Mitógrafos arcaicos.

Like the two principals above, Mr Baxter understands SI as performing a role of accountability in primary schools in SVG:

It lends a stronger voice to my voice because, I‟ve been saying to teachers these are the areas in which you need to improve. You have inspectors coming in and say the same thing so my voice is strengthened. I think that it give us insights as to what we can do to improve school effectiveness (Mr Baxter).

He sees SI an independent referent being critical to supporting his role of accountability and school improvement. He perceives it as assisting the school in bringing about school effectiveness, which he sees as bringing about school improvement. Miss Bronte uses the term accountability in giving her perception of SI, „it makes you accountable to the ministry, to the parents‟ (Teacher). Mrs Rothman characterises accountability more in line with SSE she said, „it gives you a guideline, as an organisation if you [are] not accustomed to evaluating yourself you will not know exactly where you are‟ (Teacher).

Mr Baxter, Mrs Rothman and Mrs Bronte like their other counterparts support SI. For the principal, „it could be a very, very useful exercise, providing it is conducted in the way it should be and the inspectors themselves are very objective in their approach‟ (Mr Baxter). There is the possibility that SI could have unintended negative effects if not conducted with impartiality Mr Baxter seems to suggest. This is Mrs Rothman‟s perspective:

I think it‟s a good idea because I‟ve been around and I‟ve seen a lot. I know sometimes things are not as they ought to be. If it is done in the right way without biases it can be a good thing (Teacher).

Like Mr Baxter, she enters the caveat of inspection only being beneficial in the context of objectivity. While Miss Bronte supports school inspection, she is of the opinion, like Mr Kranston principal of CMP that the implementation was not done properly:

97

We needed prior discussion on school inspection. There needed to be a formal discussion. At least somebody from the inspection team should have come. Inspection was just dropped on schools‟ laps (Teacher).

Her views are in relation to the top-down manner in which school inspection was implemented in SVG. She went on to add, „many of us feel that the schools in the first round were schools under the ministry binoculars, schools that were not doing well at the CEE and national tests‟ (Teacher). She thinks SI was surveillance of schools that were not performing well in the CEE. This is accountability and is quite similar to a perspective shared earlier by Mr Conliff of CMP.

Like their other counterparts, the participants of JP were of the perception that SI can contribute to school improvement. Mr Baxter articulated his view about it:

They say school improvement what I like to talk about is improving school effectiveness. In other words we can always improve our school. There can be a number of right ways of doing things so we want to improve on school effectiveness to improve what we do (Principal).

His perception is that when schools are effective then school improvement results from this. Mrs Rothman‟s view of school inspection leading to school improvement is crafted this way, „look at the things they say in the inspection report, you analyse them. If somebody finds fault sit down and do self-reflection (Teacher). In Miss Bronte‟s belief, „improvement should be the aim of school inspection‟ (Teacher).

The participants were in general agreement with the findings of the SI report: Apart from one issue I think the report was really a true reflection of what happens right. Because from where I sit as principal a lot of the things that we sat at staff meetings and planned and say we would implement some teachers didn‟t move to implement some of those things we spoke about and it was reflected when the inspectors came (Mr Baxter, Principal). His assessment of issues in the school was borne out in the inspection report. However, his comments indicate inept leadership as non-implementation of plans, falls squarely on his shoulders as the school leader. Miss Bronte felt the report was: „fair but in other instances we had problems… when the staff saw the report a lot

98

of the members were very upset. Others said some of the things in it are true‟ (Teacher).

Mr Baxter and Miss Bronte believe that SI has negative aspects too, „teachers can think in a case where the inspectors were subjective, they can feel a bit discouraged; it can portray an untrue negative image about the school‟ (Mr Baxter, Principal). Miss Bronte also expressed her feelings about the negative consequences of SI:

Some teachers got feedback and there was a difference between the feedback and what was in the report. It was daunting honestly. Each heading was unsatisfactory. People‟s spirits were crushed and they voiced it when we had the staff meeting (Teacher).

The SI report had negative unintended consequences on teachers at JP.