There is the issue of power. Power is everything in a hierarchical system. There is a culture of overreliance on a top-down approach - the follow the leader syndrome.
If it is from the top then there are no butts, it must be a good and sound initiative worth the time, energy and resources of the organisation.
There cannot be progress when the position one is occupying in the hierarchy clouds judgement of issues.
It is unfortunate to have a system where ideas generated by those sitting at the apex of the system are deemed correct and therefore not subjected to serious scrutiny while the initiatives from those sitting at the basement are judged harshly, viewed with suspicion or worst of all, contemptuously dismissed. No constituency in a school or organisation should be suppressed without a good cause. Even those labelled rightly or wrongly as rebels can be more helpful in supporting the vision than the likeable lot of conformists.
Solutions to issues vexing the education problems may come from unlikely quarters. It is important for the system to keep its mind and doors open. Perhaps making direct reference to the American bold and audacious decision to secede from the mighty British Empire, President Thomas Jefferson once said, “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing”. This means not all seemingly radical ideas should be viewed with suspicion because while it is true that some ‘rebels’ do not have a cause but others have a good cause.
It is important to do away with a system that shuts out ideas not on account of want of soundness but simply because they happen to come from the so called rebels. At all times those at the helm of the education system must keep in mind the whole purpose of having a school system - serve all children and move each of them towards proficiency. The slogan should be students first. School principals in particular should create a platform for all voices to be heard including the voice of dissent. Position or power should never stand in the way of making education better. Junior staff should not cease making contributions because of a history of rejection. They should get inspiration from someone who once said, “for junior staff, you must insist on speaking up when you have a thoughtful idea, you never know lives may depend on it.”
However, when raising issues, the junior staff should pay attention to due process. Organisations have protocols spelling channels of communication. Sometimes noble ideas which have the potential to raise achievement levels at schools or policy level are denied a chance of success because of failure to adhere to associated protocols. In the public service the world over, protocols are sacrosanct and therefore held in high esteem. Junior officers, if they are to make any meaningful contribution, must acquaint themselves on matters of protocol. While protocols are sacred, leaders should be liberal and kind enough to allow good ideas to thrive.
It is not wise for leaders to hide behind protocols to disguise their natural detestation of novel ideas. In a student centred education system, protocols should not always assume precedence over what is good for the future of the children. To buttress this issue of harnessing the energies and individual genius of each member of the organisation, Rachel E. Curtis and Elizabeth A. City say education leaders should be “purposeful about who is involved in the visioning process, ensuring that people who are key to bringing the vision to life are involved in the process ( this means teachers, among others!). Include skeptics and people who initially have a different vision.”
However, this is not to suggest that rebels without a cause should be left scot free. Every organisation could have one or two saboteurs who do not only resist authority but have made it their profession to frustrate every effort made aimed at improving the organisational capacity to serve its customers (students) well. Saboteurs thrive in a laissez-faire where a culture of accountability is low. Saboteurs thrive in a conflict or distractions-ridden environment and are skilful in diverting attention of the organisation from issues that matter to trivial and peripheral matters.
They derive pleasure in making a meal out of the weaknesses (perceived or real) of their leaders. Saboteurs do not recognise the fact that their leaders are no saints but mere mortals capable of making mistakes. So deliberate acts of sabotage against a vision intended to secure a better future, if proved beyond reasonable doubt, should be addressed and nipped in the bud. In other jurisdictions, school principals have sufficient ‘teeth’ on the ground to deal sufficiently with acts of sabotage. Elsewhere, school leaders have been found wanting in terms of dealing or weed out underachievers. It could be because of lack of teeth or courage to institute disciplinary measures. Inaction emboldens underachievers while discouraging top achievers. The hardworking and high achieving teachers can be discouraged where there are no consequences for under performance and disruptive behaviour. In other words, disruptive elements if un- challenged can become role models (super heroes) especially to young teachers.
The other big issue is a situation where organisations elect to stick religiously to a plan even when desirable results continue to elude the organisation. A strategic plan cannot be cast in stone. It should be discarded if it is not yielding as expected. Experience is supposed to inform the next planning period but there is a tendency to disregard lessons learnt.
The temptation to do a cut and paste exercise is strong. Simply changing dates here and there leaves the organisation essentially running with the same plan, which had failed to effect positive changes in the last decade. Strategic planning becomes an exercise in futility if carried for purposes of satisfying requirements of the system and not necessarily to address problems identified and raise student learning outcomes. Many schools are prepared to show off and flaunt their strategy plans on the walls while in reality the behaviour and actions of the school are not shaped or guided by the plan.
It has become fashionable for institutions to say something about developing 21st century learners when first of all there is no clarity about what should be done to arrive at that goal. The plans sound progressive and modern but the actions speak a different language. At times one is tempted to believe that planning is meant to play to the gallery rather than support teaching and learning. Curtis and City contend that, “strategy without resource allocation is simply words on a page with no hopes of implementation.” Strategy execution is a little more difficult when the implementers of the curriculum do not have autonomy and control over resource allocation. A little more freedom to determine priorities at school level is the change that schools seek in order to address issues undermining learner achievement levels.
