Creating People-centred Schools: School Organization and Change in South Africa - Notes
What is an ‘Organization’?
The term 'organize' and 'organized' usually describes favorable characteristics or achievements resulting from planned effort rather than luck.It involves planning and successfully executing plans to achieve goals, and getting things or people to work together.
An organization is any group working together in a planned, coordinated way to achieve a common purpose.
Examples include soccer teams, burial societies, teachers' unions, churches, businesses, charities.
Activity 1: Is my school an organization?
Criteria to assess if a school is an organization:
Does it consist of a group of people?
Are the individuals working together?
In a planned, coordinated way to achieve a common purpose?
Does this group have a common purpose?
Is a school an ‘Organization’?
A school can be considered an organization if it meets the criteria: a group of people (lecturers, learners, administrative staff) gathered for the purpose of training teachers.
Even administrative staff, though not directly involved in training, contribute to making the training possible.
Parents can also be included as they are represented in governing bodies and have a direct interest in their children's education.
Members work together in a planned way to achieve their purpose, though there may be tensions.
Organizations can differ greatly even if they meet the four criteria and might have a common purpose while not always achieving it in an organized way.
This is due to suspicion among members, or top-down instructions rather than joint discussions.
In organizations, members contribute their skills and intellectual resources to achieve the goals of that institution.
Members may simply accept instructions, or they may participate in decision-making.
What will we do in the rest of Section Two?
The section aims to understand how South African schools are organized, exploring the following questions:
What are the organizational characteristics of most South African schools?
Most South African schools could be described as hierarchical.
This often means that members don’t work together as teams.
Decisions are made by a central authority.
The decisions are transmitted down to other members.
Is this form of organization still appropriate for schools in South Africa?
The answer is probably ‘no’.
In a world increasingly characterized by rapid change, and in a South Africa committed to democracy, organizations need to be structured so that decisions can be made quickly and in a participative manner.
We will find out about some of the key changes that need to be made in order to transform schools.
Why are South African schools organized in this way?
The hierarchy and bureaucracy that characterizes South African education is not unique.
In many ways it reflects a dominant theory of organization and management called ‘scientific management’.
What do we need to do to change our organizations into more appropriate organizations?
We maintain that it is important to change the structure – in other words, to set up committees and processes which allow all members to participate in decision-making.
We also need to change people’s attitudes (the school’s culture) and teach them how to operate successfully in these new organizations.
Finally, why are South African schools so authoritarian and hierarchical?
We find that while international ideas about how to create efficient organizations (scientific management theory) were an important influence, another major influence was the conservative political philosophy of South Africa’s apartheid rulers.
How are South African schools organized?
To understand schools as organizations, think about your own experiences of how schools work.
A good way to start building an understanding of schools as organizations is to think about your own experiences of how schools work.
A day in the life of Thuthuka school
Teachers are slow to start the day, learners loiter, and the school fence is ineffective.
A Science teacher's absence disrupts class due to lack of a staff development policy.
Geography and Biology teachers are denied permission for a field trip due to rigid timetable constraints.
The principal is overwhelmed with meetings and disciplinary issues.
Activity 2: Comparing Thuthuka with my school
How do the different people at the school relate to one another? Who has authority, and over whom? How do people respond to this authority? How do the different people understand their responsibilities?
Do the events at this school sound familiar? Write down any incidents which you have experienced at your school too (either as a teacher or as a learner). Do you think these incidents are a consequence of individual attitudes, or of the way in which the school is managed?
Making sense of relationships at Thuthuka
Thuthuka is an organization with problems where committed teachers feel frustrated due to management attitudes and rigid structures.
Instructions from the Chief Superintendent of Education and Management (CSEM) disrupt schooling without staff discussion.
The school timetable does not allow good educational ideas like a field trip to take place.
Thuthuka does not have a collaborative style of operation.
Teachers work alone.
Management figures make decisions alone.
Non-management members have little power.
Principals and HoDs are relatively powerless.
A consequence of this individualism seems to be increasing levels of demotivation and demoralization among good and bad teachers.
Like many other South African schools, Thuthuka is organized hierarchically.
Hierarchical organizations assume that the people at the top have the right to give instructions and that those below them will obey these instructions.
Each level of the hierarchy is given more power and authority than the level below it.
Each person is given a particular function to carry out and is not expected to discuss this with other members of the organization.
In a hierarchical organization:
authority is achieved through appointment to a senior position in the organization;
relationships are clearly defined and arranged vertically (top-down);
responsibilities are clearly defined and increase with seniority.
A hierarchy allows for quick and unambiguous decision-making.
The clear division of responsibilities clarifies who to approach for a particular action (or problem), and who to hold accountable if that action is not carried out.
Thuthuka's hierarchy doesn’t actually achieve its aim of increased efficiency.
The principal is so caught up in small, daily problems that he doesn’t have the time to carry out the important leadership functions associated with his position in the hierarchy (such as dealing with poor teaching or bad timetabling).
Another factor which undermines efficiency is the strict division of responsibilities.
Strict division of responsibilities undermines efficiency, as seen with discipline.
'Juniors' in the hierarchy often ignore management instructions.
Schools bring together different people with conflicting interests.
They are human constructions, and their culture may prevent efficient functioning even if structures are in place.
We must explore the organizational culture, and see how this impacts on the functioning of the organization.
The views of Thuthuka teachers on relationships at their school
Teachers perceive distance from management due to heavy workloads and lack of cooperation.
Learner respect for teachers varies, with emphasis on formal authority such as addressing teachers as "sir" or "ma'am".
The CSEM and SEM have authority over school events and decisions, limiting teachers' autonomy.
HoDs check syllabus coverage but can't alter the timetable, while teachers' decision-making authority is limited.
Key characteristics of hierarchies
Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and divided by position and status.
Strict procedures and rules specify task execution.
Authority flows downwards, limiting teacher or learner participation.
The style of management may encourage involvement through consultations, though the structure is hierarchical.
Poor implementation can cause the system to break down due to resistance from those who feel excluded.
Demotivated attitudes of teachers and learners are problems that may reduce their limited power in the hierarchy even further.
Activity 3: Exploring how hierarchies affect relationships at your school
Think of a school you have experienced.
Write down ways in which clearly-defined hierarchies, and the division of responsibilities, rules and procedures, make it easier for your school to function efficiently.
Write down ways in which these characteristics of hierarchical organization may have inhibited the school’s ability to operate and innovate.
Possible strengths of hierarchical organizations
Hierarchies offer efficiency, transparency, and clear accountability through clear procedures.
Clear procedures:
Various irritating forms from the department! – do serve a purpose.
Hierarchies also give people in organizations an idea of who is ultimately responsible for carrying out procedures (i.e. accountability).
Clear procedures mean that people can be held accountable when things go wrong.
Clear communication ensures job clarity.
Division of responsibility allows for expertise and effectiveness.
Some weaknesses of hierarchical organizations
Hierarchies often don’t function as well as they should.
The problem doesn’t lie with hierarchies per se; but instead with poor implementation of the system.
They are too rigid in rapidly changing contexts like South Africa and inhibit innovation.
Why are hierarchical styles under attack?
Hierarchical organizations may not be appropriate when society values change and innovation over stability and efficiency.
Their emphasis on specialisms and authority creates divisions.
They hinder participation and integration of functions.
They make the organization inflexible and unable to respond to immediate needs or changes.
They inhibit innovation due to focus on procedures.
Rapid change requires organizations that can communicate quickly and effectively.
What values underlie the hierarchical model?
McLagan and Nel state that there are a number of assumptions underlying the hierarchical model of organization.
The model began as a consequence of Frederick Taylor’s attempt to find an efficient form of work organization in factories.
Taylor had suggested this would be best achieved if organizations:
were arranged hierarchically – with clear lines of accountability and clear procedures;
divided work into small parts and gave each part to specialists: the functions of thinking (designing products, planning processes, etc.) and doing (physical work) were separated (i.e. people should specialize).
These assumptions no longer hold in South Africa.
Our new educational policy suggests that teachers now have to:
participate in constructing curricula;
participate in making decisions about how schools are run;
think (plan) as well as do (teach);
work with other teachers in planning learning programmes, devising suitable materials, teaching, and conducting continuous assessment (work in teams, not as individuals).
This clearly suggests that schools need to be structured differently so that we begin ‘learning’ new kinds of values.
How do hierarchical structures impact on relationships, attitudes and behaviour in schools?
A hierarchical structure may have developed an attitude within the CSEM that he has the right to instruct without consultation.
It has also created an attitude among his juniors – the principal and teachers – that they simply have to accept this decision.
Some teachers want to teach Geography and Biology in an integrated way, but are unable to do so because of the way the timetable has been structured.
Teachers have little say in designing the goals of the school, or in decision-making.
Conclusion
McLagan, Nel, Mbigi, and Mahanjana have raised a number of interesting challenges for teachers.
One possible reason for the problems we face in our schools is that they simply don’t ‘fit’ into the society developing around them.
South African schools tend to be hierarchical because they emerged at a time when societies were relatively stable and when work processes valued efficiency above creativity.
South Africa's particular context of apartheid deepened the hierarchical nature of South African schools, causing most of them to be more authoritarian than the hierarchically structured schools in many other countries.
‘Classical’ management theory and school organization
Clearer understanding of the different theories helps us understand and change the institutions in which we work.
South African education policy has shifted from authoritarian thinking to more participative styles.
Theory is a set of ideas and arguments that explains something in our everyday lives in a way which enables us to begin making changes to that ‘something’.
Arguments against ‘theory’ Management is often regarded as essentially a practical activity. The determination of aims, the allocation of resources and the evaluation of effectiveness all involve action. Practitioners tend to be dismissive of theories and concepts for their alleged remoteness from the ‘real’ school situation. School and college staff have a somewhat ambivalent attitude towards theory. The teachers themselves commonly regard theory with a varying mixture of respect and suspicion: respect because it is thought of as difficult, and suspicion because its bearings are unclear on the detailed decision as to what to do next Monday morning …
Yet, in an applied discipline such as educational management, the acid test of theory is its relevance to practice.
How to make theory useful
Theory is valuable and significant if it serves to explain practice and provide managers with a guide to action.
Theories are most useful for influencing practice when they suggest new ways in which events and situations can be perceived.
The use of the term ‘theory’ need not imply something remote from the day- to-day experience of the teacher.
There are four main arguments to support the view that managers have much to learn from an appreciation of theory:
Reliance on facts as the sole guide to action is unsatisfactory because all evidence requires interpretation
Dependence on personal experience in interpreting facts and making decisions is narrow because it discards the knowledge of others.
Errors of judgement can occur while experience is being acquired.
Experience may be particularly unhelpful as the sole guide to action when the practitioner begins to operate in a different context.
‘Classical’ management theories: how they can help us understand school organization
Some early management theory
Two thinkers – Taylor and Weber – probably had more impact on ‘classical’ management theory than anyone else.
Taylor (1911) and scientific management
Taylor claimed that efficiency could be achieved by working out the best way to do a job scientifically.
Each job was broken down into a series of small, related tasks.
There should be a clear division of responsibility between the management and the workers.
Management should do all the thinking; they should set the goals, plan and supervise.
The workers should not think at all; they should just do the tasks required of them.
Weber (1947) and bureaucracy
Weber described the structure of large organizations – like government departments, schools, and hospitals – which were divided into offices, staffed by officials of various ranks.
Bureaucratic organizations like these have clear-cut divisions of labour, a hierarchical structure of authority, and clear-cut rules and regulations.
Decisions were made by seniors, without reference to others in the organization.
In theory, people are selected and promoted according to what they can do, rather than according to class privilege or social connection.
Weber believed that bureaucracies promoted democracy.
Weber stated that the growth of bureaucracies was inevitable for large-scale organizations.
Some features of bureaucracy
A hierarchical chain of command.
Specialization of jobs.
Written rules and policies.
Standardized procedures defining each job.
Impersonal relations.
Limited responsibility.
A ‘modern’ response to early management theories
The most significant change in thinking about management has been the increased focus on the people who make up organizations.
Mayo (1933), emphasized the human side of organizations.
‘Human Relations Movement’ made an important contribution to organization theory. It stressed the importance of individuals and teams in making organizations work. It emphasized people’s needs for self-fulfilment, job satisfaction, and a sense of belonging.
Another important management theorist who challenged ‘scientific management’ was Thomas Greenfield.
Greenfield (1985) stressed that organizations are made by human beings, and we cannot understand them unless we take individual beliefs and perceptions into account.
How I have used ‘theory’ practically
Is our purpose primarily efficient production?
Greenfield really excited me. For the first time I understood structures as human constructions.
Thuthuka teachers react to the impact of ‘classical’ management theory
There is a hierarchical chain of command, with clear decision-making procedures.
However, a school is not the same as a factory, and teachers have some freedom in their classrooms.
It is difficult to separate "doing" from "thinking" in schools.
Individual schools are too small to require bureaucratic procedures.
Learners are not shoes on a production line, and schools are more complex and human than a factory organization.
We won’t achieve change if we look only at structures.
The importance of structure and culture in school change
Structures set the framework for the culture of an organization.
Greenfield states that structure is a product of human interaction.
What is ‘culture’?
Culture is the way of life of the people within a particular school.
It refers to the underlying beliefs and assumptions, norms and values, relationships and interactions, shared by people in a school.
Different kinds of ‘school cultures’ emerge through the different beliefs and assumptions, norms and values, relationships and interactions that are dominant in the particular school.
These describe teacher interaction in a staff- room – the language they use and the rituals they establish.
Norms.
These evolve in working groups of teachers in terms of lesson planning or monitoring learner progress.
Dominant values.
These are espoused by a school in its aims or ‘mission statement’
A philosophy.
For example, this guides the dominant approach to teaching and learning of particular subjects in a school.
The rules of the game.
These must be learnt by new teachers in order to get along in the school or their department.
The feeling or climate.
This is conveyed by the entrance hall to a school, or the way in which learners’ work is displayed (or not displayed).
You need to provide examples of how things can be done differently, and what benefits such change will bring to the school.
Cultures are not always positive.
Living in different cultures
Culture is the way people make sense of their daily lives.
We all live in more than one culture.
The relationship between structure and culture in school organization
McLagan and Nel suggest that structure influences culture, that the structure of a school creates the framework for values and relationships (in other words, the culture of the school).
Teachers, managers, and learners in an authoritarian school will learn to relate authoritatively.
Hopkins model of structure and culture relationship
Structure influences culture AND culture constantly influences structure.
One has to work on both.
Activity 6: The relationship between ‘structure’ and ‘culture’ in schools
The writers distinguish between the appearance of change and the reality of change. What is the difference? Can you provide an example from your own experience – in schools or other organizations – which illustrates this difference?
The writers use a ‘model’, developed by Rosenholtz, to explain differences in school cultures. But, they argue, school cultures aren’t as simple as this. Instead they provide another model – developed from their own experiences of school change – which includes a continuum of cultures. What are their four ‘cultures’? What is the relationship between work on cultures versus work on structure in each? Provide examples of your own to illustrate the four kinds of schools.
Using the ‘continuum’ to analyse two South African schools
Analysing Case study 1
It seems that this school has achieved a sensible balance between work on structure and culture.
You could argue that a change in the culture of teaching prompts a change in the structure
Otherwise, we could get an appearance of change but not the reality of change (to use the language of Hopkins et al.).
In other words, schools create the spaces to make change possible – for instance, they may well introduce 1-hour long lessons.
Activity 7: Analysing the change process at St Mark’s
Draw a diagram (see the example on page 43) that represents the relationship between structural and cultural factors in the changes at this school.
Explain why you think problems seem to be emerging in this school. (Go back to Hopkins. How would he characterize this school?)
What would you suggest teachers in this school do in order to ensure that the desired change occurs? Are you able to represent this diagrammatically? (Again, see whether Hopkins is helpful.)
Our interpretation of Case study 2
Another problem is that parents and learners may not have the skills required for democratic participation.
Our advice to St Mark’s
These actions would also be structural interventions.
Why are many South African schools hierarchical and authoritarian?
Apartheid education lacked legitimacy which led to a crisis in South African education.
Teachers and principals were controlled by the rules, systems and procedures of a hierarchical and centralized education system.
Public administration was characterized by an approach which led to a rule- driven, secretive and hierarchical management structure.
Managerial training and development were inappropriate and characterized by the collection of qualifications and certificates.
Thuthuka teachers begin discussing South Africa’s educational history
Schools worldwide were influenced by ‘classical’ management theories which stressed the benefits of hierarchical and bureaucratic organization.
The historical context of education in South Africa
Compulsory education was introduced for whites, but not for blacks.
Until the 1950s, the education of black children was the responsibility of the church, through mission schools.
Education in South Africa was unequal and segregated.
Bantu Education is introduced
In 1953, Bantu Education was introduced when H F Verwoerd was the Minister of Native Affairs.
Verwoerd created centralized control over ‘black’ education by moving it from the provinces to a national Department of Native Affairs.
While Bantu Education is often criticized for its underlying ‘philosophy’, it should be noted that schools for all South Africans underwent both philosophical and organizational changes when the National Party took power.
The National Party took its inspiration from a conservative Calvinist reading of the Bible and believed that schools – for both whites and blacks – should instil respect for Christian values and for the nation in learners.
The education departments, of course, were hierarchically structured.
This, and their increased size, led to massive bureaucracies with clear procedures being defined for virtually every action (most vividly represented by the forms teachers constantly fill out!).
There was also a heavy emphasis on control, obeying orders, ‘policing’ by superordinate officials, and dependence on the part of school staff – a culture of control and compliance.
The system was both highly centralized (especially for blacks) and fragmented (19 education departments).
Protests and unrest: challenges to an authoritarian system
The government realized that its schooling system had lost its legitimacy – in other words, learners no longer trusted it and, thus, it had lost its ability to ‘socialize’ learners into apartheid values.
In Hopkins’ language, there was the appearance of change but not the reality of change.
The government responded by setting up the De Lange Commission.
In the late 1980s, a strategy to make schools ‘ungovernable’ was launched by learners.
What can we learn from our educational history?
Schools are structured in the way they are because of globally dominant ideas about school management.
Our particular history (and the beliefs of dominant groups in our history) also had an important role to play in shaping the kinds of schools we have.
These societal needs led to a ‘family’ of organizational and management theories known as classical management theory.
Simply resourcing schools better, or creating new policies and structures (like SRCs, or PTSAs, for instance), is not enough.
We need to build new cultures too, and this is a long and difficult job.