Growing Our Own Timber! Lived Experiences of Five School Principals in Using a Systems Thinking Approach for School Development

Abstract

This article presents and discusses the findings from five principals about their experiences of using systems thinking approach to school development. This was an ethnographic multiple case study that was conducted in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Literature demonstrates the efficacies of using systems thinking as an approach in dealing with complex school issues. Data were gathered by way of qualitative semi-structured interviews, focus group discussion, and shadowing techniques. Evidence suggests that participants had adequate understanding of systems thinking and were able to use it to the benefit of their respective schools. Furthermore, the findings point to the value of developing a holistic and multimethodological approach to systemic school development, particularly in deprived school contexts.

Keywords

systems thinking systemic leadership school development

Introduction

Research in educational leadership consistently shows that school leaders face far more complex challenges now than ever before (Apple, 2013; Talebloo et al., 2015), and principals need skills to handle such complexities (Garland et al., 2018). Understanding interdependence and interrelationships between the elements in the system is critical and forms the basic tenets of system thinking (Chow et al., 2013). The importance of building a sustained, collaborative climate of trust within the institution is high on the agenda of system thinking (Ash & D’Auria, 2013). In the school development context, the role of leaders (principals) is, among other things, to remove all obstacles for teachers so that they can learn from each other. Learning from each other requires all teachers to engage in collaboration in developing one another (Shaked & Schechter, 2013) without a feeling that other peers may benefit more than themselves. A sense of building each other and providing opportunities for inexperienced teachers to learn from seasoned teachers can be metaphorically described as growing your timber. This metaphor encourages the development of staff at lower ranks so that they may be able to move to higher positions. It discourages the need for experts from outside the organization to be employed. Rather, it promotes skilling and reskilling of staff within the organization. We see systems thinking (ST), embracing the notion of growing your own timber, as a route to improving and developing the school.

Embarking on school development entails tackling problems that tend to undermine progress, and providing new ways of solving old and/or current problems. Current scholarship in educational leadership (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2017; Shaked & Schechter, 2013) argues for effective leadership that can adapt strategies to local contexts. To do this successfully, it is imperative that we elicit a proper assessment and understanding of existing problems. In this regard, Shaked and Schechter (2013) argue that “we see the world as increasingly more complex and chaotic because we use inadequate concepts to understand it” (p. 5). We argue here that ST is a concept that can enable us to understand complexities of the world and its related problems. We say this because ST is not just “a tool or technique but rather . . . a holistic way of thinking or orientation to the world relevant for school leaders” (Shaked & Schechter, 2013, p. 780). Therefore, obtaining clear insights about ST may enable school leaders to understand and analyze the context within which they operate, and to design programs that can adapt to the conditions on the ground. While we acknowledge that there is not just one definition of ST (Cabrera, 2006), a significant number of scholars (Chow et al., 2013; Garland et al., 2018; Kensler et al., 2011; Koral-Kordova et al., 2018; Senge, 2006; Shaked & Schechter, 2013) converge on the view that it entails looking at a system holistically. It focuses on the integration of a system’s constituent components, and interrelationships between components remain its strongest characteristic.

Despite the efficacies of ST, there is paucity of scholarship in South Africa, especially in education (Mchunu, 2015) that focuses on ST and its value. Such a dearth of empirical research creates a gap in times where there is evidence that ST is currently needed in educational leadership to sustain school improvement (Huberman & Miles, 2013). In fact, from an international perspective, scholars had decades ago started criticizing educational reforms strategies for not being relevant and innovative. For instance, arguing for ST approaches, Betts (1992) expressed a belief that the seeds of education’s failure could be found in its past successes wherein education reforms were instituted piecemeal and thus ignored integration imperatives. In the recent past, scholars such as Barr et al. (2014), Chikoko et al. (2015), Jenkins (2006), and Plate and Monroe (2014) have criticized fragmented approaches to school improvement. Expressing similar argument, Betts (1992) maintains that reform initiatives of the time were driven by reductionist approaches that ignored the totality of the problem and were thus inappropriate for handling complex 21st-century needs.

Since South Africa became a democracy in 1994, the government has embarked on a number of education initiatives aimed at transforming various aspects of education, including redressing past inequalities. With its decentralized education administration structures and devolved powers to local communities, it was important that school principals had the capacity to effect sustainable changes (Bhengu & Myende, 2016). Unfortunately, positive stories of success in this regard were and still are minimal, particularly in those areas facing deprivations of various kinds. Notwithstanding negative stories about principals’ leadership capacities to deal with complex situations, some have succeeded. In this article, we elicit views and experiences of five school principals who had been exposed to ST training and thereafter attempted to utilize the skills and insights gained to drive their school development agendas. We wanted to get their views about their understanding of ST and whether their increased reputation as performing schools is associated with experience of ST they had adopted. In presenting our story, we first provide a brief background about the South African education landscape and state the main question underpinning the study. We then highlight debates about ST and its efficacies generally and in educational leadership in particular. We then outline the conceptual framework and the methodology, and present the findings and conclusion.

Background to the Research Problem

The need for organizations to grow is a universal phenomenon. In the school context, principals are entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that school development occurs (Durrant, 2013; Lapp et al., 2011). Since South Africa became a democracy, the country has undergone and still is going through societal transformation (Mkhize & Bhengu, 2018), and a comprehensive, multifaceted approach is essential in that regard (Myende, 2018). As part of it, issues of stakeholder participation, decentralization of structures and devolution of decision-making powers, as well as an outcomes-focused type of public education form an important package (Mchunu, 2015). One way in which people responded to the imperative for stakeholder participation was to demand to actively participate in all matters that involved citizenry at grassroots, and any sense of imposition was vehemently rejected. The slogan “Nothing for us without us!” (Gounden, 2015; Seshoka, 2015) gained momentum in various fields such as commerce and accounting (Gounden, 2015), education (Seshoka, 2015), and research in South Africa (Moletsane et al., 2014). The notion of knowledge generation has formed an inextricable component of this local focus, and ST embraces it as well. This slogan was popularized by James Charlton (2000) in his iconic book, Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. In the South African context, with the decentralization of structures we highlighted above, and with the devolved powers to the school level, teachers and other stakeholders expect to be involved in whatever solution that is sought. Principals need to have the requisite skills and disposition to meet such expectations. The importance of interactions forms one of the central features of ST, and in the school context, such interactions involve teachers, learners, management teams, and learning goals (Cauthen, 2018).

In the decentralized setting, the notion of self-reliance and tapping into local human capital is critical (Hlalele, 2012; Myende, 2014). Therefore, searching for solutions among the local assets instead of in far off places may prove to be a solution in the context of declining organizational performances (Chikoko & Khanare, 2012; Ebersöhn & Mbetse, 2003; Myende, 2014). Ironically, Barr et al. (2014), Chikoko et al. (2015), and Plate and Monroe (2014) indicate that leadership is the missing link that can provide an explanation for the persisting decline and dysfunctionality of schools. Similarly, leadership is the answer to changing the fortunes of the schools (Chikoko et al., 2015). Therefore, it is important that schools have principals who are able to respond to their contextual needs and achieve desired outcomes. In this process, they have to choose the most effective tools to achieve their school vision (Durrant, 2013), and ST is one of them. We say this because ST is renowned for enabling leaders to respond to complex challenges that non-systems thinkers would not be able to approach as it focuses on integration. This is based on the belief that component parts of a system will act differently when isolated from the other parts of the system.

Externally generated solutions have proven to lack ownership and legitimacy (Lapp et al., 2011; Plate & Monroe, 2014) and thus may lack sustainability (Chikoko & Khanare, 2012; Hlalele, 2012). Within the South African context, a number of curriculum initiatives were introduced with minimal success. These include Outcomes-Based Education (OBE), Integrated Quality Management System (IQMS), Whole School Evaluation (WSE), and Continuous Professional Teacher Development (CPTD). All these initiatives were implemented in a piecemeal, disjointed manner and were characterized by the use of a cascade model. Such a model is regarded by some as a quick fix that fails (Senge, 1999). That is why it is important to understand how principals who have designed their own solutions through an ST approach and implemented it view it, and also to understand meanings and values they attach to it. This article is driven by just one research question and we present it next.

Research Question

How do school principals utilize an ST approach to bring about school development in the Umgungundlovu District?

Literature Review

In the introduction and in the background, we have highlighted the main characteristics of ST and the point of convergence among various scholars in terms of its conceptualization. In this section, we highlight key debates about it and elicit particular themes that may help us in analyzing principals’ expressed understandings and experiences. The first issue to mention is that ST is being recognized across various disciplines as an important orientation to thinking and tackling development issues. For instance, our literature review indicates that fields such as engineering, medicine, finance, health, planning, development, and education, to mention just a few, all acknowledge the benefits of using ST. Although most scholars emphasize its holistic nature (Garland et al., 2018; Kensler et al., 2011; Koral-Kordova et al., 2018; Senge, 2006), there is also a triangular characteristic element to it, particularly in terms of its contribution to organizational improvement. The triple view of ST entails, first, looking at organizations holistically while focusing on internal interrelationships of its constituent parts with future orientation being its ultimate goal (Shaked & Schechter, 2013). Similarly, successful schools have a future focus while also paying special attention to internal human capital (Hlalele, 2012; Myende, 2014).

Current scholarship indicates that ST has become so popular that in education alone, it is being utilized in its various aspects such as education and technology (Biggs et al., 2015; Chow et al., 2013), education districts and school improvement (Garland et al., 2018), as well as in improving learner academic outcomes in the classroom. The scholars cited above provide detailed discussions about how ST can be used for improvement of the three areas of education. What is noteworthy is the fact that school principals play a pivotal role in all three identified areas, and also that ST skills can be learned (Zulauf, 2007). In other words, the debate should not be about whether ST is an innate talent or a learned skill. To effect improvement in education and technology, for example, a holistic view of the specific issue being considered will be focused upon, internal interrelationships of its constituent parts will remain the focus, and the main idea of implementing changes will be directed into the future. To further clarify what the holistic view entails in schools, Shaked and Schechter (2013) provide a useful framework in their paper titled, “Seeing Wholes: The Concept of Systems Thinking and Its Implementation in School Leadership.” We discuss this in the following section where we present the conceptual framework.

Conceptual Framework

There are two theoretical constructs that we used to frame our understanding of ST and these are Systems School Leadership as advanced by Shaked and Schechter (2013) and systemic leadership concepts. In discussing a Systems School Leadership approach, Shaked and Schechter (2013) propose four main characteristics, namely, leading wholes, considering interconnections, adopting a multidimensional view, and evaluating significance.

Systems School Leadership

Leading wholes

Principals who use a wholes approach in their leadership and transformation agendas view change not just as a collection of changes but as an orientation toward the main theme underpinning the envisaged change (Shaked & Schechter, 2013).

Considering interconnections

Principals who adopt this view are conscious of relationships between various elements of the school’s functioning. For instance, it might not be sensible to reprimand a teacher for late coming when the commitment to the new direction the school is taking regarding, for example, what Weber (1996) calls “protecting instructional time,” has not been sought among the teachers. This takes us back to the importance of wide consultation before embarking on a new direction. This scenario could be similar to ringing a school bell when very few stakeholders within the school know what the ringing of the bell signifies. Therefore, it is evident that one element is closely related to the other.

Adopting a multidimensional view

Principals who adopt this approach would lead desired change process in a manner that considers a number of activities simultaneously (Shaked & Schechter, 2013). For instance, it would be inconceivable for a principal who seeks to improve teaching and learning conditions at school to tackle just one aspect and ignore the others. Providing an environment that is conducive to effective teaching and learning is one of the key elements but if monitoring tools are not set up, if learning and teaching materials are not made available, and staff commitment to the school vision is not solicited as part of the package, improving teaching and learning might be an exercise in futility. Weber (1996) captures the importance of all these issues eloquently, and a multidimensional approach is central in this respect.

Evaluating significance

According to Shaked and Schechter (2013), evaluating significance has to do with principals making a clear distinction between what is more, or less, important, and then making a decision about what to prioritize given the urgency. Issues of efficiency come to the fore in that a principal may need to consider the extent to which more can be achieved with less. The second construct is systemic leadership.

Systemic Leadership Concept

Systemic leadership is part and parcel of ST. Systems thinkers understand that cause and effect is not necessarily immediate nor is it linear (Senge, 1999). Various scholars concur with the notion that systemic leadership is one of the new ways of conceptualizing school leadership (Ash & D’Auria, 2013; Bolden et al., 2011; Depress, 2013; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009). The 21st century demands new thinking skills, and these include critical thinking, problem solving, and collaborative learning that can result in schools realizing their potential (Hairon et al., 2014; Huberman & Miles, 2013). In addition, systemic leadership promotes the establishment of clustered networks of both local, district and provincial schools for purposes of professional development (Watterston & Caldwell, 2011). As is the case with ST, systemic leadership moves away from linear, simplistic, and reductionist approaches to leadership (Harris et al., 2015). Instead, it advocates a different approach to leadership that is flexible, responsive to local demands and that brings about the needed innovation in a learning organization (Ash & D’Auria, 2013; Biggs et al., 2015; Fullan, 2011; Hargreaves, 2013). Evidently, a systemic leadership approach can play a critical role in facilitating school development process (Hargreaves et al., 2007; Hopkins & Higham, 2007; Pont et al., 2008).

Method

The research on which this article is based is an ethnographic qualitative study conducted between May 2015 and July 2016 and is located within emancipatory paradigmatic framing. We considered an ethnographic design suitable for the study because it enables researchers to gain in-depth understanding of participants’ understanding (LeCompte & Schensul, 2010), and enables participants to have an open-ended way of expressing themselves (Cohen et al., 2018). In addition, ethnographic enquiry emphasizes the notion of people as meaning makers and foregrounds the idea of understanding how they interpret their world within the cultural world in which they live (Goldbart & Hustler, 2005). An emancipatory framing of the study is appropriate for the methodology in that such research is embedded in the notion and belief that the participants must be empowered (Aragonès & Sánchez-Pagés, 2009). In the context of this study, it was crucial that principals got empowered to drive their school development agendas themselves if development was to be sustainable. This approach shares certain characteristics with participatory action research, with its emphasis on conducting research with the participants actively involved in its processes (Kane & Chimwayange, 2014).

Purposive sampling was used to identify participating principals. In purposive sampling, the researcher handpicks participants based on common characteristics (Babbie & Mouton, 2001; Cohen et al., 2011; Gerring, 2012; Goertz & Mahoney, 2012). For instance, all principals had to have previously participated in the training on using ST as an approach to school development. Actually, 30 principals had been exposed to this approach through workshops, within the education district. Of the 30 principals, we selected five to do an in-depth study. For purposes of anonymity, we call the five schools Lungani Primary, Thokozwayo Primary, Bramley Primary, Mbongwa Secondary, and Gateway Secondary, and all five schools are located in rural communities within Umgungundlovu District.

Four methods were used at different stages of the research to generate data. These were semi-structured interviews, participant observations, shadowing, and focus group discussions (FGDs). Some of the hallmarks of ethnography are its focus on multimethods of data generation within the natural settings of the participants (LeCompte & Schensul, 2010) and their prolonged stay in the field (Wolcott, 1995). The first method we used was semi-structured interviews due to their flexibility (Cohen et al., 2018) and their efficacy for enabling participants to freely express themselves (Schensul & LeCompte, 2013). We followed this by conducting participant observations and shadowing concurrently. Each shadowing was followed up by notes taken on what we were observing as the participants went on with their daily operations of running their schools. However, when we conducted FGDs, it was actually toward the end of the research process when we had already developed interpretations about participants’ experience using ST. We used FGD with all five principals as a confirmability measure, and also to enhance our analysis. We shared our interpretations about what they had told us during interviews, and they either confirmed our understanding or refuted it. Therefore, the content of our presentation in this article was verified during FGD sessions.

Data sets were transcribed verbatim from audio tape format into written form before we subjected them to the analysis process which entailed creating codes of meaning and organization into themes (Henning et al., 2004). To analyze the data, we employed a template analysis method (Randall et al., 2007). This method can be seen as “occupying a position between content analysis where codes are all predetermined, and grounded theory where there is no a priori definition of codes” (Randall et al., 2007, p. 1190). Critical to this method is that it accommodates both deductive and inductive elements to be used as these two have complementary benefits. In terms of this analysis method, we provided a set of a priori codes which we then expanded upon as additional themes emerged from the data (Bayeni & Bhengu, 2018). We then summarized and organized the themes in a meaningful way (Crabtree & Miller, 1992). The findings can be considered trustworthy in terms of the use of the semi-structured interviews, the FGD, and the reflections based on the diaries and journal entries. We also had to ensure that our findings were trustworthy, and to ensure this, we employed a variety of techniques such member-checking (Cohen et al., 2018), prolonged stay in the research sites (Wolcott, 1995), as well as confirmability (Baxter & Eyles, 1997; Tobin & Begley, 2004). Ethical considerations were taken care of throughout the course of the study. Among these, the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education (KZNDoE) granted permission to access schools. We also sought informed consent directly from the participants. All participants signed informed consent forms after we had informed them about the nature and purpose of the study. We also addressed issues of participants’ autonomy and the right to participate and also to withdraw from the study at any stage of the research process should they wish to do so. As part of our commitment to ethical practice, we observed anonymity of participants by concealing their identity and their schools. Table 1 shows the fictitious names of participants and their schools.

Table 1.

List of Schools and Participating Principals.

Schools	Lungani Prim	Thokozwayo Prim	Bramley Prim	Mbongwa Sec	Gateway Sec
Principals	Mrs. Godide	Mr. Jokozela	Mr. Goldstone	Mr. Ndonga	Mrs. Denison

All the participating schools are located in rural areas and socioeconomically distressed communities, and because of their circumstances, they were categorized by the KZNDoE as No-Fee paying schools. In addition, they all belong to Quintile 3. A quintile system is a formula used by the KZNDoE to allocate financial resources to schools. In terms of this system, the lower the quintile the schools belongs to, the bigger the amount of government subsidy the schools receives and vice versa. The quintile they belonged to indicates the socioeconomic circumstances of the communities in which the schools are located. Another important point to highlight about these schools is the fact that learner academic performance had improved in the past couple of year from between 58% and 65% in exit classes to an average of between 96% and 100% in exit classes. Participants ascribed such improvements to school development initiatives they adopted through the use of ST processes.

Findings and Discussion

The findings are presented thematically, based on the analysis of the participants’ responses to the questions posed. All the participants responded to the questions regarding, first, their understanding and the value of ST, and, second, how they used ST to facilitate school development, as well as how they overcame the challenges they encountered. Our analysis generated five main themes, and the first provides an overall understanding of an ST approach. From the second theme onward, we try to show how their understanding of ST influenced their leadership practices. In short, drawing from their understanding of ST, the principals established strategic partnerships, constructed curricula that focused on teaching and learning, strengthened cluster coordination and networks, as well as enhanced quality assurance measures. Verbatim quotes are used to capture participants’ responses to the questions we posed. The discussion of the findings includes views from the literature as well.

Principals’ Understanding of an ST Approach to School Development

There are three main (and important) elements to the principals’ understanding of ST that we found to be crucial in the context of the South African education landscape. There was an understanding that ST is a gateway to school improvement. Therefore, they tried as much as they could to utilize ST even when challenges seemed insurmountable. First, there was unanimity about the need to search for interconnections and pattern, or a format of doing things. Second, pyramidal organizational structures had to be flattened to accommodate every stakeholder irrespective of positions they occupy in schools or society. Third, there was connectivity in the operation of schools, and thus, there was a need to synchronize activities within schools. The principals’ views and experiences are consistent with aspects of Systems Leadership: “considering interconnectedness” and “adopting multidimensional views” (Shaked & Schechter, 2013). For instance, Ndonga, Principal of Mbongwa Secondary, addresses all three elements we mentioned above when he said,

If the systems are not in place, school development cannot take place. We realized that we needed to revisit the mission and vision of the school. We met a guy at Michaelmas who was former Board member of St Annes, and he workshopped the whole staff. After that we saw the need to form a strong School Development Team, consisting of teachers, teacher unions within our school; teacher component of the SGB. We also formed other sub-committees after that, but this was the main committee that was the driving force behind strategic planning.

Views expressed by Mr. Goldstone below are consistent with those in the above extract. Emphasizing connectivity and integration, Mr. Goldstone, Principal of Bramley Primary, said,

I think systems thinking is an integrated approach that is achieving the set goals using different tools, like policies, vision and mission, tools like strategic planning; all those systems are integrated, the core word is integration.

While the above extracts highlight the importance of integration, structures, and inclusivity of different stakeholders, Mrs. Godide, Principal of Lungani Primary, emphasized various aspects of strategic planning which formed an integral part of ST. She provided details about how, when, and what areas of development their strategic planning focused on. This is what she said:

We do our strategic planning easily by focusing on the areas of development. We normally choose the people who are capable of doing that thing; we draw a year planner and monitor its implementation. Strategic Planning is conducted towards the end of the year, and as part of the Plan, we do the SWOT analysis using the nine key areas of the school.

The belief in working with others in running schools was advocated during the country’s transition from apartheid to democracy. ST in South Africa seemed to have a transformational value in the sense that it inculcated democratic principles such as the notion of strong stakeholder participation in decision-making processes. Ironically, as we highlighted elsewhere in this article, ST approach has not succeeded in most South African schools despite its efficacy. The most recurring conception about ST that has dominated the discourse for over four decades is the notion of interconnections, interdependence, and a holistic lens in dealing with complex and dynamic issues that are at interplay in the system (Checkland, 1999; Gharajedaghi, 2011; Kensler et al., 2011; Osborne & Brown, 2011; Von Bertalanffy, 1968). Thus, the notion of connectivity is closely linked to partnership imperatives which we discuss next.

Establishing Strategic Partnerships and Networks

This theme speaks directly to the question of how participating principals used ST for school development, and the theme addresses that question by highlighting the establishment of strategic partnerships and networks. Strategic partnerships and networks were seen by principals as tools of information and resources sharing. Most of the approaches to strategic planning rely solely on an SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis as a key tool for thinking. This technique is invaluable in assessing internal strengths and weaknesses in the organization and threats and opportunities in the environment outside it. Similarly, an ST approach to development utilized that tool as well. We should hasten to point out that an SWOT analysis is just one small element of ST as an orientation to thinking, and strategic planning is another. All the principals in the study considered that at the center of organizational development was a clear focus on strategic planning. They believed that such planning set the direction and scope that the school should take. As part of their strategy, the five principals established partnerships and networks with stakeholders and entities outside their schools which they believed would assist them grow. Underlying the establishment of partnerships was a deep-seated belief in collaborative work and multilateral wisdom as opposed to a one person show. Mr. Goldstone, Principal of Bramley Primary, aptly captured this view by saying,

I think that when someone reflects and talks about school development, it is not a one man’s show. Also different staff members are positioned to identify people and institutions that can offer support to the school’s vision and goals.

Echoing similar views, Mr. Jokozela, Principal of Thokozwayo Primary, emphasized that networking was not limited to organizations or the corporate sector but that collaborating with and assisting one another was an effective strategy for school development. Through that, they supported one another, sharing their experiences, information, and expertise on a number of areas. This is what he had to say:

We support each other emotionally and practically; network with other principals and work on areas of development. Principals also visit other schools; share resources and information. For example, a neighboring principal assisted us in getting a national flag which you can see hoisted outside.

The views on this particular strategy were common among all participants. Their views find resonance with a number of empirical studies that support, for instance, the role of nongovernmental organizations in supporting school improvement endeavors. Such organizations support school improvement in a number of diverse areas, including developing infrastructure, providing resources, supporting the curriculum, and other aspects that lead to school development (Khamba, 2006; Mazibuko, 2000; Miller-Grandvaux et al., 2002). Systemic leadership has in the past decade received support internationally on the basis that it helped upscale school development by widening the scope, even to those schools which were known to be performing poorly (Chrispeels, 2004; Honig, 2004; Togneri & Anderson, 2003). We acknowledge that the establishment of partnerships and networks is not necessarily the preserve of any particular leadership approach. Nevertheless, what we are saying is that an ST approach is inherently better positioned to promote collaboration, inclusiveness, partnerships, and networks.

Refocusing the Leadership on Curriculum Delivery and Learning

One of the questions we posed to the principals was about how they improved learner academic performance. South African schools have in the past few decades faced huge challenges that undermined effective teaching and learning, particularly in previously African residential and rural areas. As innumerable empirical studies in South Africa suggest, school managers tended to ignore teaching and learning as their main focus (Bush & Joubert, 2004; du Plessis, 2013; Hoadley et al., 2009), and focused more on managerial duties. However, principals in this study had been exposed to ST tools and had succeeded in identifying challenges that had the potential to undermine effective teaching, and have addressed them. After a series of discussions as part of an SWOT analysis technique, it emerged that school management was partly responsible for the identified weaknesses, and that it focused on anything but effective curriculum delivery. Therefore, they changed and prioritized teaching as the core business which is the focal point for improving the school. The focus on curriculum delivery took various dimensions. These entailed a holistic approach which included preparing the school environment (including a policy framework), a strong focus on monitoring teachers’ teaching, principals personally engaging in teacher professional development and enhancing teacher weakness identification processes, as well as personal development mechanisms within the IQMS. Emphasizing preparing the school environment, Mr. Ndonga, Principals of Mbongwa Secondary, had this to say:

Systems synergizing such sub-systems as development committee, which deals with infrastructure as well as a curriculum committee that looks after everything, at physical structure including buildings, toilets, computer science Laboratory media and toilets as means of system effectively because without these we believe the school cannot function.

Similar views were expressed by Mrs. Denison, Principal of Gateway Secondary, but she highlighted different stakeholders in addressing different issues for teachers. This is how she put it:

While the SMT leads the curriculum development process; the School Governing Body (SGB) focuses on the development of governance and policy formulation. The School Development Team committee focuses on the development of the School Improvement Plan for teachers. The SGB works on issues of safety and security.

The work of teachers is also monitored and such an endeavor is collaboratively done by principals and head of the departments (HODs). Mr. Jokozela, Principal of Thokozwayo Primary, put it thus:

Teaching and learning is the core function of the whole system. If it is not working the school can be referred as non-functional. It ensures that HODs monitor work daily and develop teachers to see where there are gaps. They check the quality of work, assessment after a quarter.

In some schools such as Lungani Primary, the principal plays an active role in providing in-service training for her staff. She has been instrumental in training teachers on curriculum management, and even designed curriculum management tools which she shared with other principals and members of her cluster. In this regard, Mrs. Godide said,

Then I encourage educators to study; to read books; I also observe them in the classroom situation. They have to create the conducive learning situation.

It is also important that, from time to time, weaknesses in teaching are identified and rectified. Mr. Jokozela, Principal of Thokozwayo Primary, emphasizes school improvement plans, and said,

For school development purposes, what we have done is that we have gathered the school improvement plan for each teacher. We highlight some of the things that need special attention. For instance, we have looked at how we highlighted some of the things that need special attention, how are we going to improve the pass percentage for each subject.

In supporting effective teaching and learning, it is always advisable to address all these intertwined activities such as the environment (Hallinger, 2011), and that work is closely monitored (Leithwood et al., 2004), that principals are active in shaping what goes on the classroom (Sofo et al., 2012), and also that weaknesses are rectified for improved learner achievement. All the issues raised in this section and the literature cited above are often taken for granted. However, in the deprived contexts of South Africa, they are significant. Not all principals have succeeded in turning the situation around in their schools, from dysfunctionality to efficiently run schools. A number of empirical studies conducted in the South African–deprived contexts (Bhengu, 2013; Mkhize & Bhengu, 2018; Nelson Mandela Foundation, 2005) indicate that school principals have experienced some difficulties in improving school’s academic performance generally, and in mobilizing various stakeholders in particular.

Strengthening Cluster Coordination and Networking

One other strategy that principals used to improve academic performance was through clustering, coordination, and networking. The provincial Department of Basic Education (DBE) had made attempts to improve curriculum delivery by making structural arrangements whereby the circuit was arranged into different clusters. This was done to promote schools working together on issues of school development and sharing resources in the form of expertise and information exchange, as well as professional development. Through intensive engagement in an ST approach, principals in the study used the cluster arrangement to further strengthen networks with other schools and learn from one another. Highlighting the benefits of clusters, Mr. Godide, Principal of Lungani Primary explained,

We work as a cluster; we network and we provide and share information. We assist each other emotionally and practically as we network with other principals. When talking about Systems Thinking we work on areas of development. Principals also visit other schools. Principals are left assured that they have received the necessary help. We share resources and information. For example, a neighboring principal was assisted in getting a national flag.

On the same issue, Mr. Ndonga of Mbongwa Secondary expressed what he had learned from clustering:

I am a Lifelong learner and reader. I am a completely changed principal like a person who was driving without a license. I would like to impart the knowledge I have acquired. Knowledge is improving daily; we need to approve different programs. I have just finished a program called PMDP (Performance Management Development Program); it has opened my eyes—I realized that there were so many areas I was not doing right.

While the above extract highlights lessons leant through various programs, Mrs. Denison, Principal of Gateway Secondary, emphasized her own contribution in sharing knowledge and skills with others. She said,

We are part of a cluster system; we focus on curriculum development. This has been an eye opener in my career as I have been assigned the role of guiding the other principals in interpreting curricula documents.

Principals’ stories were corroborated by findings which came out of the use of other techniques we used such as shadowing. Through shadowing, each of the authors shadowed one principal and also did observations during which time, both made journal entries. In one of these sessions, we noted, for instance, the emphasis that Mr. Ndonga, Mrs. Denison, and Mr. Godide put on teachers sharing feedback with staff after attending cluster meetings in the circuit. They emphasized the issue of sharing lessons learned and reflected on how these can be implemented in ways that impact positively on the practices in the classrooms.

Scholars argue that a systems thinker in action provides a leadership model that is needed to mobilize continuous improvement and capacity building among staff (Depress, 2013; Fullan, 2004). The notion of scaling up education reforms finds a lever to hang on in the cluster system and the systemic leadership (Hopkins, 2010) to drive the process across the district schools (Chrispeels et al., 2008). Scholars such as Fullan (2011), Depress (2013), and Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) support the idea of teachers working across schools in professional teaching networks. We acknowledge that all initiatives such as those mentioned in this section can hardly bring any tangible improvement if no quality assurance measures are put in place.

Strengthening Quality Assurance Measures for School Improvement

One of the strategies principals used to improve the quality of curriculum delivery was the existing IQMS program. Such a program of assuring quality was introduced in all public schools in South Africa in the early 2000s. However, research about the efficacy of IQMS has always pointed to the failure of such an important instrument for quality assurance (Gumede, 2016; Masondo, 2012; Mncwabe, 2007). One of the characteristics of Systems School Leadership is “evaluating significance” and highlights the need for school leaders to distinguish, for example, between important and less important matters (Shaked & Schechter, 2013). Quality assurance programs are some of such important activities that participants valued. Ironically, this is also an issue that many principals have grappled with in South Africa and have, largely, not succeeded. Therefore, it is important to note that there are principals who have embraced such quality assurance measures and are succeeding. We are arguing that using an ST approach has enabled participating principals to utilize IQMS processes to improve their schools’ performance. This is how Mrs. Denison presents her story:

We work on the IQMS systems and check the overall view of the school. When looking at these systems together, they help in the focus areas which include basic functionality, curriculum; and also looking at the outside part in terms of the community involvement in the school. When looking at this system, if worked properly, it bears fruits in terms of school development.

Views expressed above were shared by all participants. Mr. Jokozela, for instance, explained how, using SWOT analysis as one of the tools they used in an ST approach, they identified problem areas. It is through such processes that they managed to identify partners with whom to collaborate. He said,

The SWOT analysis helps us to know the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. That is why we identify the NGOs and we incorporate them in order to improve the school programs. By this tool the unique strengths of each person is identified in terms of his strength to contribute to the others. We strive to work towards all the members being empowered.

Closely linked to issues of the problem identification role of quality assurance processes is the notion of physical resource needs identification and soliciting support of the provincial DBE in mobilizing such resources. To this end, Mr. Goldstone, Principal of Bramley Primary, explained,

The Department has responded by adding three mobile rooms for teaching purposes, although one of them has falling roof. We have serious challenges with sanitation, which are making life difficult for the number of learners. We do not have any sports facilities in the form of a ground, however we received some donations from Gift of Givers in the form of javelins, and other sports equipment.

The three extracts show the interconnections of networking and quality assurance, as well as viewing the school holistically. Adopting an ST approach has provided principals with an instrument that not only provides a comprehensive picture about the school life but also fosters collaboration, interconnectivity, and multilateral wisdom. In fact, almost all participants mentioned that improvement in their schools was due mainly to their use of ST approach to school development. For instance, both Mr. Ndonga (Mbongwa Secondary) and Mrs. Denison (Gateway Secondary) used the phrase “it was an eye opener for me” when describing their experiences of using ST for their respective school’s development. Such comments epitomize the value participants attached to ST.

Conclusion

ST has been extensively researched globally, but less so in education in South Africa. Therefore, we can argue that this article makes a contribution, at least locally, to understandings about how ST can assist in shaping school development initiatives, and how such initiatives can engender sustainability. Drawing from the findings presented, we can conclude that principals were able to bring about a sense of common purpose among various stakeholders within the school, particularly, the teachers. Adopting ST as an orientation to thinking and planning was viewed as an eye opener in the sense that these participants developed better insights about available assets and programs provided by the KZNDoE. For instance, ST enabled them to see the benefits of intervention programs such as the cluster system, Performance Management Development Program (PMDP), and the IQMS.

Findings have also indicated that those principals who embraced ST and implemented it demonstrated a welcoming attitude toward issues of inclusion of various stakeholders in school improvement initiatives and decisions. We thus conclude that there is a strong connection between the inclusion of various stakeholders in addressing the direction that schools take and the adoption of ST in education. However, debates about the nature of such connection are the subject for another study. It can be of interest to find out whether school principals like those who participated in this study welcome inclusivity of stakeholders because they embrace ST or vice versa. This is an area for further inquiry within the context of South African rural and socioeconomically distressed communities. We also conclude that participants valued collaboration of all stakeholders within their schools and they prioritized organic growth that is rooted in internal capacities. In fact, the metaphor of growing our own timber is rooted in internal human capital development as highlighted in this article. Therefore, the importance of school development that relies on internal skills and knowledge cannot be overemphasized. We are convinced that such initiatives stand a better chance of sustainability.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Thamsanqa Thulani Bhengu

Author Biographies

Thamsanqa Thulani Bhengu is an associate professor in the School of Education at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. He has a PhD in the field of Educational Leadership and Management, and his research interests include leadership and leadership development.

Bongani Sibusiso Mchunu is a circuit manager in the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Basic Education and is based in the head office in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.

Sibusiso Douglas Bayeni is a lecturer in the School of Education at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. He has a PhD in the field of Educational Leadership and Management, and his main research interest in education policy.

References

Apple

M. W.

(2013). Knowledge, power, and education. Selected works of Michael W. Apple. Routledge.

Aragonès

Sánchez-Pagés

(2009). A theory of participatory democracy based on the real case of Porto Alegre. European Economic Review, 53(1), 56–72.

Ash

P. B.

D’Auria

(2013). School systems that learn: Improving professional practice, overcoming limitations, and diffusing innovation (Collaboration, creativity and the diffusion of innovation). Corwin Press.

Babbie

Mouton

(2001). The practice of social research. Oxford University Press.

Barr

S. K.

Cross

J. E.

Dunbar

B. H.

(2014). The whole-school sustainability framework. Institute for the Built Environment at Colorado State University. http://centerforgreenschools.org/Libraries/Publications/WholeSchool_Sustainability_Framework.sflb.ashx

Baxter

Eyles

(1997). Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: Establishing “rigour” in interview analysis. Transactions of British Geographers, 22(4), 505–525.

Bayeni

S. D.

Bhengu

T. T.

(2018). Complexities and contradictions in policy implementation: Lived experiences of three school principals in South Africa. Sage Open. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018792037

Betts

(1992). How systems thinking applies to education. Educational Leadership, 50(3), 38–41.

Bhengu

T. T.

(2013). School-community integration for school change: A case study of a secondary school in KwaZulu-Natal. Education as Change, 17(1), 63–76.

10.

Bhengu

T. T.

Myende

P. E.

(2016). Leadership for coping with and adapting to policy change in deprived contexts: Lessons from school principals. South African Journal of Education, 36(4), 1–10.

11.

Biggs

R. O.

Rhode

Archibald

Kunene

L. M.

Mntanga

S. S.

Nkuna

Phadima

L. J.

(2015). Strategies for managing complex social-ecological systems in the face of uncertainty: Examples from South Africa and beyond. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 52–67.

12.

Bolden

Hawkins

Gosling

Taylor

(2011). Exploring leadership: Individual, organizational, and societal perspectives. Oxford University Press.

13.

Bush

Joubert

(2004, May). Education management development and governance training in Gauteng: An overview [Paper presentation]. The EMASA Conference, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

14.

Cabrera

D. A.

(2006, June). Boundary critique: A minimal concept theory of systems thinking [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the ISSS-2006, Sonoma, CA, United States.

15.

Cauthen

(2018). What is systems thinking in education? Leadership versus the classroom, a paradigm shift. The Learning Counsel.

16.

Charlton

(2000). Nothing about us without us: Disability oppression and empowerment. University of California Press.

17.

Checkland

(1999). Systems thinking, systems practice; Soft systems methodology: A 30-year retrospective. John Wiley.

18.

Chikoko

Khanare

(2012). School Management Teams’ conceptualization of school assets in addressing the needs of children orphaned and made vulnerable by HIV & AIDS: Evidence from South Africa. Journal of Social Sciences, 32(1), 23–36.

19.

Chikoko

Naicker

Mthiyane

S. E.

(2015). School leadership practices that work in areas of multiple deprivations in South Africa. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 43(3), 452–476.

20.

Chow

Hewitt

Downs

(2013). Systems thinking and technology integration as catalysts for school change in high need schools: IMPACT V and the alignment of organisational ends and means. Educational Research for Social Change, 2(1), 7–29.

21.

Chrispeels

(2004). Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership. Sage.

22.

Chrispeels

J. H.

Burke

P. H.

Johnson

Daly

A. J.

(2008). Aligning mental models of districts and school leadership teams for reform coherence. Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 730–750.

23.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Routledge.

24.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.

25.

Crabtree

B. F.

Miller

W. L.

(1992). A template approach to text analysis: Developing and using a codebooks. In Crabtree

B. F.

Miller

W. L.

(Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 93–109). Sage.

26.

Depress

B. R.

(2013). Systemic thinking and education leadership: Some considerations systemic thinking and education leadership: Some consideration. The University of British Columbia.

27.

du Plessis

. (2013). The principal as instructional leader: Guiding schools to improve instruction. Education as Change, 17(1), 79–92.

28.

Durrant

J. A.

(2013). Portraits of teachers in landscapes of change: Exploring the role of teachers in school improvement [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Canterbury Christ Church University].

29.

Ebersöhn

Mbetse

(2003). Exploring community strategies to career education in terms of the asset-based approach: Exploring existing career theory and models of intervention. South African Journal of Education, 23(4), 323–327.

30.

Fullan

(2004). Leadership and sustainability: Systems thinkers in action. Corwin Press.

31.

Fullan

(2011). Choosing wrong drivers for whole school reforms (Leading Educational Thinking and Practice, Seminar Series Paper 204). Centre for Strategic Education.

32.

Garland

Layland

Corbett

(2018). Systems thinking leadership for district and school improvement. Center for School Improvement at the American Institute for Research.

33.

Gerring

(2012). Social science methodology: A unified framework (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

34.

Gharajedaghi

(2011). Systems thinking—Managing chaos and complexity: A platform for designing business architecture. Elsevier.

35.

Goertz

Mahoney

(2012). A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences. Princeton University Press.

36.

Goldbart

Hustler

(2005). Ethnography. In Somekh

Lewin

(Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 16–21). Sage.

37.

Gounden

(2015). Influence: Growing your own timber. Accountancy South Africa.

38.

Gumede

B. R.

(2016). Experiences of foundation phase educators in implementing outcomes-based education and curriculum assessment policy statement in the Hlabisa circuit [Masters dissertation, University of Zululand].

39.

Hairon

Goh

J. W. P.

Lin

T. B.

(2014). Distributed leadership to support PLCs in Asian pragmatic Singapore schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 17(3), 370–386.

40.

Hallinger

(2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142.

41.

Hargreaves

(2013). Push, pull and nudge: The future of teaching and educational change. In Zhu

Zeichner

(Eds.), Preparing teachers for the 21st century (pp. 217–236). Springer.

42.

Hargreaves

Fullan

(2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.

43.

Hargreaves

Shirley

(2009). The fourth way. Corwin.

44.

Hargreaves

A. H.

Halász

Pont

(2007). School leadership for systemic improvement in Finland. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

45.

Harris

Adams

Jones

M. S.

Muniandy

(2015). Systems effectiveness and improvement. The Importance of theory and context. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(1), 1–3.

46.

Henning

Van Rensburg

Smit

(2004). Finding your way in qualitative research. Van Schaik.

47.

Hlalele

(2012). Social justice and rural education in South Africa. Perspective in Education, 30(4), 111–118.

48.

Hoadley

Christie

Ward

C. L.

(2009). Managing to learn. Instructional leadership in South African secondary schools. School Leadership and Management, 29(4), 373–389.

49.

Honig

(2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30.

50.

Hopkins

(2010). Realising the potential of system leadership. In Huber

Saravanabhavan

Hader-Popp

(Eds.), School leadership-international perspectives (pp. 211–224). Springer.

51.

Hopkins

Higham

(2007). System leadership: Mapping the landscape. School Leadership and Management, 27(2), 147–166.

52.

Huberman

A. M.

Miles

M. B.

(2013). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. Springer Science + Business Media.

53.

Jenkins

(2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. https://www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/JENKINS_WHITE_PAPER.PDF

54.

Kane

R. G.

Chimwayange

(2014). Teacher action research and student voice: Making sense of learning in secondary school. Action Research, 12(1), 52–77.

55.

Kensler

L. A. W.

Reames

Murray

Patrick

(2011). Systems thinking tools for improving evidence-based practice: A cross-case analysis of two high schools leadership teams. The University of North Carolina Press.

56.

Khamba

(2006). Social welfare delivery: A case of government funded NGOs in Worcester [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the Western Cape].

57.

Koral-Kordova

Frank

Miller

A. N.

(2018). Systems thinking education—Seeing the forest through the trees. Systems, 6(3), 29.

58.

Lapp

Wolsey

T. D.

Fisher

Frey

(2011). Graphic novels: What elementary teachers think about their instructional value. The Journal of Education, 192(1), 23–35.

59.

LeCompte

M. D.

Schensul

J. J.

(2010). Designing and conducting ethnographic research: An introduction. Alta Mira Press.

60.

Leithwood

K. A.

Louis

K. S.

Anderson

Wahlstrom

(2004). How leadership influences student learning: Review of research. The Wallace Foundation.

61.

Masondo

S. N.

(2012). Teacher experiences of the Integrated Quality Management Systems in selected secondary schools in KwaZulu-Natal [Masters dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal].

62.

Mazibuko

D. M.

(2000). The role of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) in educational advancement in developing countries: The South African Experience. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 3(1), 1–8.

63.

Mchunu

B. S.

(2015). Examining the use of systems thinking approach to school development: A case study of five schools in Umgungundlovu District [PhD thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal].

64.

Miller-Grandvaux

Welmond

Wolf

(2002). Evolving partnerships: The role of NGOs in basic education in Africa. Academy for Educational Development.

65.

Mkhize

B. N.

Bhengu

T. T.

(2018). Leading teaching and learning: Secondary school principals’ perspectives. In Chikoko

(Ed.), Leadership that works in deprived school contexts of South Africa (pp. 77–99). Nova Science Publishers.

66.

Mncwabe

J. B.

(2007). The implementation of Integrated Quality Management System in Schools: Experiences from Mayville Ward [Masters dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal].

67.

Moletsane

Mitchell

Balfour

de Lange

Wedekind

Pillay

Chikoko

Stuart

Nkabine

M. J.

(2014). Nothing about us without us: Participatory approaches to teacher development and community wellness to enhance teaching and learning in rural schools. National Research Foundation–Participatory Cultures Lab, McGill University.

68.

Myende

P. E.

(2014). Improving academic performance in a rural school through the use of an asset-based approach as a management strategy [PhD thesis, University of the Free State].

69.

Myende

P. E.

(2018). Leadership for school-community partnership: A school principals’ experiences in deprived contexts. In Chikoko

(Ed.), Leadership that works in deprived school contexts of South Africa (pp. 121–142). Nova Science Publishers.

70.

Nelson Mandela Foundation. (2005). Emerging voices: A report on education in South African rural communities. HSRC Press.

71.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). Systems approaches to public sector challenges: Working with changes. Paris: OCED Publishers.

72.

Osborne

S. P.

Brown

(2011). Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK. The word that would be King? Public Administration, 89(4), 1335–1350.

73.

Plate

Monroe

(2014). A structure for assessing systems thinking. The 2014 Creative Learning Exchange, 26, 1–12.

74.

Pont

Nusche

Hopkins

(2008). Improving school leadership. Volume 2: Case studies on systemic leadership. OECD Library.

75.

Randall

T. R.

Cox

Griffiths

(2007). Participants’ accounts of a stress management interventions. Human Relations, 60, 1181–1209.

76.

Schensul

J. J.

LeCompte

M. D.

(2013). Essential ethnographic methods: A mixed method approach. Alta Mira Press.

77.

Senge

(1999). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.

78.

Senge

(2006). The fifth discipline: The art of and practice of the learning organization (Rev. ed.). Currency/Doubleday.

79.

Seshoka

(2015). Growing our own timber. UKZNTouch, Alumni Magazine, University of KwaZulu-Natal.

80.

Shaked

Schechter

(2013). Seeing wholes: The concept of systems thinking and its implementation in school leadership. International Review of Education, 59, 771–791.

81.

Sofo

Fitzgerald

Jawas

(2012). Instructional leadership in Indonesian school reform: Overcoming the problems to move forward. School Leadership & Management, 32(5), 503–522.

82.

Talebloo

Basri

R. B.

Asmiran

S. B.

Hassan

(2015). Teachers’ perceptions on transformational leadership based on demographic differences. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 23(6), 1105–1113.

83.

Tobin

G. A.

Begley

C. M.

(2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(4), 388–396.

84.

Togneri

Anderson

S. E.

(2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. The Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

85.

Von Bertalanffy

. (1968). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller.

86.

Watterston

Caldwell

(2011). System alignment as a key strategy in building capacity for school transformation. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(6), 637–652.

87.

Weber

(1996). Leading instructional program. In Smith

Piele

(Eds.), School leadership: Clearinghouse of educational management (3rd ed., pp. 253–278). Oregon.

88.

Wolcott

H. F.

(1995). The art of fieldwork. Alta Mira Press.

89.

Zulauf

C. A.

(2007). Learning to think systematically: What does it take? Learning Organizations, 14(6), 489–498.