La legitimación colectiva

Against the background of the mentioned standards, quality education is highlighted. It is for this reason that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 1993 cited by Motala, 2001) defines a quality education system as guided by clear goals that determine whether certain standards in quality are being maintained. In line with the standards mentioned by SERC, UNICEF (2000) places a particular emphasis on the learner, the learning environment, the content, processes that cultivate a multicultural inclusive pedagogic approach; well-managed classrooms and schools, and regular monitoring that can gauge learning potential and reduce barriers.

Fuller (1986, cited by Motala, 2001: 66) encapsulates a definition of quality from a schooling perspective as:

a production function model with an input-output view; school quality as existing in the relationships between teacher and student, supported by a positive school climate; school quality as a function of classroom and school organisation (time on task and a well-managed school structure); and quality as symbolic (Fuller, 1986 cited by Motala, 2001: 66).

86

However, Webbstock (1994: 7 cited by Motala, 2001: 66) warns that any conception of quality in South Africa must be relevant to its changing context, and that a workable notion should include ‘fitness of purpose’ and ‘value added’ approaches. Smith (1997) suggests that shared notions of school quality relate to the interaction between the values of school stakeholders and emerging knowledge base of schooling; together, values and knowledge provide a means for deciding what is priority and significant in the school.

In addition, UNICEF (2000) maintains that definitions of quality must embrace evolutionary change based on data gathering, context and gaining perspective on the kind of educational trials that exist. Education systems that support transformation use information gathering and self-evaluation to draw on the needs defined to improve systems which often provide quality education to learners (Glasser, 1990 cited by UNICEF, 2000).

It is for this reason that emphasis is placed on the notion that in order to determine an understanding of quality with regard to its specific environmental context, all significant stakeholders must be involved as they hold different opinions and significance of educational quality (Motala, 2000 cited by UNICEF, 2000). This is in line with the envisioned design of the generic mentoring framework as embedded within the Parsonian view of social systems. All actors and/or collectives are in an interdependent relationship, and, therefore, achieving best educational practice would rest heavily on consensus of values as implied by the mentioned standards.

In summary, quality education / educational best practice / quality education for all can be achieved within the South African educational context if quality standards are collectively defined, regularly monitored and goals are aligned to these standards (Motala, 2001); cognisance is taken of the changing South African educational context and economic and political environment which calls for adaptability to ensure fit-for- purpose (Webbstock,1994 cited by Motala, 2001), while giving attention to values that enable equity and democracy (Motala, 2001).

It is for this reason that best educational practice is synonymous to quality education as it fosters WSD or establishes a culture in which transformation is enabled.

87 4.3.1 Whole school development (WSD) / Whole school culture (WSC)

WSD is a transformative measure to reform dysfunctional schools focused on sustaining educational development (Hargreaves, 2008). Through a process of ‗self‘ evaluation of the whole school environment, schools can design improvement plans that give attention to formal and informal structures and processes in order to encourage WSD (Westraad, 2011). These improvement plans for WSD concentrate specifically on organisational, personal and leadership development (General Motors South African Foundation, 2006 - 2011) to bolster academic, infrastructural, social and security environments of schools.

In addition, WSD encompasses the provision of quality teaching and learning through curriculum implementation, school governance, stakeholder and community participation, strategic planning, and monitoring and evaluation (Hargreaves, 2008). By improving quality of education and resources, it ensures enhanced organisational functionality which in turn ensures opportunity for learners to adjust to their circumstances and to cope with change (Hargreaves, 2008).

According to Akyeampong (2004), WSD can become bona fide and congruent if planning includes educational decentralisation, change management and school conditions that take into consideration the importance of child-centred learning.

Educational decentralisation entails the participation, collaboration and commitment of all stakeholders in the management of the school. The idea of WSD is reinforced as decentralisation emphasises gratification of the needs of a particular school community. However, Akyeampong (2004) states that it should also cultivate a culture of ownership, collaboration and responsibility. Therefore, management and decision- making should be enabled.

With reference to change management and school conditions, the former entails transformation of organisational culture of the school and buttressing community relations (Fullan, 2001; Akyeampong, 2004). This approach warrants collegiality and participation from all stakeholders particularly whereby principals can embrace an open management style involving SGBs, SMTs, educators and learners in daily functionality of the school.

88

Within WSD, prominence if given to developing problem-solving abilities of all stakeholders where collegially or peer relations have prominence and provides reasons why co-responsibility is imperative for goal accomplishment (Akyeampong, 2004). In addition, a learner-centred approach should assist learners in building on prior knowledge to broaden their knowledge base, skills, attitudes and cognitions (UNICEF, 2000).

If the main aim of education is to develop learners and to improve learner achievement rates, then it necessitates that schools, amongst other things, confront issues pertaining to governance, leadership, the deficiencies in educator competence, and infrastructural problems (Fullan, 2001; UNICEF, 2000; Westraad, 2011).

In addition to leadership, governance and educator deficiencies, other critical areas that require attention within the notion of WSD as contextualised within the South African schooling environment are: educator development, curriculum implementation, learner achievement, learner support systems (mathematics, literacy, science, care and support), school safety and security, discipline, parents and community involvement, motivation and team building (General Motors South African Foundation, 2006 - 2011). This will be dealt with in greater detail in section 4.3.1 of this chapter. Therefore, the design of the fit-for-purpose mentoring system draws on and extracts these crucial elements identified for WSD within a specific school as proposed in chapter 5 of this thesis.

The notion of WSC is described by Johnson and Johnson (1993 cited by Freiberg (ed.), 1999: 34) as ...anything from environmental aspects of the school to the personalities of the students and educators, as well as the academic performance, levels of physical activity, and the processes and materials used throughout instructional procedures. However, the DoE (2000) mentions that the notion of WSC should include school management and leadership purposed to create an optimised environment in which school culture includes the operation of principles such as accountability, autonomy and self-reliance. Therefore, giving character to a school‘s culture prerequisite elements such as actualisation, resourcefulness and creativity should play a role, as these enable clarity of goals and develop and maintain appropriate structures and processes to enable these. In essence, according to Krug

89

et al. (2006), a school‘s culture should enable transformative possibilities.

In order to enable a better understanding of a schools culture and to determine the way forward to optimise a culture of ‗performance‘ that is based on the notion of WSD through which to ensure best educational practice, it is important that a school creates an opportunity to regularly assess its functional state. In Parsonian terms this would imply undertaking an analysis of the functioning of a school in terms of the AGIL scheme as detailed in chapter two. By so doing, insights are gained into the areas of dysfunctionality and disequilibrium which require intervention. However, another strategy would be to use benchmarking.

4.4 Benchmarking

According to Camp (1998), organisations use comparative measurements to track progress and success. By so doing, organisations are able to deliberate and refocus to sustain their survival and to prevent disequilibrium or dysfunctionality. By incessantly gaining knowledge from others, and, amongst other things, evaluate their performance, create a knowledge management culture, and ensure infrastructure from which to profit, and apply various modes of best practices and ensure standards, schools can elevate their status within the national and international arena. This, according to Al-Mashari (2005), is a mandatory requirement for world class performers.

Benchmarking assesses the progress and success of one organisation to another; it determines the level of success an organisation wants to attain; it identifies who is the best; it determines how and through what practices they have achieved being the best; it relates how to adapt successful practices to one‘s own organisation; and lastly, it determines how to excel and to surpass the best (Alstete, 1997). In other words, benchmarking is the continuous evaluation and comparison of work processes between organisations, by permeating an outside focus to internal activities, functions and operations through a structured process (Kempner, 1993 cited by Al-Mashari, 2005). Therefore, the aim of benchmarking is to enable core personnel to measure the quality and cost of internal activities and to recognise opportunities when they exist.

90

(Harvey, 2004 - 2008). Benchmarking is used to enhance administrative processes as well as make comparisons of instructional models and processes between various institutions and adapt these if they are proven successful (Chaffee & Sherr, 1992 & Clark 1993 cited by Al-Mashari. 2005).

Various types of benchmarking illustrate the different activities that can be performed during the process of benchmarking.

The simplest form of benchmarking, known as performance benchmarking, entails comparing performance data (Bogan, 1994) and it focuses on the ‗what‘ is working (or not) and not on the ‗how‘ these changes can be achieved. Performance benchmarking assists organisations to detect those performance aspects that need enhancement but it cannot instruct them on how to improve these aspects (Yarrow, 1999).

Diagnostic benchmarking, on the other hand, investigates practices and performance. It determines the results of the company which is relatively weak but also indicates which practices require improvement. In addition, it recognises those practices that require modification and the type and degree of performance improvement that should be incorporated (Yarrow, 1999).

Process benchmarking is an improvement technique. It entails two or more organisations comparing their practices in a particular department to enable the achievement of improved results. Maximum benefits are achieved with this type of benchmarking but it is complex and costly (Yarrow, 1999). The literature on benchmarking identifies three types of process benchmarking of relevance to this study, namely: internal, functional and generic benchmarking.

 Internal benchmarking is performed in large organisations with numerous departments that conduct similar processes when the processes in each of these departments are internally compared with each other (Alstete, 1997). Because benchmarking is internal, data is readily available and there is no classified information, making it the simplest form of benchmarking (Camp, 1998). In addition, it initiates training opportunities for external benchmarking

91

and invites a culture of knowledge sharing (Liebowitz, 2002) but it does not identify best practices. Sincere and powerful benchmarkers employ internal benchmarking for two reasons. First, by implementing practices from excellent performers within the organisation, it can enhance the performance of poorer performers in the same organisation. Second, internal benchmarking helps to acquire benchmarking skills and to expand on the information required for one‘s own operation prior to engaging in external benchmarking. Internal benchmarking can be used in a schooling context when the processes used in the various subject departments in a school are internally compared with each another.

 Functional benchmarking makes a comparison of certain functions within organisations. For example, Human Resources (HR) is compared to another organisation‘s HR which could have been implemented as a ‗best practice‘. Various factors can impede or advance the outcome of a best practice. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the context (environment, cultural, geographical and other factors) in which to operationalise a best practice is similar (Al-Mashari, 2005). The Annual National Assessment (ANA) is a form of functional benchmarking where educators can compare the performance of learners in the same grade level to that of learners in other schools in the same district, provincially and nationally (DBE, 2010; DBE, 2012).

 Generic benchmarking is similar to functional benchmarking in that it uses a comparative analysis of quantitative data and qualitative factors related to the critical business process which was identified as the reason for the performance gap. It further offers a more holistic approach since it concentrates on multi-functional business processes which facilitate the perception of how best practice companies achieve performance excellence. Added to this, generic benchmarking concentrates on the methods and practices that are centre of the critical processes (Al-Mashari, 2005). The benchmarking type opted for, must take into account the processes that are being evaluated, the accessibility to expertise and data that is available at the institution (Alstete, 1997). Generic benchmarking within a school setting is seen as a process of Whole School Evaluation (WSE) where the quality of the education provided by

92

the schools can be assessed. This evaluation is done internally by the school itself and then externally by supervisors from the DBE‘s Office of Standards who, using agreed upon national criteria, compare the data received from the various schools to make comparisons on the quality of education they provide (DoE, 2001). This enables the school to gather the information they require to improve their performances (Alberta, n.d.). These evaluations are used to determine the functional status of the schools.

The benefits of benchmarking include: operational benefits, cultural benefits and financial benefits (APQCI, 1999; APQCI2, 1995; Camp, 1998; Zairi, 1996). Operational benefits allow the organisation to seek new opportunities whilst preventing complacency and instilling a drive to handle the challenges when they appear (Al- Mashari, 2005). As benchmarking leads to innovative thinking about how to improve an organisation, it speeds up transformation and reformation by utilising verified processes (Al-Mashari, 2005). In terms of schooling systems, the cultural benefits of benchmarking include the provision of support to the evolving learning culture which adds value and leads to effective operational success of structures and processes (Al- Mashari, 2005).

According to Pennington (2011), it is estimated that there were approximately 24 000 out of 30 000 schools in 2011 labelled as dysfunctional places for learning. Insight gained about best practice, quality education, best educational practice and benchmarking provides some measure through which to understand the phenomenon of functional / dysfunctional schools or schooling systems at a micro level of analysis. Attention is now given to the concepts functional and dysfunctional schools.

As it is estimated that approximately 80% of schools in South Africa are dysfunctional and thus per implication implies a lack of best educational practice; attention is now given to the notion of functional vs dysfunctional schooling systems.

4.5 Functional vs. dysfunctional schools in a South African context

Guest (2008) draws a distinction between effective, functional and dysfunctional schools. While effective schools are characterised by the correlation between educational outcomes and its accomplishments, functional schools are defined as

93

having no culture of teaching and learning; however, teaching and learning is the norm of the school day. Dysfunctional schools are defined as disorderly and lacking accountability with a non-existent culture of teaching and learning (Guest, 2008). An assessment of these definitions holds that both effective and functional schools are defined as ‗functional‘ schooling systems, while dysfunctional are not. In contrast, Kershni (2002) uses a two-fold distinction and defines a school as being functional when 80% of the learners have passed their senior certificate examinations (SCE). Although the sole use of a single variable is questionable, it does give thought to what elements contribute to schools with a far lower pass rate on a continuum scale.

However, research detailed this far detailed within this thesis has indicated that functionality / dysfunctionality is a not dependent on outcome but on the consequences of structure and process as indicated with the functionalist framework or perspective.

Against this background, the notion of functional and dysfunctional schooling systems is now dismissed.