Performativity in the education system: school leaders

If we think of [public sector] performativity as a process that works on us through the discourses of the New Public Management (NPM), discourses that, at the end of their work on us, leave us wanting to be more productive than we have been before then we only have to examine public sector organisations to find out the extent to which the concept of performativity is a useful explanatory tool for the work ethic that is evident in these organisations. Let us do so, then, by focusing on the school. Within this organisation, principals are caught between two major forces – traditionalism and change. The extent to which principals grab hold of either force will determine how they perform their jobs in the current education system.  

What do I mean by traditionalism? This is the status quo. That is, the way things have always been done before. This is behaviour that has been learnt, practised and passed on for centuries to successive groups of workers who pass through the doors of government agencies.

 In Jamaica, principals usually (but not always) enter the teaching profession as teachers before they progress up the ranks to being appointed principals. The principal’s job is usually to maintain the smooth functioning of the school. The principal does this by presiding over devotions, staff meetings and school functions; attends meetings arranged by the Ministry and other powerful stakeholders; relies heavily on his/her vice principals for much administrative support and present herself/himself on the corridors and grounds of the school from time to time as a show of being in charge. He/she also performs other miscellaneous functions.

 Today, the principal’s role has been vastly reconfigured. He is now required to display “real” management in an environment of chronic economic decline. And, it is not a change that many principals relish, though not many aspirants will turn down an appointment to this position. While principals are happy to be in charge of schools enjoying the status and other benefits that come with the position, they long for a bygone era when principals had the autonomy to administrate as they saw fit without the “nonsense” of innovativeness and accountability that government has been spouting lately.

One school principal, writing in the Sunday Gleaner of June 2, 2013 highlights, what seems to him to be, an untenable situation. He is peeved that the amount of resources that the Ministry of Education allocates to schools each year is inadequate to do the schools’ business for that period. Furthermore, he is really peeved at the [temerity], my word, of the Ministry to expect schools to engage in fund raising activities. He seems to hold the view still accepted by many that government should provide adequate resources for the administration of publicly owned educational institutions.

 This principal is not alone in his ire. Another principal has opined that his father did not send him to school to learn to be a fundraiser. He went to teachers’ college to learn to teach. His current job as principal he defines as doing things that fit into a very narrow view of the practice of administration. The ideal scenario, for him, would play out like this: government provides the resources for schools, principals administrate the resources.

However, government for more than twenty years has been gradually reducing the amount of resources that it has provided to schools. The growing poverty of the state which has not been helped by the global financial crisis has been cited as the cause for this state of affairs. As such, except for primary education, the government has asked parents to bear some of the costs of their children’s education through the “cost – sharing” programme.

Principals have, for a long time, been asked to be efficient (to do more with less). Central to being efficient is the need to be innovative. This idea of being innovative is clearly nonsense to some school leaders, an idea which they have refused to accept.  They still believe that government (this amorphous figure) is responsible for the provision of public education and it must, in spite of economic constraints, continue to provide resources which are “adequate” so that the schools can function effectively. The principals seem to be saying that the low levels of government provision to the education sector [the education sector gets the largest share of the budget] is the reason for the poor performance in the sector.

 Another bit of “nonsense” against which a number of principals are rebelling is accountability.  As regards schools, the Ministry of Education seems to expect principals like other managers in the public sector to function along the continuum of accountability. First, the Ministry seems to expect that principals will give an account of their stewardship of their schools, probably as yearly reports to the schools' Boards of Management. Second, the Ministry seems to expect that principals will be judged as regards their stewardship of the schools they manage. Third, the Ministry seems to expect that principals [and their staff] will be responsive to the needs of their stakeholders. Fourth, and herein lies the rub, the Ministry seems to expect that principals will take personal responsibility for the performance of their schools.

 Many principals are asking why they should take responsibility for the performance of their schools. After all, there are a myriad of factors that impact performance in schools. The Ministry knows this but it does not provide the necessary resources for them to be effective.

The Ministry is probably quite frustrated that more principals have not accepted the challenges of government’s new expectations of them as one principal with whom I spoke has done. This principal believes that the solution to the problem of low performance in the education system is simple. The solution is “management and the commitment to hold persons accountable”. But, he believes, that this has not been part of the cultural dynamic of the country. This is so “because we have not had the kind of leadership generally in the country that recognises productivity and holds workers accountable”. He believes that widespread improvement in productivity in the country will only be realised if leaders are committed. As he says, “if you, as an individual, do not believe in performance and accountability, then, you are not going to drive that.  If a Board [of Education] does not believe in performance and accountability they are not going to drive that...”

The leadership of this principal has wrought tremendous improvement in all aspects of the school he manages. He is happy with the progress his school has made so far and has great plans for its further improvement. It has been hard work for many of the members of staff who have not been exposed to this style of management in the school system before. They, however, acknowledge and welcome the transformation that has been wrought in the school, not the process, so much.

The Minister of Education recognises that transforming the education system from what exists is going to be a very slow process. While contributing to the 2013 Sectoral Debate in Parliament, after calling all the stakeholders in the education sector to action in working to positively transform the education system, found it prudent to admit this fact.

This slowness in the implementation of policies is to be expected as the bureaucratic norms of operating in government are still entrenched in the system. These bureaucratic norms are what the process of “modernising” the public sector is trying to change. However, the Minister also needs to channel his spirit of innovation, something that leaders of change have been urging public sector managers do, into crafting a methodology that may be effective in bringing about the desired changes he believes will resuscitate the education system.

In the meantime, the call for change and the threat of sanctions is placing a lot of stress on many principals. It is not the kind of stress that is associated with these principals trying to make themselves more productive than they ever were before. It is not the kind of stress that brings satisfaction and pride because they have been efficient and effective. The source of this stress is frustration and anger. The Ministry has given them baskets to carry water, they believe.

The idea of “buy in” appears in much of the literature on the NPM. It is not farfetched. It is only when principals “buy into” the rhetoric for change in the education system that they will be able to convincingly sell it to teachers, students, parents and the community. A number of principals have “bought” the idea of the need for change in the education system and have a clear idea of how to go about implementing this change. Some principals have "bought" the idea of the need for change in the education system but have no clue as to what to do with it. Many principals are still inspecting the “goods”. Some principals, however, have totally rejected the idea.