Mail & Guardian
Mail & Guardian

Why schools underperform

5 min read
Why schools underperform
Why schools underperform

Over the past year, I have worked fairly intensively with the principals and senior management teams (SMT) of a number of “underperforming” schools.

I use the term “underperforming”to describe these schools because all appear, at least superficially, to be reasonably well resourced and well managed yet the performance of their learners in externally benchmarked tests has, in most instances, been abysmal.

Leadership is not distributed
One of the characteristics of effective leaders is their ability to involve all members of their leadership team(s) in decision-making processes. They try to build consensus and, with it, shared responsibility and accountability for all decisions. In schools where there are high levels of distributed leadership, leadership teams meet regularly and independently to plan and monitor progress.

By contrast, in underperforming schools:

  • The principal mostly works in isolation.

  • The SMT does not meet on a regular basis.

  • There is no designated subject/phase head for every subject and/or phase.

  • Subject and/or phase heads seldom meet with members of their subject and/or phase teams for purposes of planning.i

    • Compliance before performance
    The principals and leadership teams of underperforming schools tend to focus their efforts on ensuring that they comply with departmental rules and regulations and the bureaucratic administrative demands of district officials rather than on addressing the needs of their learners.

    Typically, in underperforming schools:

    • Principals spend most of their time on administrative matters rather than on managing and monitoring the quality of teaching and learning.

  • Subject heads, phase heads and teachers devote more time to administrative matters than to lesson preparation and assessment planning.

  • Planning is superficial and haphazard. The principal and leadership teams at high-performance schools are thorough and timely in their planning and deadlines are seldom altered. In underperforming schools, planning is mostly inadequate.

  • Principals and leadership teams spend very little time on detailed planning and seldom involve teachers in the planning process.

  • Principals do not provide their teachers with a year-plan setting out all dates and deadlines for the year prior to the start of the school year.

  • Subject/phase heads do not provide members of their subject/phase teams with detailed work schemes for each grade for the year.

    • Keep to dates and deadlines

    • The monitoring of teacher and learner performance is limited and/or haphazard.

  • There is no systematic collection and analysis of data on learner and teacher performance and attendance.

  • Teachers do not keep a detailed record of the attendance, marks and homework-completion of individual learners.

  • Learner attendance and late-coming is not recorded and monitored on a regular basis.

  • Teacher absence and late-coming is either not recorded or if recorded is not monitored.

    • Clear delegation of responsibility

    • Roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined for promotion post-holders and senior teachers.

  • The schools do not have an organogram showing management structures and lines of authority.

  • There are no clearly defined portfolios assigned to promotion post-holders.

  • Principals seldom engage promotion post-holders in discussions about their performance.

    • Make schools accountable

    • In underperforming schools, those who have been assigned tasks are seldom held accountable for the quality of their performance.

  • Principals of underperforming schools are unwilling to acknowledge that the poor performance of their school may be a consequence of lack of leadership and good management on their part.

  • They do not hold subject and phase heads accountable for the performance of learners in the subject/phase that they head. Poor learner performance in underperforming schools is seldom blamed on poor management and poor teaching.

    • Bad improvement planning

    • In underperforming schools, the school improvement plan is not based on a detailed analysis of performance data and learner needs.

  • The improvement plans are not based on a base-line assessment and detailed needs analysis.

  • The improvement plans do not set specific measurable targets.

    • Teachers lack general skills

    • Improvement plans do not delegate responsibility for the achievement of specific targets to individuals.

  • Improvement plans do not provide detailed descriptions of actions that need to be taken together with dates, deadlines and performance targets.

  • Teachers do not collaborate.

  • Teachers seldom plan together in subject, phase and grade groups.

  • They seldom observe one another teaching or discuss good practice.

  • Principals and teachers lack professional knowledge and skills.

  • Principals and teachers lack in-depth understanding of the factors that have the greatest impact on school success and learner performance.

  • Principals are deficient in critical management and leadership experience and skills.

  • Many teachers have poor subject content knowledge and limited pedagogical skill in the teaching of the subject.

  • Principals and teachers are not clear about their priorities.

    • A culture of discipline
    In his book Good to Great, Jim Collins observes that truly great companies are characterised by “a culture of discipline”, which he defines as having disciplined people, disciplined thought, and disciplined action. Disciplined people are those who are willing to go to extreme lengths to fulfil their responsibilities. Disciplined thought is about everybody in the organisation having a thorough understanding of the organisation’s goals and policies and what is expected from each individual.

    Disciplined action is about the individual contributions of every employee — the things that they do to ensure that the organisation achieves its goals. A culture of discipline of this kind is also a characteristic of all excellent schools. It is about everyone working constantly to establish new and better standards of performance in every sphere of school life and is a prerequisite for improved learner performance.

    Alan Clarke is a former headmaster of Westerford High School in Cape Town and author of the Handbook of School Management and the Handbook for School Governors. See www.ednews.co.za