GOBIERNO DEL DISTRITO FEDERAL PROYECTOS FINANCIADOS CON DEUDA 2003

Principals were perceived by the majority of stakeholders and especially by the funding team, as essential to the roll-out of the HSP. Indeed, many examples of principal leadership were reported by a broad range of participants and they were central in filling the gap left by the absence of school-level committees. Such examples included consulting with the HS steering committee, directing and guiding the work of the HSP in their individual school and advising the HS funding team. However, there were also quite a few examples which showed a lack of enthusiasm on the part of some principals in leading on this kind of work. As indicated earlier in this chapter, the importance of completing a memorandum of agreement with all involved with the planning and implementation of the HSP is integral to its acceptance/adoption/success. For instance, it was mainly the principals who opposed the development of school-level HSP committees. According to members of the funding team as well as some principals themselves, most principals reported their reluctance to become what they perceived to be line managers to a HSC working in different participating schools. These interviewees stated that while some principals engaged to some degree with this responsibility, the system of management was not successful due to the cross-school nature of the HSC work. There was also a clear suggestion from the responses of most principals that they were uncomfortable with this leadership role. Understandably, principals did not wish to be involved in the workings of another principal’s school, particularly given the independent nature of each school setting.

Rushmer and Pallis (2002) argue that leadership and vision in implementing an initiative alongside a sustainable governance and management infrastructure are essential components of any successful multi-agency initiative. It was evident that the lack of school-directed committees created a HSP leadership vacuum at a school level. In cases where principals were reluctant to direct the HSP at a cross-school level, many decisions were made either by the HSC in a non-democratic way or at the cross-school committee level. This model differs substantially from a school-led model of leadership as espoused in the health promoting school literature (Gleddie, 2011; Leurs et al., 2005; Senior, 2012). The reluctance of principals to lead and manage HSC work also resulted in a lack of clear support structures for the HSCs, as evidenced by the narratives of the

157

majority of participants along with the observation notes. There were, in turn, important ‘ripple effects’ for the HSCs:

“When I [the HSC] said to [the principal], “Oh, you’re going to be my boss” she went, “Oh, no! I’m not your boss. I’m not telling you about the three schools. I’m only about my school”…It’s hard to know who to approach, like even just about practical things.”

[Healthy School Coordinator, year 1]

“I think there is a real lack of clarity as to who is responsible… [One principal] was close to retiring…and then [the principal of another school on campus] was just starting here …So … she did not have the time really either and then [the principal of the third

school on campus], never came to any of the steering committees the whole year.” [Healthy School Coordinator, baseline year]

The HSCs and most of the Principal interviewees reported that they had not been fully briefed as to how the HSP should be managed and led. This again suggests a marked lack of pre-implementation planning and little or no shared agreement of roles and responsibilities by the schools as recommended in the manual. It was clear that this lack of communication led to poor relationship building and collaboration between key stakeholders and that this in turn led to a lack of buy-in and an impaired understanding of the HSP amongst school staff. By contrast, a number of international studies highlight a need for clearly defined roles and responsibilities (as well as a shared understanding of objectives as indicated earlier), which is key to successful partnership working and collaboration (Brown & White, 2006; Dowling et al, 2004; Sloper, 2004; Stewart et al., 2003). By these measures, it is perhaps unsurprising that there was a lack of confidence and trust in how the programme should be led and implemented thereby impeding progress:

“I suppose the [HS management] structure is complicated enough … I never felt that they [the principals] really took on board their line management responsibilities or that they actually got that bit either….I don’t know whether we [the funders] should have done things slightly differently as well that in terms of the contracting with the school, should we have had more kind of regular progress meetings with them maybe.” [HS

158

Most of the funding team members who were interviewed acknowledged that their encouragement of principals to lead the implementation of the HSP was met with mixed success and that this was a significant source of disappointment for them. As a result, the funding team members themselves assumed responsibility for managing the steering group. However, efforts continued over the course of the implementation period to transfer responsibility to the principals (the role of the funding team in this respect is examined in more detail later in this chapter). Consequently, many parents, staff and even the HSC interviewees reported experiencing difficulties in clarifying who was responsible for directing the HSP. This can be explained by the fundamental lack of shared understanding that underpinned many of the challenges faced by those involved in implementing the HSP during its lifetime. The lack of pre-implementation planning, consultation and agreement limited the success of a school-led model which in turn impacted negatively on programme implementation in a number of important ways which are discussed in the sections that follow.