above suggests that students
rated leadership characteristics that related to Collegial, Supportive
Relationships and Communicates Goals and Visions as the most unlikely to
be evident in their schools. These are important behaviours associated with
teacher motivation according to literature reviewed in chapter two.
- 4902 -
Item
Number
SD
-.48
.839
-.42
.785
11
-.22
.910
12
13
14
.28
.02
-.22
.904
1.000
.887
17
-.08
.900
18
19
-.26
-.20
.853
.857
20
-.40
.782
22
23
-.36
.16
.851
.934
29
-.20
.926
30
-.36
.776
31
-.34
.772
32
-.22
.864
35
36
-.24
-.40
.870
.857
Ranking
37
36
22
3
11
22
14
26
19
32
29
6
19
29
28
22
25
33
-.22
(SD = .61)
Composite Mean
Communicates Goals and Vision for the School
- 4903 -
Item
Number
SD
.12
.961
.08
.944
-.38
.830
34
-.08
.922
Ranking
7
8
31
14
-.07
(SD = .69)
Composite Mean
Professional and Personal Growth
Offers constructive criticism of unsatisfactory work
Takes responsibility for the orientation of new staff
Encourages staff members to participate in professional
activities especially in regard to inclusive education
Actively models/supports staff development
Keeps staff abreast with developments in special
education
3
16
.48
-.40
.789
.833
25
.36
.875
26
.18
.919
37
-.40
.904
1
32
2
5
32
.04
(SD = .50)
Composite Mean
Shared Decision Making
Encourages staff to participate in decision making
Accepts suggestions made by staff members
Trusts staff members by delegating responsibilities to
them
Promotes teamwork
Listens to suggestions from staff members
Willingly seeks advice from staff members
6
21
-.20
-.10
.958
.931
24
.04
.925
27
28
33
.08
-.06
-.30
.922
.935
.863
19
16
10
8
13
27
-.06
(SD = .54)
Composite Mean
Professional
Skills
Recognition
of
and
Accomplishments
Gives recognition for work well done
Gives independence to staff when they do their work well
2
5
- 4904 -
-.04
-.18
.968
.919
12
17
Item
Number
SD
10
.24
.916
15
-.18
.825
Ranking
4
17
-.04
(SD = .62)
Composite Mean
- 4905 -
Discussion of Findings
The study reported in this article examined the leadership behaviour
of the school principal in selected special schools in KwaZulu-Natal.
The findings revealed that teacher ratings were very low on all five
leadership dimensions or factors: shared decision making; collegial
relationships; communication of visions and goals, professional and
personal growth; and recognition of professional skills and
accomplishments. Yet studies suggest that these dimensions and the
values embedded in them are key characteristics of effective schools
(see, for example, Mestry & Singh, 2007; Hoog, Johansson &
Olofsson, 2005; Bennell & Akyeampong; Chen & Nan Chun, 2007).
The findings suggest that there may be a lack of professional
development programmes for school leaders at the five special
schools. It seems that key insights on school leadership from
research over the past two decades that should inform any kind of
school leadership training and development are not impacting
practice on the ground in the schools in this study. If principals are
not formally trained in leadership skills, it is difficult to acquire these
skills on their own.
Van der Mescht & Tyala (2008) argues that
leadership practices that involve distribution of responsibilities, a
shared vision, and participatory decision making are more likely to
succeed. There was little evidence of these practices in the five
special schools if one assesses the rating of the teachers. Mestry &
Singh (2007) emphasize that principals who have a strong driving
vision and are able to transfer this to a binding staff vision will be
better able to attain goals. Collier and Esteban (2000) stressed the
need for empathetic dialogue, open communication, and the
maintenance of relationships of trust. Hargreaves & Fink (2003)
argue that one way for leaders to leave a lasting legacy is to ensure
that leadership in a school is developed with and shared by others.
The findings in the study point to the need for reculturing of the five
schools in the study. Reculturing focuses on cultural rather than
structural change and involves a range of strategies to be used in
order to bring about cultural change in a school (MacNeill, 2005).
Schools as organizations are complex adaptive systems that operate
in a particular social context (Painter-Moreland, 2008). There is a
need to constantly examine and reconsider how the habits, values,
beliefs, and expectations that inform the cultural dynamics within an
organizations culture are shaped and sustained. In the context of
schools as organizations, if the habits and behaviour of principals
- 4906 -
- 4907 -
- 4908 -
References
Ali, F. & Botha, R. J. (2005). The role, importance and effectiveness of
school leaders in contributing to public school improvement in
South Africa. Retrieved on January 10, 2009, from
www.sajournalofeducation.co.za/index.php/saje/article/view
/84/40 - 2k
Barbour, C., Clifford, M. & Corrigan-Halpern et al. (2010). What
experience from the field tells us about school leadership and
turn around? Retrieved December 12, 2010, from
http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/leadership_turnaround_scho
ols.pdf
Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership, (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Bennell, P. & Akyeampong, K. (2007) Teacher motivation in subSaharan Africa and South Asia London: DFID.
Bentley, K. L. (2011). An investigation of the self-perceived principal
leadership styles in an era of accountability. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation.
Tampa: College of Education,
University of South Florida.
Botha, N. (2006). Leadership in school-based management: A case
study in selected schools. South African Journal of Education,
26(3), 341-353.
Chen, C. & Nanchung, H. (2007). An empirical study of Chinese
leadership and the relationship between leadership and
motivation. World Transaction on Engineering and Technology
Education, 6, 1, 27-48.
Collier, J. & Esteban, R. (2000). Systemic leadership: Ethical and
effective. The Leadership and Organizational Development
Journal 21(4), 207215.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M. & Meyerson, D. (2005).
School leadership study: Developing successful principals. The
Wallace Foundation
Day, C., Simmons, P., Hopkins, D. et al. (2010). Ten strong claims
about effective school leadership.
Nottingham: National
College for Leadership of Schools and Childrens Services
Department of Education. (1997). Curriculum 2005: Lifelong learning
for the 21st century. Pretoria: Department of Education.
Department of Education. (2001). White Paper 6: building an inclusive
education and training system. Pretoria: Department of
Education.
Department of Education. (2002). Revised National Curriculum
Statements (NCS). Pretoria: Department of Education.
- 4909 -
- 4910 -
- 4911 -
- 4912 -
Copyright of Gender & Behaviour is the property of IFE Centre for Psychological Studies and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.