It is all about TURNAROUND rather than IMPROVEMENT

So many people in bureaucratic positions in education see the challenges in South African education as things that can be fixed by having a TWO DAYS workshop with the staff, and then they (the staff) can get on with it.  Or fixing it through another policy and/or manual for principals to follow.  Unfortunately, most things in life worth changing need HARD WORK, and serious COMMITMENT for a long period  of time to change, and to maintain in an acceptable and presentable manner and/or level/position.  This is nothing different to what we need to do to turnaround the status of learner performance in South Africa.  The real challenge which I want to raise in this conversation, is the importance of KNOWING WHAT to do WHEN, BY WHOM and HOW.  Meaning, when you walk into a school, obviously after analysing the performance status of the school in total, WHAT to look for, WHERE, and HOW to go about changing the situation.  Below is a display of 6 different options:

So, it not about a 'one-size-fits-all' approach, but rather UNDERSTANDING the nature, level and source of the decline in the school, and the real challenge is to IDENTIFY the correct strategy and remedy for that specific school.  In the above, the strategies range from (i) revisioning the management of the school, to (ii) reconstructing the management, to (iii) moving the management of the school to a district level under the leadership of the District Director, to (iv) contracting a suitable turnaround strategist or organisation to manage the school (or even a few schools), to (v) the provincial and/or national department taking over the running of the school(s), to finally (vi) totally transforming the management of the school.

The nature of these options is that they range from 'underperforming' (option 1 and 2), to 'dysfunctional' (option 3 and 4), to 'chaotic' (option 5 and 6).  Within this model it is assumed that you have attempted some of the approaches and remedies on the left before (other options), and therefore when you move to the more serious (some will call it more harsh) intervention strategies, that all the roleplayers know that other less harsh strategies have been attempted but did not yield the necessary results.  Meaning, that those in the process within the organisation are aware that they WILL move to a more intense strategic approach to change, if the organisation is not responding to the current strategies.  The members of the organisation are therefore knowledgable and aware about the CONSEQUENCES of failure or non-responding or lack of improvement in the organisation.

Unfortunately, we have not built up the necessary historical profile of underperforming, dysfunctional and chaotic schools.  Safe to say that the information is available, but we don't have the commitment to turn the information into decision making motivations.  When we decide on working out a strategic direction for schools, most of the time the conversation is not based on the DATA and INFORMATION that is staring us all in the face.  Rather, we try to theorise and philosophy and often even romanticise about the status and nature of the school, and therefore devise strategies which are often not RELEVANT, APPROPRIATE, FIT-FOR-PURPOSE, etc.

The focus of the strategies we agree on is often coloured with 'political' nuances of POLITICALLY CORRECT WORDS, NAMES, etc.  For example, it would not look good if a school is called 'dysfunctional' or 'chaotic'.  What would the people (teachers) think about it if we call it that?  Would the teachers not feel demoralise by the name and even do less?  Does that mean that we are admitting we made mistakes, or that we are not good enough, or that we are partly to blame, or that we are not doing our work?  etc.  All of these and more, are often the driving force for calling the strategy and the nature of the challenge in terms which are comfortable to the 'hear' of others, rather to the real situation that is prevailing in our schools.

Finally, the model that is displayed above is assuming that the education systems higher than schools are in a status of order, stability and well capacitated to deal with the challenges of these schools.  In our case, we have to take a hard look at this issue.  Most commentators in education believe that our systems higher than schools are equal or in a worse state than schools, and therefore would not warrant them to assist or even change these schools.  If true, then we have to contextualise the above strategy in a way that we normalise our education system, and attempt to get the 'higher systems' to take their rightful place within the education system.  All of these can be turned around by make a DECISION.  To decide not to continue the current employment regime of appointing people in positions when they don't have the ability, capability and capacity to either do, or have the potential to do the work.  Well, we are in trouble, but we CAN get out of this mud!!

Timeframe to Turnaround your school

This might be the most popular question when I engage with colleagues, focusing on the turning around of schools.  More often, education officials want you to do a 'microwave' event, like a two days workshop, and then hope that 'you have now informed them what to do' and 'now they can go back to their schools and do it'!  Well, I need to disappoint them that I am not a magician, but rather a turnaround strategist.  I have no doubt that all schools, meaning those who want to, can be turned around within three to five years. The example below will be based on a 3 year turnaround focus.

The domains of challenges which will confront you as the change agent, are the following in order of sequence:

• ownership (3 months);
• planning (6 months);
• curriculum management (15 months);
• educator orientation (6 months); and
• sustainability strategy (6 months).

The first domain will be the 'ownership' domain, meaning the extend to which people, and in particular the change agent or the leader takes full responsibility for what the current status of the school is.  The more you engage in 'how others are undermining and how they are not doing their work', the more you disempower yourself to solve your problems.  One way of undermining yourself is to focus and continue to talk about what other are not doing, over whom you have no control and/or influence.  You have to do what you have to do - and the more you focus on your ability (or inability) at this point, the more your reflective engagements will show you how different you can do things to get better results.  With this approach, we are not asking you to accept other people's mistakes and problems as your own, but rather to look at what they are doing, and how they can doing things differently, and what influence you have over their change in behaviour.  And we will be surprise as to how often we give away our power by not realising that we have or had power in the first place.

The second domain is all about planning.  We have heard the saying which says that 'if you fail to plan, you plan to fail'.  This is absolutely true!  Woody Allen states that 80% of success is all about pitching up, being on time, and being prepared for what you will be facing.  It is not about being brilliant, being a genius.  Very often I find myself in conversations where others feel I know a lot about the a topic ... NO, I just prepared myself on the topic, that is all!  And in schools, planning and being prepared are all about the eight School Readiness Components, namely (i) attendance (first teachers and then learners); (ii) teacher information; (iii) learner information; (iv) annual planning; (v) timetabling; (vi) teaching and learning schedules; (vii) organogram; and (viii) teaching and learning support materials. And we will discuss the level of readiness in another blog.

While the first two domains are supportive, the third domain is the core of what education is all about ... the delivering and managing of the curriculum through a proper framework.  Most schools 'manage' the curriculum through HOPE, which is another name for 'I don't knowing what is going on' in my school.  This 'hope mentality' is based on the notion that 'teachers are professionals' and that they would do their work.  Well, it is not taking place, and by wishing that it will take place in future without putting mechanisms in place, is irresponsible from any manager.  Because management is all about evaluation (checking what is going on) and monitoring (checking what is happening is what is suppose to happen), accountability is crucial within this process.  And it is a systemic process from national and provincial level (education management plan), to the district level (curriculum management model), to the school level (instructional management model), to the departmental/subject level (teaching and learning model), to the classroom level (learning and assessment model), and to the learner level (learning and expectation plan).

The fourth domain is one of the most challenging issues to deal with, namely the educator orientation as to 'what education, curriculum, teaching, learning, assessment and learner success' is all about.  Very often, and due to the Apartheid training and development of some of our teachers, they have taken on a believes position that is inherently what was part of the agenda of the then government (perhaps they don't know this consciously).  For example, a significant amount of teachers in South Africa believe that 'a good test/ examination' is 'when a few must fail, a few must pass well, and the bulk must be in the middle or average'.  Well, it is sad if we believe that 'some learners must fail by design ... just hoping that those destined to fail do not include our personal sons or daughters in another school.  I often call this issue the BEAR IN EDUCATION, meaning teachers' Believes, Expectations, Attitudes and Relationships.

The final domain is the sustainability strategy.  Most underperforming schools are managed on a day-to-day, week-to-week, and at best month-to-month survival basis.  There is no long term strategy, other than often individuals giving their own opinions when you question them about the 'vision' of the school.  And these opinions will not include all the stakeholders in the education terrain, and more importantly, the recipients of the results of education, meaning the community (not school community).  There is often a perception that what someone somewhere in the chain of activities is doing, should just be accepted by the next person or group.  A very explosive example is the inability and/or unsuitability of most of our youth or matriculants who can't get a job after matric because they are not 'job ready'.  Well, some might say that they should not be job ready since they are suppose to go to higher education institutions.  We repeat this non-sensical process of preparing 100% of matriculants to go to higher education institutions, knowing full well that at best only 20% of them will eventually end up going, while the rest (80%) have not been prepared for being 'job ready' in any way, whether being employed or self-employed.  The interlinks and connection between these systems must be tightened in order for education to benefit those who are engaged in it ... the learners.

All these domains will be discussed in more detail at a later stage.