We need leaders in our schools

So the IBE matric results were released on Friday and, no surprise, the posh schools all got 100% university entrance passes; their matrics averaged over two As apiece and there were so many who got seven, eight, nine, or even 10 distinctions, that those who earned an old-fashioned full house of six look like the most desperate bunch of under-achievers.

The announcement led, on a slow news day, to discussions on the phone-in radio shows and lead stories on the newscasts. I was in the car all day, so I heard most of them.

And, of course, I’ve got my two cents worth of opinion on the matter.

The obvious question was what the results from the state schools are going to look like when they become known next week, and from there it was a short step to asking the big one: Why is there such a chasm in achievement between the schools who released their results this week and those who will do so next?

I generalise of course: not all independent schools produce great results, and not all of them are well-resourced and expertly managed. And there are many state schools who have 100% pass rates, and who churn out top achievers, including some who operate under appallingly poor conditions.

In trying to unpack all of this the obvious place to start is at the chasm in resources. Some of those independent schools charge a million rand for five years’ worth of schooling, and they have parents who are willing and able to pay it.

They have the buildings, fields and facilities, and attract top teachers. So do the best of the state schools – former model C institutions that look like, and operate exactly as the best of the private schools do.

And when you speak about inequality, you are talking about our past. Uneven resourcing of education was the cornerstone of apartheid education and 22 years of democracy hasn’t dented that legacy.

The radio hosts and their callers spoke about what to do to close that gap and, understandably, they got nowhere.

It’s about money of course, and if anyone knew how to get rid of the inequalities then this, along with many other problems, will go away. But we don’t of course, and so people spoke of making the private schools reach out to the underperformers, lifting them, and of redistributing the good teachers (that’s one that Gauteng MEC Lesufi comes back to from time to time).

What no-one did – even though it’s the obvious thing – was talk about leadership.

What do the high performers, public and private have in common? They function – on every one of the 200-odd days in the school year. And they do so because school management insists on it.

In the case of the private (and many state schools) it’s easy. Principals are well qualified and well paid. They are assisted by councils or governing bodies made up of experts in various fields who are efficient and motivated, and they have the resources to put plans in place.

Getting everyone to do their jobs properly is not so difficult there – it’s what happens in successful organisations everywhere. But what happens in those under-performing schools? Who is the principal, and what does he or she do? There’s no money, and the teachers are demotivated and often incompetent. The support from the community and the governing body is often non-existent.

Under those circumstances getting teaching and learning to take place every day is not so easy, and looking at the results, it clearly isn’t happening.

Yet a number of schools who operate under those circumstances do produce extraordinary results. You’ll find, I’m sure, that at every one of them there is a leader, and a management team, that has risen above the challenges, and that insists on everyone doing their job – teaching children, every day.

Identifying that common factor is far easier than doing something about it. Clearly it’s the state’s job to do that. They have the taxpayers' money, and the education departments have the reach to get into every school. They aren’t doing the right things, though. The results show that, and the shocking statistic is that, of the 25 000 schools in the country, proper teaching and learning only happens at about 5 000 (and that includes the private schools).

So, those who care realise they have to do something about it themselves and aid projects in education have sprung up all over the place. I went to a conference a few years ago where, for three solid days, I heard about the wonderful things organisations were doing, and about the money that corporations were spending, trying to help.

Not that many of them seemed to have much lasting impact. As with much aid, many projects were short-term and unsustainable and impossible to scale up.

And few of them focused on leadership. I wondered at the time why the educational experts weren’t trying to replicate what was happening at those under-resourced schools that were doing well.

There are obviously those who are working on it. And the best of those, I’d wager, are looking at the principals. Find a way to get more of those effective, no-nonsense leaders into more schools and support them, and we will at least be making a start.

The educational authorities should be running in-service training for principals and, most importantly, induction and orientation programmes for new appointees.

They have other priorities, I know, and the scale of the problem is intimidating. That’s why I salute those aid programmes who have recognised that you have to have effective leaders, in every school, and are tackling the problem from that end.

The kids who achieved multiple distinctions worked hard for them – their privileged circumstances didn’t do it for them on their own. But they were at schools led by men and women who recognised that their job was to make it all possible. And they did their jobs.

Let’s get the leaders right, one school at a time – that’s my two cents worth.