IV
SIP & MANAGEMENT
Building
Bridges
We
have a vision for our schools
We want
change .....
What should
we do ?
Could we
organise
funds
redesign
the curriculum
train our
teachers
buy some
materials
Come closer
to the teachers ?
What should we do first ? .....
Set up
systems, build structures,
improve pay
scales, involve staff in
management
decisions, focus on
institution
building .....
We realise ......
·
We can’t force change .....
we have to work
with groups of people
who may not
want change
·
We cannot have instant change .....
it takes time for
commitment to build
We learnt .....
·
If we work at it
it
happens .....
The evaluation of the schools had clearly revealed that there existed a gulf between management and the schools. While the management’s perception of its role seemed to be to direct all operations and make its presence felt, the schools viewed it as “distant”, seldom “participating” in the school. Minutes of a meeting held in February 1987 indicate that the School Management Committee in those days had a different conception of how to administer schools. Key adminis-trative areas appeared to be in the hands of the management. Individual members had chalked out all the key decision making areas & distributed them within the group. Even smaller activities like getting student welfare committees to organise exhibitions, required the guidance of the member in charge. The first halting steps at professional management were taken in Nov 1987, when the committee started to view management issues like developing a policy and procedures manual for Diamond Jubilee Schools, defining procedural areas for AKES I, planning an aims and objectives exercise, acquiring a minority status for the schools, so as to have more flexibility. The schools had a history of unstable staff. Between 1960 and 1987 there were twelve changes of Principals in the boy’s school (three of them between 1980 - 87). The girls’ school saw five Principals between 1981 - 87. In the five years prior to the programme, 16 permanent teachers had resigned from the boys school and 13 from the girls. “While at a superficial level life goes on in the schools, deep rooted grievances among the staff seemed to be stifling a more zestful and committed effort |
towards changing the educational scene. Past experiences and prejudices whether they be with regard to issues of promotion or remuneration continue to intrude upon and affect the present reality .......” stated the evaluation. The project proposal recognised the existing state of affairs. To view institutional development holistically and build channels of communic-ation thus became one of the key objectives of the School Improvement Programme. Institutional growth in this context meant growing progress-ively towards becoming an instit-ution with a philosophy of education, long term goals, policies, clear role definitions & participative processes. All of these aspects were to be shaped and forged, in a collaborative fashion, with the staff and management working together. A
hard re-look The first year of the programme grappled with setting up systems of staff selection, financial issues and job descriptions. The new methodology required reviewing existing criteria for training and modifying them. Key training institutes with compreh-ensive training programmes were identified and application from their alumni were entertained. This involved a review of the existing staff on probation and a move to bring in new people. Each year as the programme progressed there was an increasing realisation of the kind of blend that was required for a balance. Some of the teachers were fresh from the training institutes. The pre-school curriculum demanded an in depth awareness of child development pedagogy as well as hands-on experience of dealing with children. |
|
Teachers with more years in education were needed. Some candidates with a Masters in Child Development were recruited. Responsible decisions All this meant having to take hard decisions. Some teachers had to be asked to leave. This had an impact on the morale and motivation of the teachers. “Are we so bad ?”, “In what way are they better ?”, “We feel any time we could be asked to leave,” were statements expressed in small groups. This became a matter of concern as the Principals of the schools began to feel anxious about the image such decisions were creating of the schools. The stand of the School Management Committee on this issue was “We have a policy to review staff. If teachers are being terminated responsibly then we are improving the quality of teachers.” Salary review A linked issue was the salaries being paid to the teachers. With more qualified teachers coming into the system, the compensation package had to be suitably attractive. Also, existing teachers were giving up more of their time and energy in attending planning meetings, training workshops, making new teaching aids, visiting other schools, organising child-centred activities, planning field trips - all of which stretched their time way beyond traditional requirements. |
A review of the existing salary structure revealed several anomalies. While some teachers were on a scale, others were paid a consolidated salary. Resolving these issues was fraught with problems. The older staff felt they benefited less from this exercise than the newer ones. Help from an external consultant detailed the broad salary structure, but the nitty-gritty of working out individual cases fell on the shoulders of the Education Officer (AKES,I) and the Accountant. Individual interviews with teachers followed, to sort out and clarify individual problems. Not everyone was happy but a major step had been taken. The management was beginning to be viewed for the first time as being “concerned” about staff welfare. The seeds of trust were sowed with this exercise. A related issue was the state government’s salary hike which made the aided schools an attractive proposition for teachers. If salaries were to be raised, how was the deficit to be met? One option was the fee hike - which under the Government ruling is permitted on a once in three year basis. But the nagging question was - would the clientele be able to pay or would the schools gradually find themselves catering to a different section of society more “able” to pay than the current one? More importantly, did we really want that shift? |
|
n Change is an
organic process - it does not happen overnight n All fronts have
to be tackled simultaneously. n Change needs a
climate of trust and patience. n Change cannot
be imposed. n We need to
listen to people ..... respond to their needs. n Resistance is a
part of change, Overcoming fear is a part of change n Attitudinal
change comes from consistent dialogue. n Participation
brings involvement, commitment and ownership. n Our greatest resource is our teachers. We must nurture this resource. |
|
Ø The Project would inevitably be affected by significant events in the schools but which were outside the Project’s scope: the pressure for a single, consolidated salary scale, the pressure from the many untrained pre-school teachers for formal qualifications. Ø The Project leadership needed to be clear where its influence legitimately began and ended. Ø It had to make sure that all the activities for which it accepted responsibility were of high quality. |
|
The demands that the project was making on the schools meant that a lot of decisions needed taking. This raised the question of who the final decision maker was -- the Principal of the school or the Project Director?. Who was accountable for what? If the Principal was to take charge in the post-Project phase, should the charge not be his/hers right from the beginning? Were the heads totally convinced about the need for some decisions that were arising out of the programme? These were grey areas and often lead to stormy School Management Committee meetings. Creating a dialogue The beginnings of the School Improvement Programme struck at some of the roots of the traditional system. “The attitude was one of demolition of the old rather than building on the old structure,” reminisces Nirupa Bhangar, Executive Officer at the time. There were tough moments. The teachers and the administration did not share the same vocabulary or the same motivations. The question was, how does one not take “no” for an answer and yet never force an issue ? The decision-making lay in the hands of the management and the onus of carrying out that decision rested with |
the staff. “Why should we be obliged to carry out a decision we have not been involved in?”, was a question that needed answering. The answer lay in creating a dialogue. However, in the school routine there was no space or forum where the two parties could meet, exchange views, clarify individual perspectives. The School Management Committee, recognising the importance of having grassroots representation at its meetings, asked the teachers to select representatives from each section of the school. For the first time in the history of the schools, six teachers became a part of the decision making forum. A major step in participatory management had been taken. Subsequently parent representatives were invited on the committee on a quarterly basis to discuss their concerns. The
evaluation report of Phase I in 1992 stated : “The School Management Committee has become more broad based, giving in its constitution, representation to all concerned sections including teachers. This has effectively reduced the distance between the SMC and the teachers ..... there is a general atmosphere of faith and trust between the employees and the management, which is a positive factor.” |
|
Money matters School Improvement also meant financial outlays. A growing anxiety the heads faced was overall the materials being bought -- how do we continue to sustain them in the post project phase ? This opened up a whole new chapter in involvement of the heads and supervisors in the budgeting exercise. As the schools got involved in the financial aspects, their own understanding of the need to raise funds on an on-going basis became clear. Both schools agreed to jointly raise funds on a once in three year basis. Other schemes for fund raising also got discussed. At various junctures it became clear that Management was becoming more accepting of the decisions taken by teachers and parents; it was now much more willing to adopt new strategies while doing away with those that had not proved effective. Meanwhile, within AKES,I itself individual members were beginning to recognise the need for consciously incorporating the principles of management in education. A few |
members, including one of the Principals, undertook a course on Education Management. As an off shoot of this, certain key areas of the schools were studied in-depth. From these studies emerged an understanding of the existing school climate, the need for setting up performance appraisal systems as well as refining financial systems. All these areas involved a participative approach and also gave a theoretical basis to the steps in School Improvement. A turning point Around this period, a workshop on institutional development involving key management representatives, staff and project members provided a turning point in staff-management relations. Another workshop on consensus decision making organised by the Aga Khan Foundation further cemented the growing under-standing. Significant progress had been made in the staff-management relationship, and the programme’s post Phase I evaluation lauded this as a landmark in School Improvement. |
|
Some Questions ........... ¶ Does a participatory approach mean we have to wait for every single member to concur before any decision is taken ? ¶ Should leadership in schools be situational ? ¶ How does a management build an ongoing commitment to continual transformation ? ¶ When does management step back and allow others to take the lead ? ¶ How does a management communicate even from a distance ? ¶ Are all decisions ‘final’ or is there space for renegotiation ? Is there any loss of face if the leadership back tracks ? ¶ Which issues can a leadership soft peddle on ? |
|
Career Ladders Meanwhile the career ladders created during Phase I had raised staff expectations. In the initial years the step up for teachers of calibre was the creation of the post of ‘resource person’, whose job description was specifically ‘academic’ in nature. The administrative chores were the resp-onsibility of the supervisor of the section. As the project moved into Phase II it was recognised that there was a need to build up a core group of teachers who would carry on the work done by the project personnel. The role was one of facilitation of academic discussions, liaising with teachers, in short taking on the mantle of change from the project team once the funding gave over. This was a critical moment, as the project leadership itself was changing. AKES,I with foresight, brought in an Education Officer who would later take on the role of the Project Director. As Education Officer, the new incumbent worked with the Principals to select this core group of co-ordinators from existing staff. As the programme was moving into the government-aided Secondary section, special care had to be taken to clarify the role of the co-ordinator vis-à-vis that of the Supervisor. |
The management had to lay down criteria for selecting co-ordinators. There was already a unique process of “nomination” of supervisors that went against the grain of the Departmental rules. According to rules the senior most person automatically became the supervisor. At D.J. Schools, a rank outsider, could by dint of calibre, walk away with the post because his/her peers recognised his/her calibre. It seemed a wonderful opportunity but there was many a hurdle to be crossed in its implementation. If per chance the popular choice was not the senior most teacher, but a younger member who undertook the supervisor’s job, there was every chance of the senior most staff member reporting the matter to the Department. The
danger was in the department refusing to recognise the nominated one. Worse,
because the post had a smaller teaching load than the stipulated number, the
person could be deemed a “part time” employee. In the long run this meant
loss of pay and reduction in benefits post retirement. Could the management
afford to risk an individual’s career? Which teacher would want to accept
that risk? What about the de-motivation of the seniormost staff members who
had waited for that position? What would it do to the school climate? Change
brought in its wake some hard decisions. Do we stand by our decisions or do
we withdraw in the face of rules? “We were taking steps hoping we would not
get pulled up” recalls Dr. Mohammad Abbas Khatkhatay, Executive Officer,
AKES, |
|||||||||||
|
Building a community By the end of the fourth year it had become clear that these relationships needed to work on an ongoing basis. The management took the decision to hire an institutional development organisation to build ‘a community’ within the schools over the project period. In retrospect, seeing the efficacy of this aspect of the programme, the decision was indeed a wise one. A review of the past decade reveals that the management style changed during the period that AKES,I has been involved with the schools. In the initial years the establishment of AKES,I in 1986 led to a professionalisation in approach. The appointment of professionals in touch with the grassroots, with class room teaching experience, who could identify the areas of concern and were willing to experiment with changes led to the planning of a systematic programme for development. With the programme for School Improvement, management style became more participatory. There was increased dialogue with the field, a recognition that consensus was important for a decision to take |
root, that people needed to be suppo-rted in their attempt to change. The management also grew to create career ladders, clarify roles, provide greater autonomy. Water-shed The introduction of Phase II proved to be a water shed in management staff relations. There were concurrent changes within the AKES,I hierarchy that had a significant impact upon the SIP initiatives. Existing members broadened their sphere of work. The AKES,I Education Officer became the Project Director and in effect played a dual role. However, for the members of the School the Education Officer became less visible as the role of the Project Director became more prominent. By the end of the Second Phase it was felt that management participation was again falling. What then is the current position ? Is there really a distancing or does it appear to be so due to decentralisation? There are other issues that need to be examined. In a participatory management, what are the respective roles of the management representatives, teachers, principals and parents? How clear are the parameters of participation ? In which areas is participation a must and where does it involve delays in decision making ? Issues could get more complex as the Project moves into Phase III with dissemination ---- and removes itself further from direct involvement in the schools. The impact of this distancing on the roles of the existing participants, the new lines of accountability this would create are issues that AKES,I would have to address. |
|||||||||||
“A
positive energy flow”
(Excerpts from an interview with Nirupa Bhangar, Ex-Executive
Officer, AKES,I 1987- 93)
What were the schools like before the School Improvement Programme? Children used to sit in rows. Teachers had a limited involvement with children, blaming them for not grasping or understanding. They were a frustrated lot and resorted to beating. There existed pressure from the management. There was more of a concern about finishing the syllabus and no real zest for learning. The prevailing climate was political with people taking sides. No real academic decisions or issues got discussed. To my mind the picture of a ‘rock’ emerges -- no fluidity. Nobody bothered to break it down - stultified, no energy, too much weight..... altogether a negative image.
What did the programme do? SIP was a melting process for ideas, that increased fluidity in the environment - created space for movement to manifest. Personally for me SIP was a belief that I saw manifest. Everything starts from education. Experience told me that I function different when the environment is different. Today I believe that I am the creator of my environment. My faith was reinforced by research. SIP had to mean a change in the environment surrounding the child... it meant a shift from “walls to space.” Learning is coded into our genes. We should not make them learn but allow them to learn.
SIP was a positive stand on my own convictions. The essence of creating a child supportive attitude was what helped my own convictions. When people actually see change outside its going to bring about the first change inside. Children have to be supported, caretakers also have to be supported in a like fashion. Along with it is the recognition that some people are natural change agents and can be used as catalysts. There is tremendous power and resourcefulness locked in every human being - what are the things that unleash it? Explore, discover and create ways of drawing this power out.
Going back to my image of a rock -- I feel creating water was the focus -- stream dripping from the rock .... over time there came the realisation that the structure also needs keeping. Over time rules were broken and were framed in a different form.
What was the attitude? The attitude was one of demolishing the old rather than building on the old structure. For instance, textbooks were removed from the classrooms. The gut feeling then was if the texts are merely changed it may not bring about the change required.
What has been the change in the teachers ? Before the programme, people seemed to be caught up with structures. The whole perception of the teacher’s job linked to rules and regulations. One hardly ever heard a concern about `how are we going to teach them differently?’ The teachers now want to share their own academic achievements. Their sense of pride in their work, in the way they were creating their own atmosphere and environment, was refreshing. Their talk is no longer concentrated on rights and duties.
In which section do you think change has been prominent ? : To my mind the Primary has been the most energised lot. It is here that there were many teachers of the older set and the transformation in them was complete.
Which in your opinion were moments of significant change ? : The tough moments were the times when significant change took place. There was a struggle between the administration and the project especially mid-way between the First Phase. Needs were different, class size, number of teachers needed, were issues that conflicted with the schools’ financial feasibility. There was anxiety with Std V even before it was reached. There was cognisance of the teachers’ own needs. These contradictions created an energy to find a different equilibrium. AKES, I was a young management - its story began with the School Improvement Programme.
What were the key processes involved ? : Building more trust in combined wisdom than in individual wisdom. It was an organic movement that evolved. Plan-do-review-modify were key issues. It was a blending of reflection and action, passion (energy) and compassion. It was a human movement.
|
|
ures. It was necessary. There was uncontrolled initiative given. Perhaps there wasn’t complete clarity probably not everything we did was right. We wanted to make the effort.” |
Lasting impressions .....
The year is 1987.
The time -- a hot summer afternoon in a crowded Std III Classroom. Rows upon rows
of desks, children sitting huddled together, crammed into the limited space,
face the teacher. The subject is Science. The topic being discussed on that
particular afternoon is the states of matter.
“Which are the three states of matter ?” the teacher’s voice raps out. One tentative
hand is raised. In an uncertain voice the child says “Liquid, (the voice grows
soft) Gas, er _____ (inaudible) solid.”
The response is immediate: “Sit
down, you don’t know the answer.”
From that moment
the child didn’t listen to anything that was happening in class. His body
closed up ... there was a feeling of being rejected.
I was watching
that child. After that, I found I myself couldn’t concentrate on observing the
lesson. Somewhere, I think I saw myself in the child. The image of that child
has stayed with me as an indicator of all that is horrible about schooling.
Today in 1995 I
visited the same school. What a difference .... the whole environment has
changed. The classes are colourful, there is new furniture, the walls are full
of children’s work. I realised suddenly, that was not what I was looking for. I
was anxiously scanning the faces of the young ones. I relaxed when I did
not find what I was looking for - the expression of fear on that child’s face.
-- D. J. Schools through the eyes of an Administrator