Despite the proliferation of literature on students’ achievement and its sustainability, these concepts remain difficult to define. According to the online encyclopaedia, achievement is the worth realised after striving to undertake something good but difficult. In educational literature, there is no consensus among scholars on what exactly defines students’
achievement (Bates et al, 2013; Guskey, 2013). These concepts can be regarded as essentially contested, given that they predictably involve endless disputes about their proper use in education. However, it is undesirable to look for universal descriptions of concepts in this study; rather, I conceptualise them from a social justice perspective (Yu, 2007; Barrett, 2009, 2011; Novelli, Lopes Cardozo and Smith, 2014).
Researchers in educational leadership addressing the question of students’ achievement often (albeit intentionally) do not define it. However, researchers often address academic
achievements instead; basing this on quantitative indicators from standardised national tests (Schneider, 2011). Academic achievement is measured using students’ scores on assessments in specific content areas of cognitive learning. Bates et al. (2013) describe academic
achievement as “the determination of students’ academic competencies in relation to content areas and abilities necessary to succeed in school and real-world context” (p. 7). This
description reflects what Barrett (2011) describes as the human capital perspective of students’ achievement, where achievements are viewed in terms of benefits for future life. This human capital perspective stems from the neoliberal market-driven global education goals and testing that put countries into league tables. The human capital perspective is good in providing large-scale information on quantifiable achievements statistically measured through standardised examinations. However, “concentrating on quantifiable targets focused on acquiring basic skills could overlook the intrinsic positional and instrumental benefits that
are not readily quantifiable… qualitative indictors are hard to measure but contribute more to promote inclusion and balanced range of achievement” (Barrett, 2011; p.127).
Accordingly, in this study, I conceptualised sustainable students’ achievement from a social justice perspective. The analysis of students’ achievement goes beyond academic
achievement (the cognitive aspect) to encompass what learners understand and/or are able to demonstrate after completing a process of learning. However, some researchers argue that the affective and psychomotor goals are assumed as enabling traits or behaviour that facilitate students’ achievement of cognitive outcomes; therefore, not independent (McMillan, 2001). Nonetheless, I argue that students’ achievement should include everything exhibited in students’ behaviour from observable performance and products to invisible processes of change within the school and after school. The change process should involve interrelated dimensions of students’ development; cognitive, affective, behavioural, psychological and social. Students’ achievement, therefore, is the actual results (educational objectives) that students either achieve or fail to achieve during schooling or later on in life.
In light of the FSE 2008 policy in Kenya, the analysis of SSA from a social justice perspective focus on academic achievement in national examinations as well as students’ ability to participate in particular social contexts within and outside of school. The later involves the analysis of inclusion; whether all learners could achieve specified learning outcomes irrespective of their socio-economic, gender, regional differences. Secondly, the analysis of relevance; whether what students have achieved as learning outcomes are meaningful for all learners, valued by their communities and consistent with national development priorities in a changing global context. Thirdly, the analysis of progression rates; checking on how many are transiting to higher education or job market and finally, checking on achievement gaps across students of different cohorts especially from
disadvantaged backgrounds (Tikly and Barrent, 2013; Novelli et al. 2014). Intrinsic values of education, the quality of education processes, equity of access and achievement; inclusion, relevance and democratic participation are issues Kenya as a country is struggling to achieve (Republic of Kenya, 2005a, 2012, Republic of Kenya, 2007b). Students’ achievement is, therefore, perceived an important indicator of access, inclusion and progression from basic to post-basic education in Kenya (Wasonga, 2013).
The examination of sustainable students’ achievement highlighted above is in congruence with Nancy Fraser’s (2008) three principals of global social justice; redistribution,
recognition, representation. Novelli et al (2014) further develop Fraser’s principles of social justice to include reconciliation. This reconciliation principle is significant in understanding how school leaders reconcile students’ learning needs, staff and associate stakeholders’ individual and professional needs. In Kenya, students’ achievement in national examinations is seen as the core outcome of schooling (Mwangi, 2009). Improved students’ achievement, measured by test scores in national examinations is often linked to effective school leadership (Ngware, Wamukuru and Odebero, 2006). National examinations are “high stake” since they are used to inform decisions about students’ eligibility to progress to tertiary education, schools’ resources allocation and personnel (teachers’ and principals’) reward and promotion. However, this accountability assessment generally fails to provide sufficient diagnostic information for leadership and teachers practices that enhance or inhibit sustainable students’ achievement. While the social justice framework is not a substantive theory underpinning this study, these principles provide a useful framework for analysing school leadership contexts in which sustainable students’ achievement occur (Tikly and Barrent, 2013; Novelli et al, 2014). Sustainable students’ achievement is about the time dimension of the changes in students’ learning outcomes: Concerns the lasting benefits of the achieved success within and beyond school life (Hargreaves et al, 2014). Fullan (2005) describes sustainability as “the capacity of a system to engage in the complexities of continuous improvement consistent with deep values of human purpose’’ (p. 37). Fullan’s description compares well with other scholars, who address the concept of sustainable students’ achievement in twofold; change
management and moral purpose (Fullan, 2002; 2005; 2007; Hargreaves and Fink, 2005; 2012; Hargreaves et al, 2014). Fullan argues that sustainability is the duty of the principal; to improve the capacity of teachers’ individual and group learning in view of succession
planning. He states that “we should be selecting leaders in terms of their capacity to create the conditions under which other leaders will flourish, leaving a continuing effect beyond their term” (Fullan, 2005; p. 7). This view is shared by Hargreaves and Fink (2005) who contend that the solution to sustainable achievement lies in sustainable leadership. They argue that if leadership succession is not well handled, it negatively impacts on students’ achievement. In their view, leaders can only leave a legacy of sustained achievement when they ensure that others share and develop their vision.
Besides leadership succession, Hargreaves and Fink (2005) connect the aspect of sustainable leadership to social justice by arguing that sustainable leadership is one that benefits all students and staff; not just chosen few while others are ignored. The aspect of social justice is further developed in Hargreaves and Fink (2012) who contend that sustainability is rooted in four values; sharing knowledge and skills, empathy of caring for all whose leaders’ actions and choices affect, having a collective responsibility and non-competitiveness. Hargreaves et al. (2014) state that “sustainable improvement begins with a strong unswerving sense of moral purpose…the core meaning of sustain is to hold up, bear the weight of, be able to bear without collapse” (p.60). In sample studies of Finish education, Hargreaves and colleagues suggest practices that promote sustainable students’ achievement; creativity, innovation, inclusive and inspiring education. They propose that sustainable students’ achievement has three dimensions; depth, breathe and length. Depth is concerned with deep and broad learning that engages both students and teachers to achieve the goals of education. Breathe is about distributing (not delegating) leadership over staff, arguing that successful leaders depend on the leadership of others stakeholders. Length is about endurance, succession, being visionary, persistent and replicability of best practices. They conclude that “sustainable and distributed leadership inspires staff members and students, parents to seek, create and exploit leadership opportunities that contribute to deep and broad learning for all students” (p.141).