Go back to teaching basics
School principals should lead by example and teach, instead of merely focusing on fund-raising and ‘beautifying’ their institutions, writes Denny Moonsamy, a newly retired teacher and former senior primary phase HOD
D O WE HAVE a crisis in education, particularly with reference to public education? Having long been a teacher and served as a devoted and distinguished member of the school’s management team, I am inclined to believe the dwindling standards of pupil performance can be attributed to a plethora of factors stemming largely from within the structure of the school.
But cognisance should also be taken of the pupils’ general environment, including the apathy of parents and dysfunctional families.
It is a common practice at the end of the academic year, and particularly after the announcement of the matric results, for fingers to be pointed at schools which perform poorly.
These ill-performing secondary schools are then labelled as target schools for improvement.
As a newly retired teacher, I believe the poor performance of matric pupils must be attributed mainly to the primary schools, which are entrusted with providing pupils with a solid foundation.
A motor vehicle’s shoddy and unsound chassis is prone to accidents and cannot guarantee the safe destination of its passengers.
Instead of education authorities pointing fingers at secondary school principals, attention must be focused on primary schools.
I hope the following observations in primary schools will be accorded the respect they deserve by education authorities and serving members of the teaching profession, particularly school managers.
In the years gone by, principals played a pivotal role in ensuring decent, if not admirable, standards of education at their schools.
Principals themselves took the leading role in classroom teaching and instruction and supervision.
I wish a survey could be done in primary schools to show how many principals are currently actively involved in teaching and are leading by example.
Many principals have resigned from active teaching decades ago.
One cannot sit on one’s swivel chair and expect to know the hardships and difficulties teachers face in the classroom as it is impossible to theorise and offer solutions to the teaching and learning process without being actively involved in the teaching process, which is a dynamic one.
University heads, including professors, apart from their administrative roles, are dedicated teachers themselves.
With due respect to the current band of principals, it is my observation, after serving the Department of Education for about 40 years, that hardly any teaching is currently being done by principals.
Instead the focus, in most instances, is on collecting school funds and raising income for the school.
Their function also entails beautifying schools to an extreme extent at the expense of quality instruction and mentoring.
Delegation of duties by the heads of schools is rife, so what does the head do?
Heads of previous generations were teachers themselves. They also fulfilled the roles of administrative clerks, supervisors, plant maintenance officers and educationists involved in the planning and presentation of lessons and maintaining impeccable discipline.
Magazine Barracks, to name but one state-aided school, managed to produce fine academics in simple wood and iron structures or classrooms.
It would appear that many principals have now “resigned” from the classroom without having developed skills at a level sufficient to lead their fellow teachers or staff.
What sort of mechanisms are employed by the Department of Education to ensure that quality teaching, learning and administration is taking place in the classroom?
Don’t cite inspections by management, of one visit per annum, which are frivolous and hardly ever contribute to the upliftment of scholastic performance.
Even the examination of pupils’ exercise books, if any, doesn’t contribute much to academic, aesthetic or moral development.
How is learner instruction time being infringed upon?
Many activities are pursued by a school or its zone or district all in the name of the all-round development of the child during classroom instruction time.
Couldn’t these activities be pursued outside of teaching and instruction time?
Perhaps on a Saturday instead of impinging on the already limited teaching time.
What I find totally unacceptable is that teachers are taken out of the classrooms on a regular basis to take a few children, sometimes just one child, to an extra-curricular activity at the expense of numerous other classes, taken by the same teacher.
This obviously results in the loss of prime instruction time for scores of children and provides a catalyst for unruly behaviour while relief teachers or even parents are sent to these classes. Shame!
The resultant chaos and mayhem in the class does not bode well for a structured, disciplined teaching environment.
That is why schools, other than public schools, will always excel and produce outstanding results in a well-disciplined teaching and learning environment.