The role of external oversight bodies in public schools
Professor Jaap Kuiper, who led the 2014 research on low academic achievement levels in public secondary schools in our jurisdiction, identified four prominent challenges inhibiting provision of quality and relevant education.
The main road blocks were identified as weak external oversight institutions, poor school governance, a dysfunctional curriculum with irrelevant and overcrowded content and modes of assessment with a bias on knowledge at the expense of skills.
Of these four critical issues, this edition would like to pay a little more attention to the place and role of external oversight bodies in public schools. The system of governance in private schools is different from that of public schools. In private schools, though operating under the auspices of a Board of Governors, school principals seem to be a little more autonomous and enjoying almost unfettered access to power on curriculum and general operational matters.
As the custodian of policy, it is a rarity for Board of Governors to overshoot the runway and poke their noses on operational matters, which are within the principal’s jurisdiction and control. This clear separation of powers and clarity roles appear to be working and serving students well in the private school environment. Insulated from red tape, school principals in the private space unlike their counterparts in public schools do not have to engage in time consuming long winded decision making processes and consultations.
They have the latitude to confront challenges head on without any fear or favour as long they believe their interventions are in the best interests of teaching and learning. The freedom to think outside the box offers private school principals some comparative advantage - the right to break new ground and try novel experiments. Having a little more faith in the abilities of principals to manage and make decisions in the best interests of learners could be the one factor distinguishing private school governance from public school institutional management. It is no small wonder that private schools have become synonymous with order, discipline and high academic achievement levels. In the other world of public schools there is very little room for self-determination.
Too many factors come into play. Public schools are people’s collectively owned schools funded by the tax payer. Everybody has a stake and feels ‘duty bound’ to closely watch and monitor any development in a public school. There is no room for ‘freestyle’. The system of governance is too complex and multi layered involving different actors including busy bodies.
Principal players in the life of a public school include the Region (equivalent to a district and a sub region (usually conforming to sub political and tribal district boundaries, the central ministry - in the capital) and semi-autonomous institutions such as assessment and quality assurance bodies.
Parents and politicians (especially the relevant Member of Parliament) consider themselves critical stakeholders in the overall health of public schools. So public schools are subjected to too many prying eyes and as they say too many cooks spoil the broth. The public school space is a crowded affair and this factor alone cripples school governance.
Parents through the Parents Teachers Associations via the annual levies, provide financial support to beef up the limited resources that government allocates to schools. Equally parents can lend a helping hand on matters of students’ discipline. However, some parents can be a thorn in the flesh of school principals. If not managed well and restrained, some parents can render a school ungovernable.
When action is taken against their children, parents have the tendency to adjudge the punishment meted out to their children as unfair and unjust. To seek redress, they would appeal to the regional office with the possibility of escalating the matter to the central ministry or high office in the land. Nothing gives the aggrieved parents pleasure than to see the principal’s decision overturned by external oversight bodies.
It is always vitally important for external oversight bodies to exercise great care when called on to act. A proper risk assessment should be carried out to determine which intervention would be appropriate without undermining the authority of the principal while also benefitting teaching and learning. A distinction should be made between the intervention and the interference in the operational matters of a school.
Lack of clarity of the role of various players compounds the challenges dogging public schools. This challenge did not escape the attention of Kuiper’s study.
Seeking to address the gaps, he said the central ministry should “develop a mutually agreed set of roles and responsibilities for MESD, Curriculum Development and Evaluation and Botswana Examinations Council in relation to issues of school management, school finance, curriculum and assessment and develop a clear de-centralisation policy, ensuring that there is an appropriate balance of responsibilities between the Regions and the Central Office.
This should also include appropriate staffing, training and resourcing. “The existence of too many external players all gearing towards providing support to schools can be problematic especially when the multiple efforts are not properly coordinated. There is a possibility of duplication efforts and schools receiving mixed signals, which might worsen the situation rather than provide a solution. Some oversight institutions perhaps on account of lack of proper planning or lack of capacity usually sit on the fence and only spring into action when there is a crisis.
The regional professional support division, inspectorate and quality assurance officers are supposed to constitute an integral part of a school system, playing a proactive role rather than a reactive one. But experience shows that external oversight institutions are weak and crisis driven. Again Kuiper made a telling observation when he took a swipe at regional offices for failure to carry out their supporting functions. His concern is that the regional office is playing only a minimal role.
“It appears that officers from the (sub-) Region hardly ever visit schools. They mainly arrive after examination results are out. Questions are asked about low performance. However, visits should have happened long before. Moreover, PEOs are few and seems unable to visit any schools with any form of regularity.
De-centralisation of some functions within MoESD to Regions does not seem to really have happened, and will not happen without appropriate staffing, training and resourcing at Regional Level.” Overall there is need for oversight institutions to tread carefully and avoid what might be dubbed ‘executive overbearing influence.’