The final agreement of a new teacher appraisal system, namely the Integrated Quality Management Systems (IQMS), was reached in 2003 (Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC), 2003). The tenets of IQMS are underpinned by the purpose of a quality management system, which is to determine competence and assess strengths and areas for development (DoE, 2003:4). The IQMS provides PD support and opportunities for development to ensure teachers’ continuous growth (DoE, 2003:4). During the IQMS, theoretical evaluation is achieved by identifying strengths and areas for development for teachers (Nkambule, 2010:19). In the IQMS, teachers are responsible to develop each other. This is based on the idea that teachers have subject expertise to develop one another (Biputh, 2008:67). However, Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern and Keeling, (2009:10) point out that, in practice, the teacher evaluation system devalues the instructional effectiveness by generating the performance information that reflects virtually no variation among teachers in any way. In support, Nkambule (2010:19) argues that teacher evaluation systems do not differentiate between performance and under performance; instead, they create an impression that teachers’ performance is the same, which is not true. This has led Lubisi (2006:8) to complain about KZN teachers’ scores in the IQMS that:
The results of both the self and peer evaluation told us that almost all our teachers are good teachers. Of course if one is a good teacher, one does not need development. You and I know that this picture is clearly wrong, and comes nowhere near the reality of education system.
This is supported by Dhlamini (2009:14) that the administration of IQMS files is like window dressing in order to submit fabricated evidence to DoE. Biputh (2008:71) believes that this scenario is not a shortcoming of the IQMS model per se, but rather as a result of shortcomings in its implementation at school level. The reason for cheating scores can be caused by that teachers will be held responsible if they do not deliver according to the agreed and set standards (Heystek, Nieman, Van Rooyen, Masoge & Bipath, 2008:57). However, the main objective of IQMS is not for teachers to get higher scores but to ensure quality education for all and to improve the quality of teaching and learning in South African schools (Gulston, 2010:26).
Research by Kanyane (2008:106) on teachers’ attitudes towards IQMS revealed that IQMS is an effective PD strategy that could improve and maintain high standards of teaching and learning. However, Coleman and Earley (2005:195) mentioned that considerable time and
more paperwork are required when a performance appraisal is implemented. This is supported by Kimball and Milanowski’s (2009:48) findings that teachers experienced their evaluation as complex and time consuming. Furthermore, Bischoff and Mathye (2009:401) assert that the IQMS leads to a paper-driven system that does not appear practical to RSSs since they have few resources. This has led SADTU to disagree with individual teacher class visits for poor struggling teachers in RSSs with difficult working conditions (Mestry et al., 2009:482).
In response to the teachers’ outcry about the challenges of the IQMS, the DoE itself has commissioned Class Act (2007) and the National Education Evaluation and Development Unit (NEEDU) (2009) to conduct the implementation review of the IQMS. These two reviews have discovered various challenges experienced by teachers, such as conflicting roles of school development teams (SDTs) and SMTs, lack of human capacity, subjective ratings of scores, and lack of training of individuals and structures (SMTs, SDTs and development support groups (DSGs)) responsible for IQMS implementation (Class Act, 2007; NEEDU, 2009). In the similar vein, Mathye (2006:85) argues that because of contextual factors that challenge teachers, the authenticity parties will be affected by many factors such as intimidation, friendship and hatred. For instance, if an appraiser and a DSG member are friends, they simple agree on scores in their interaction, despite a clear definition of a peer in the IQMS document, and no development aspects will be identified.
The Class Act (2007:74) revealed that the IQMS initial training provided by the DoE was too inadequate. Similarly, DoE (2008) reported that the advocacy training was insufficient to equip teachers with knowledge and skills necessary to training the rest of staff members in their schools. In addition, Mbonyane (in Mestry et al. (2009:476-477) argues that the problem is that most teachers underwent a once-off IQMS training. The cascade model of training, the lack of insight into the IQMS by facilitators, the untimely implementation of the IQMS, the top-down approach of the DoE, the poor leadership of principals and SMTs, insufficient resources in RSSs are some of the reasons for teachers not displaying initiative to implement IQMS effectively. This study will also investigate whether teachers’ are adequately developed in the IQMS.
3.9.1 School development team
The DoE (2002:67) asserts that the role of the SDT is to initiate the appraisal process, mentor the effectiveness of the appraisal system and report appropriately. After the initial training, each school was instructed to democratically establish the SDT comprising elected members from SMTs and teachers with the principal as a mandatory member (Biputh, 2008:26). The DoE (2005:3) advises that both the SMT and SDT should work together and mutually support one another on matters related to IQMS. However, research by Somo (2007:92) found that there were no meetings of the SDTs in schools. The only thing teachers could remember about the SDT was when the principals called a meeting for the establishment of the SDT at their schools and since then there had been no meetings conducted by the SDTs (Somo, 2007).
Nkabinde (2006:25) argues that committees such as SDTs or staff development groups are crucial in organization. The development of these committees is to develop staff members in areas where development is needed. Unfortunately, very little or no development is taking place. SDTs’ members are teachers who have their own classroom responsibilities, engulfed with massive administrative duties like any other teacher. Therefore, in most cases they fail to deal effectively with IQMS related issues since there is no time allocated for them in the school timetable. It also becomes more difficult for rural schools where after school hours could not be used for IQMS matters since teachers stay far away from their schools (Maphunmulo, 2003; Vavi, 2011).
3.9.2 Development support groups
The DSG is comprised of three individuals, namely; the appraisee, the immediate senior (principal or HOD) and the selected peer (ELRC in Nkambule, 2010:1). The main role of the DSG is to provide mentoring and support to teachers (DoE, 2005:5). Additionally, Nkabinde (2006:26) points out that the role and responsibilities of the DSG are to provide mentoring and support, and assist the teachers in the development and refinement of their Personal Growth Plan (PGP), while working with the SDT to incorporate plans for the development of the teacher. According to him, the DSG is responsible for the baseline evaluation of the teacher for development purposes, as well as making a summative evaluation at the end of the year performance measurement. DSGs must evaluate that information provided for performance is accurate (DoE, IQMS Educators’ Manual, 2004:4).
However, because of lack of training, appraisers make judgment based on personal experiences and dislikes, as well as what they consider an effective teacher should be, more than on the basis of external standards whose credibility has been widely accepted by both appraisers and appraisees (Dhanpat, 2007:21). This is supported by Class Act’s (2007) findings that most teachers and DSGs do not know how to conduct an effective analysis of teacher performance and prioritize their development needs and have not been sustained high quality training and opportunities to meet these new expectations. Similarly, a recent study by Nkambule (2010:71) found that very little training was provided to DSGs by the DoE for effective IQMS implementation. The lack of training in the IQMS is contrary since the literature states that DSGs training is a prerequisite and lays a foundation for successful implementation of the teacher appraisal system (Weisberg et al., 2009; Hedge & Cavanaugh in Nkambule, 2010).
Recent research has found that DSGs are subjective when evaluating teachers in the IQMS (NEEDU, 2009; Nkambule, 2010). Similarly, Kanyane (2008:51) found that the entire process of rating teachers is comprised of linking rewards with the performance of teachers which caused subjective ratings since no one wishes to forfeit one’s benefits attached with good performance. Furthermore, the NEEDU (2009:59) found that the scoring process remains a very difficult issue because of the high amount of subjectivity in the implementation of scores. The scores were inflated to avoid rating which could jeopardize the chances of salary increase. Bischoff and Mathye (2009:401) concur that that teachers cheated on ratings and threatened their DSGs because they all wanted to receive money associated with good performance. Similarly, Kanyane (2008) found that teachers lose sight of the objectives of the evaluation process because everybody wants salary progression. This study will also therefore investigate the impact of IQMS on RSSTs’ professional development in KZN.
3.10 CHAPTER THREE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK