The Ranking Of Schools: A Deficit in Leadership
“Leadership is based on inspiration,
not domination; on cooperation not intimidation.”- William Arthur Wood
Each year the society looks forward to the ranking of the nation’s schools. The rankings have become an annual feature of the educational landscape and provide much food for thought for analysts, not only in support for the various talk show programmes but also as a way to drive policies in making our education system more inclusive. The annual rankings of schools is based on the performance of students in the grade eleven cohort who obtain five or more subjects, including Mathematics and English Language in the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) examinations. The top ten ranked schools over the years have remained relatively unchanged. Campion College and Immaculate Conception High School have swapped the number one ranking since the publication began. Interestingly, both schools are Roman Catholic run institutions and highly sought after institutions. In fact all the schools ranked in the top ten are either Church owned or Trust owned. However, the concern we must all share is not one regarding the ownership of the schools but one of the continued underperformance of a significant number of our schools. In comparing the rankings over the years it is clear that some schools have become permanent fixtures at the bottom. Our students enter and leave educational facilities at regular intervals, so too our teachers, however, in a number of instances the principalship is the one constant factor in a significant number of these schools. It can be argued that a major reason for the interest in the association between leadership and student outcomes in the desire of policy makers to minimize the persistent disparities in educational achievement between various sub-populations in the education system. As a society we need to build confidence of the public in the capacity of school manager to make a considerable difference to student outcomes. Such confidence can be cultivated in a culture in which our principals are encouraged to embrace the major leadership theories of Instructional and Transformational management.
Instructional Leadership
Instructional leadership theory has its empirical origins in studies undertaken during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s of schools in poor urban communities where students succeeded despite the odds (Edmonds, 1979). Research indicates that schools with this type of leadership usually have a learning climate free of disruption, a system of clear teaching objectives and high teacher expectations for students.
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership theory has its origins in James McGregor Burn’s 1978 publication in which he analyzed the ability of some leaders to engage with staff in ways that inspired them to new levels of energy, commitment and moral purpose, sadly, these leadership theories are lacking in a significant number of our schools.
Instead, what we have is an archaic type of leadership void of transparency and accountability. This type of old-fashioned leadership must be held accountable for the poor performance of student outcomes of their respective schools. Correspondingly, this type of behavior is parallel to some of our politicians who have no idea when it is time to exit the stage. In addition to the impact of leadership on student outcomes one must examine other variables. A major variable that impacts on student outcome is the pedagogical skills of teachers. This type of pedagogy as it relates to the teacher means whether or not the teacher is a veteran as opposed to being a rookie; whether the teacher is Teacher College trained as opposed to having only a university degree. The type of teacher as a variable is critical to student outcomes. This include whether or not the teacher is experienced with regards to Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) requirements as opposed to inexperienced ones: teachers who have actually marked CSEC as opposed to those who have not. It is fair to assume that highly sought after schools will be more able not only to attract the more experienced teachers, but also, would be better able to retain such teachers. According to educator Errol Douglas, who holds a Master of Science degree in Education Administration and Supervision from Fordham University of New York, as well as a Master of Science in Special Education from Hunter College of the City University of New York argues that those in authority must examine other variables with regards to student outcomes. He believes that other variables such as the type of students chosen for the top ranked schools as opposed to the students who are placed at the lower ranked schools also significantly impact results. He added that the availability of resources and curriculum must be thoroughly examined. He acknowledges this as a critical tool needed when critically analyzing the results and ranking of schools, based on their performance in the CSEC. Furthermore, according to Douglas the conclusive results as denoted in the ranking of schools based on CSEC performance does not necessarily give an accurate picture of a school’s performance. For example, technical schools which are in the lower performance rank subscribe to a curriculum that is geared towards technical based skills and examinations, not necessarily the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC). He argues that even though such schools might be successful regarding the curriculum and output, the wrong lens are used to judge them. Above all, he concludes that traditional based grammar schools attract a different clientele or caliber of academic students based on the current Grade Six Achievement Test (GSAT). Notwithstanding my colleague Errol’s premise I strongly believe that the positioning of schools whether at the top or the least ranked is grounded in the quality of leadership provided at the institution. The National Education Inspectorate (NEI) in a 2015 report on public schools inspection mentioned that school leadership and management were unsatisfactory in forty per cent of schools inspected at that time. It bares thought that students in schools with superior leadership and management tend to perform better than their counterparts. While much work has been done regarding the leadership deficit in our schools much more work is required in order to bring all schools on as level a playing field as is humanly possible. There is a tendency in the society to speak of School Boards merely in academic terms regarding school leadership and management. Regrettably, in too many instances the Office of the Principalship and that of Board Chairperson are one and the same. Perhaps, this attitude is one reason why many of our school boards and schools are performing unsatisfactorily. Obviously, all stakeholders need to redouble their efforts in working assiduously in order to change the public’s perception surrounding school boards and management. We need to look closely on the composition of school boards since in too many instances board members are rotating from positions to positions instead of being replaced after serving a three year term which is what is recommended. Is it that the leadership deficit is so widespread that we are unable to get qualified and motivated volunteers to serve our educational institutions? In order for our students to excel we must find ways and methods to rid the education system of the small portion of such principals who believe and behave as if they have a sense of life entitlement to such a position. If as a principal you are not performing or perhaps you are unable to perform then it is simple, do the nation a great service and walk away, quietly. The practice of extending the tenure of underperforming principals is not in the best interest of our students. We cannot afford to continue playing a game of Russian roulette with the future of our children by endorsing a skewed strand of principalship, which focuses on the control of teachers rather than the focal point of a school which is ensuring that effective teaching and learning takes place. The State needs to get proactive and guarantee that all schools, especially struggling schools have in place inspired, instructional and transformative principalship as the way forward in insuring improved student outcomes. In the wise words of John Fitzgerald Kennedy “Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.”
Wayne Campbell is an educator and social commentator with an interest in development policies as they affect culture and or gender issues.
waykam@yahoo.com
@WayneCamo
Each year the society looks forward to the ranking of the nation’s schools. The rankings have become an annual feature of the educational landscape and provide much food for thought for analysts, not only in support for the various talk show programmes but also as a way to drive policies in making our education system more inclusive. The annual rankings of schools is based on the performance of students in the grade eleven cohort who obtain five or more subjects, including Mathematics and English Language in the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) examinations. The top ten ranked schools over the years have remained relatively unchanged. Campion College and Immaculate Conception High School have swapped the number one ranking since the publication began. Interestingly, both schools are Roman Catholic run institutions and highly sought after institutions. In fact all the schools ranked in the top ten are either Church owned or Trust owned. However, the concern we must all share is not one regarding the ownership of the schools but one of the continued underperformance of a significant number of our schools. In comparing the rankings over the years it is clear that some schools have become permanent fixtures at the bottom. Our students enter and leave educational facilities at regular intervals, so too our teachers, however, in a number of instances the principalship is the one constant factor in a significant number of these schools. It can be argued that a major reason for the interest in the association between leadership and student outcomes in the desire of policy makers to minimize the persistent disparities in educational achievement between various sub-populations in the education system. As a society we need to build confidence of the public in the capacity of school manager to make a considerable difference to student outcomes. Such confidence can be cultivated in a culture in which our principals are encouraged to embrace the major leadership theories of Instructional and Transformational management.
Instructional Leadership
Instructional leadership theory has its empirical origins in studies undertaken during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s of schools in poor urban communities where students succeeded despite the odds (Edmonds, 1979). Research indicates that schools with this type of leadership usually have a learning climate free of disruption, a system of clear teaching objectives and high teacher expectations for students.
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership theory has its origins in James McGregor Burn’s 1978 publication in which he analyzed the ability of some leaders to engage with staff in ways that inspired them to new levels of energy, commitment and moral purpose, sadly, these leadership theories are lacking in a significant number of our schools.
Instead, what we have is an archaic type of leadership void of transparency and accountability. This type of old-fashioned leadership must be held accountable for the poor performance of student outcomes of their respective schools. Correspondingly, this type of behavior is parallel to some of our politicians who have no idea when it is time to exit the stage. In addition to the impact of leadership on student outcomes one must examine other variables. A major variable that impacts on student outcome is the pedagogical skills of teachers. This type of pedagogy as it relates to the teacher means whether or not the teacher is a veteran as opposed to being a rookie; whether the teacher is Teacher College trained as opposed to having only a university degree. The type of teacher as a variable is critical to student outcomes. This include whether or not the teacher is experienced with regards to Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC) requirements as opposed to inexperienced ones: teachers who have actually marked CSEC as opposed to those who have not. It is fair to assume that highly sought after schools will be more able not only to attract the more experienced teachers, but also, would be better able to retain such teachers. According to educator Errol Douglas, who holds a Master of Science degree in Education Administration and Supervision from Fordham University of New York, as well as a Master of Science in Special Education from Hunter College of the City University of New York argues that those in authority must examine other variables with regards to student outcomes. He believes that other variables such as the type of students chosen for the top ranked schools as opposed to the students who are placed at the lower ranked schools also significantly impact results. He added that the availability of resources and curriculum must be thoroughly examined. He acknowledges this as a critical tool needed when critically analyzing the results and ranking of schools, based on their performance in the CSEC. Furthermore, according to Douglas the conclusive results as denoted in the ranking of schools based on CSEC performance does not necessarily give an accurate picture of a school’s performance. For example, technical schools which are in the lower performance rank subscribe to a curriculum that is geared towards technical based skills and examinations, not necessarily the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC). He argues that even though such schools might be successful regarding the curriculum and output, the wrong lens are used to judge them. Above all, he concludes that traditional based grammar schools attract a different clientele or caliber of academic students based on the current Grade Six Achievement Test (GSAT). Notwithstanding my colleague Errol’s premise I strongly believe that the positioning of schools whether at the top or the least ranked is grounded in the quality of leadership provided at the institution. The National Education Inspectorate (NEI) in a 2015 report on public schools inspection mentioned that school leadership and management were unsatisfactory in forty per cent of schools inspected at that time. It bares thought that students in schools with superior leadership and management tend to perform better than their counterparts. While much work has been done regarding the leadership deficit in our schools much more work is required in order to bring all schools on as level a playing field as is humanly possible. There is a tendency in the society to speak of School Boards merely in academic terms regarding school leadership and management. Regrettably, in too many instances the Office of the Principalship and that of Board Chairperson are one and the same. Perhaps, this attitude is one reason why many of our school boards and schools are performing unsatisfactorily. Obviously, all stakeholders need to redouble their efforts in working assiduously in order to change the public’s perception surrounding school boards and management. We need to look closely on the composition of school boards since in too many instances board members are rotating from positions to positions instead of being replaced after serving a three year term which is what is recommended. Is it that the leadership deficit is so widespread that we are unable to get qualified and motivated volunteers to serve our educational institutions? In order for our students to excel we must find ways and methods to rid the education system of the small portion of such principals who believe and behave as if they have a sense of life entitlement to such a position. If as a principal you are not performing or perhaps you are unable to perform then it is simple, do the nation a great service and walk away, quietly. The practice of extending the tenure of underperforming principals is not in the best interest of our students. We cannot afford to continue playing a game of Russian roulette with the future of our children by endorsing a skewed strand of principalship, which focuses on the control of teachers rather than the focal point of a school which is ensuring that effective teaching and learning takes place. The State needs to get proactive and guarantee that all schools, especially struggling schools have in place inspired, instructional and transformative principalship as the way forward in insuring improved student outcomes. In the wise words of John Fitzgerald Kennedy “Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.”
Wayne Campbell is an educator and social commentator with an interest in development policies as they affect culture and or gender issues.
waykam@yahoo.com
@WayneCamo
Comments
Post a Comment