One size fits all?

Scholars and politicians in developing societies often complain that multilateral agencies have a tendency to devise “one size fits all” policies to overcome the challenges to development which these societies face. These scholars and politicians argue that the challenges which developing countries face are often unique to them. Therefore, these countries require individual prescriptions, they say.

However, the governments in relation to their responsibility to the different sectors within these countries continue to develop “broad-based”, “one size fits all” policies to correct the maladies they identify in different areas within the sectors of society.

Take the schools for example. There are different types of schools. Each type of school has students with different abilities, academic or otherwise. Each type of school or each individual school has its own problems which, oftentimes, are unique to it.

Oftentimes, the Ministry of Education (MOE) “discovers” a “problem” in a school or some schools. The MOE then goes through a process of devising a “solution” for this problem with the help of its “experts,” often excluding representatives from the schools. The MOE expects that all schools will implement its “solution” which will address the “problem”.

However, the MOE needs to rely more than they do now on the leadership of schools to create and roll out their own interventions to solve their problems.

Some principals of schools may see a role as the above as an added responsibility which they would rather do without. Many of them now look to the MOE for guidance on how to treat with the problems which their schools experience. But they are the managers on the ground. They should not be afraid to consult the policies which the MOE has devised to deal with problems in schools then modify these policies to suit their situations.

“Empowerment” is a buzz word in many circles. Are principals of schools empowered? Do they feel empowered? Do they want to be empowered? For a long time, the government has been taking action to force schools to stand on their “own feet”. This is a sort of empowerment of principals who are now forced to be innovative as they take responsibility for the management of their schools towards achieving positive outcomes for their students and the communities in which they are sited.

If principals, after being instructed on their responsibilities as principals, accept the job and fail to make a difference in the outcomes of their schools, the MOE should relieve them of their appointments and install others who relish the challenges of leadership.

A number of principals are in the education system who have found themselves responsible for schools with a myriad of problems and have, over time, managed to transform their schools. We need more principals in the system who are up to the challenge of totally running their schools. That is, maintaining the discipline in the school, presiding over improved performance on the part of their staff and students, managing the financial demands of their schools and managing school and community relations.

The MOE is not doing these principals any favours when it tries to micro manage every aspect of the schools. It should ensure that the principals who occupy such positions as principals have responsibility to fully manage their schools, but put in place measures to hold them accountable.

It is obvious from following what is happening in schools that one size does not fit all when it comes to the issues with which schools are grappling.