Standards for principals questioned "This DBE policy intervention on standards for principals could indeed to castle-building in the air" Nkosana Dolopi, The New Age, Johannesburg, 9 January 2015 The recently-published document by the Department of Basic Education (DBE) on standards for principals raises an immediate question: principals of what? Assuming that the answer will be a principal of a school, then we must ask: what is a school? We must also ask: where are these schools? More specifically, do we have "schools" in townships, or do we just have classrooms there? We need to establish these facts so that our policy interventions concerning principals will be properly informed. We must establish whether we should call them principals of schools, or principals of classrooms. It's a fundamental point. One does not expect the same service and comfort from an old Toyota as one does from a luxurious new BMW or Mercedes-Benz. These are all cars and they may all be mobile, but the former is not equivalent to the others. Unresourced township classrooms, and schools, are both centres for learning and teaching. But in crucial ways, they are not equivalent. Is it normal to expect the same service and quality from a principal at a dilapidated mud structured school, as opposed to a modern well-equipped school? Is it normal to expect the same from a principal who manages at a "structure" in a community with a population having serious social ills, as from a principal managing a school in a well-off community with no glaring social ills or other economic challenges? There is no normality as between these two different situations. The South African education system and its structures are complex. They are compounded by a real and sad, but uneven, legacy of deprivation. Anyone ignorant of this legacy, or blind to it, runs the risk of introducing a cosmetic policy to make him or her feel good, while covering us with a depressing cloak of darkness and demoralisation, which threatens the possibility of any forward movement. We must start from the beginning and understand where we come from. For any intervention to work, we must build a solid foundation. We must avoid building castles in the air. But this DBE policy intervention on standards for principals could indeed be likened to castle-building in the air, with no context, or appreciation of reality. It does not mention the mutually-agreed Integrated Quality Management System, or existing policy standards for principals. It creates no linkages with these long-standing, well-supported and well-understood initiatives. It continues as if these policies do not exist. This DBE "standards for principals" document does not show whether it intends to strengthen these existing policies, or do away with them. Collective Bargaining Those inclined to be critical will soon realise that there could be more than meets the casual eye in this "standards for principals" document. The disguised intentions of the publication of this document could be deliberate. Taking a unilateral policy declaration route, instead of consultation through collective bargaining, will undermine collective bargaining. There are outstanding discussions at the Education Labour Relations Council on principalship, and on the conditions of service of principals. This new "standards for principals" intervention has the potential to do away with that discussion, and with the material benefit attached to it. This type of over-riding intervention is a consistent trend by the DBE, attempting to collapse collective bargaining and risk liquidating the whole carefully-constructed collective policy-determination mechanism that includes unions. The deafening silence, or the sidelining, of the South African Council for Educators on the subject of standards, is also worrying. Professionalism There is sudden use, and perhaps abuse, of the word "professional". Whereas, and all the more so in the South African context, employers and unions are unlikely to share the same understanding of what constitutes professionalism in teaching. People should not pull the wool over our eyes and expect an ideal, imaginary "professionalism", when we survive by struggling to meet the basic needs of life, which of course affect our appearance, conduct and performance at school. Under-paid, disrespected teachers with no coherent support from the employer undermine the definition and expectation of a professional. When you read the new "standards for principals" policy you will realise that there is nothing new in it except for assaulting collective agreements on standards and performance, and notably on the agreed Integrated Quality Management System. There is an old wish by the department to separate principals-as-managers from other teachers. This document is in furtherance of that wish. We must reach a point of ending the imposition of standards on teachers if we want to maintain their status as professionals. Narrow standards are limiting teachers, and close the space for initiative. The "standards for principals" policy initiative is another assault on collective bargaining, and on people's education for people power. There is no democracy shown here. People's views are treated as secondary to those of the ruling bureaucrats and consultants. This situation should be challenged, and reversed. . Nkosana Dolopi is deputy general secretary of the South African Democratic Teachers Union. -- -- You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] . --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "YCLSA Discussion Forum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
