Aspectos Urbanos

Heads of school in Zambia are referred to as head teachers. They are, in effect, the most senior teachers, and they are assigned administrative and leadership responsibilities in addition to their teaching workload. While many head teachers in larger schools eliminate their teaching workload altogether, it is common to find head teachers who do both: manage schools and teach

classes. Most head teachers are appointed based on some combination of experience and merit. There is no professional certification or minimum academic achievement prerequisite for becoming a head teacher.

In the Zambian education system, the head teachers are responsible for “managing effectively” and “ensuring” that their school (Ministry of General Education, 2018; Zambian Teachers’ Forum, n.d.):

• provides academic programs for delivery of high-quality education; • delivers administrative support services in the interest of effective and

efficient operations;

• implements policies to guide administrative compliance;

• prepares departmental budgets for acquisition and management of monetary resources;

• monitors and evaluates programs to facilitate appropriate interventions; • develops individual and departmental work plans to monitor and

evaluate performance;

• manages human, financial, and material resources for achievement of set objectives;

• maintains up-to-date and accurate records to ensure the quality and accountability of school data;

• regularly inspects infrastructure, focusing on conducive learning and teaching environments; and

• supervises the teaching and administrative staff to attain the objectives of the school and departments.

This job description details the functional requirements of the head teacher. Leadership attributes, however, are conspicuously absent. There is no explicit requirement to engage in leadership practices outside the narrow confines of administrative management. Nevertheless, providing an academic program to ensure education quality, monitoring and evaluating academic programs, and supervising teachers all imply a modicum of educational leadership capacity to execute the head teacher role effectively.

Understanding effective leadership in the context of instructional reform is particularly relevant to Zambia’s national early grade reading improvement efforts. In 2012, the Zambia Ministry of General Education adopted a new

curriculum and approach for early grade reading instruction called the Primary Literacy Program (PLP). The USAID/Zambia–supported Read to Succeed (RTS) project, which operated from March 2012 to April 2017 (RTI International was a partner of lead implementer Creative Associates

International), was designed to strengthen the capacity and skills of teachers and the Ministry of General Education to implement the PLP curriculum effectively in 1,200 schools, targeting the most disadvantaged schools, teachers, and students.

The RTS project took a “whole school, whole teacher, whole child” approach, which views schools as centers of learning, care, and support and addresses five key elements common to school-effectiveness models: learning, teaching, management and accountability, parental and community

participation, and responsiveness to children’s needs. Central to the RTS theory of change was the role of education leadership and management. The purpose of the RTS project was to transform the role of the head teacher and the zonal and district education support teams into one that leads and supports instructional reform efforts implemented by teachers in grades 1 to 3 as well as to provide guidance and counseling services to the most vulnerable learners. From 2012 to 2016, the RTS project supported over 1,200 schools across 18 districts, providing training and materials to teachers, head teachers, and school–community stakeholders.

Each intervention required by the PLP and supported by the RTS project reflected a significant change in traditional work practices by teachers and head teachers. The types of changes in the school and classroom included changes to time on task for reading and writing; curricular changes to reading instructional strategies and lesson execution; use of new textbooks and student books by teachers and students; dedicated time for peer-to-peer learning in teacher group meetings; and time spent by head teachers monitoring, observing, and reporting on teaching and learning in the classroom.

To enhance the capacity of head teachers’ instructional leadership to support and sustain instructional changes and learning outcomes, the RTS project introduced specific tools and strategies that included the Zambia School Gateway, learner performance improvement plans, semi-structured teacher group meetings, and parental and community engagement activities. These interventions were buttressed by intensive in-service training and professional development of school head teachers, early grade teachers, and even leaders of parent–teacher associations.

The Zambia School Gateway allowed head teachers to systematically monitor and report on teachers’ instructional practices and pupils’ literacy progress. The Gateway required head teachers to observe grade 2 teachers twice per year and report on specific instructional practices through a classroom observation protocol that covered seven dimensions of teaching and learning. Head teachers were also required to assess grade 2 pupils twice per year (at the beginning and end of school years) to report on pupils’ literacy progress in four areas: phonics, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and writing.

The results of the teacher observations and student assessments were consolidated centrally in a database, and literacy progress reports were produced for every school that showed their performance over time and in comparison to the average scores and results from schools in their respective zones and districts. Similar reports were produced at zonal and district levels, with the intent to help officials identify and prioritize support to schools and areas that were in greatest need. This approach drew on the large body of research suggesting that systematic coaching of teachers through observations, monitoring, reporting, and feedback on teacher and student performance lead to gains in learning outcomes (Piper & Zuilkowski, 2015; Steinberg & Sartain, 2015).

The RTS project also introduced the concept of and supported the implementation of learner performance improvement plans (LPIPs). LPIPs were developed by a school leadership team consisting of school leaders, teachers, and community stakeholders in a participatory process in which they conducted a situational analysis and identified specific school-level activities and interventions that would positively influence reading achievement. The concept of the LPIP follows in the footsteps of the comprehensive school reform models for school improvement, in terms of fostering collaborative leadership practices and whole-school development approaches (Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003; Datnow, 2005).

The RTS-introduced innovations to school leadership attempted to transform the role of the head teacher from that of administrator to

instructional leader. Through the Zambia School Gateway, head teachers were recast as mentors and coaches, not merely teacher evaluators. They not only reported on results but also were trained on how to provide constructive feedback to teachers.

The LPIP process stimulated collaborative leadership practices, prioritized focus on learning outcomes, and emphasized the role of data for monitoring

and evaluating. This process required head teachers to take on shared instructional leadership responsibilities that were theretofore uncommon in the Zambia context. In addition, schools supported by the RTS project were encouraged to activate teacher group meetings. Head teachers and senior teachers were to facilitate weekly meetings of teachers to share their experiences. Teacher group meetings were conceptualized in a fashion similar to the peer-learning communities and other peer-to-peer learning opportunities that Fullan (2005) suggested are critical to fostering a shared knowledge and understanding of the educational reform.

These interventions tracked closely with the findings of a recent study on leadership effectiveness in Zambia (James, Anthony, Warner, Rhodwell, & Banguna, 2014). In this study by researchers from the University of Pittsburgh and Creative Associates International, elements of effective school leadership were identified among high-performing schools in Zambia. In schools that had higher-performing students (as measured by a group-administered literacy assessment), head teachers characterized themselves as open to new ideas (willingness to innovate) and applying an authoritative approach to leadership. They played important roles in school management and planning and set goals for teachers and learners through school and LPIPs. Lastly, they were found to be more supportive of teachers through frequent monitoring via lesson plan reviews, observations, and post-observation discussions. These findings further revealed that high-performing head teachers had some predisposition to practices characterized in a few of the instructional, transformative, and collaborative leadership dimensions discussed in the literature review that follows. The research described in this chapter complements these findings by looking at whether differences in school leadership behaviors and leadership effectiveness influence school and learner performance.

Literature Review

We turn now to the literature to develop a framework for assessing school leadership in the context of instructional change. The research base on school leadership is extensive, dating back to the 1960s, although—as noted

previously—very little has been undertaken in developing countries. The literature review was guided by the following questions:

• Is there evidence of the impact of leadership effectiveness on learning outcomes?

• What are the most appropriate approaches to assessing and measuring leadership qualities and practices in the context of instructional reform? • Is there existing evidence of effective school leadership practices in

low-income countries?