The problems do not stem from the difficulty of managing a turnaround programme. It comes mainly from negative energy. Mission impossible is motivated by a wrong assumption based on fears of the unknown and lack of faith in the competencies and abilities of teachers and their students. A school turnaround is possible and can be accomplished within the set gestation period of three years.
The myth that needs to be corrected and wiped off is the thinking that a school turnaround is a geographically bound programme that can only thrive and prosper in certain areas and fail to take off in other geographical jurisdictions. The truth of the matter is that the school turnaround principles are universally applicable from the most developed and affluent town settings to the least developed, humble economically deprived circumstances.
A school turnaround is not a resource driven programme as some think of it. Of course it cannot be denied that adequate resourcing of institutions has its own place and function in bringing much closer the revival dreams and aspirations of a school. Resources, however, are not everything. History is littered with far too many examples of schools with the right resource endowments but could not dispense the right teaching and learning environment, encouraging students to learn and reach their potential.
There are schools, which inspite of their location in difficult circumstances, served and continue to serve and inspire students profoundly. Creating a rich and inspiring school environment is more than about resources. Moving a school to a high performing gear is more of an attitude thing and less of a resource anchored movement. The attitude of a school determines its altitude, how much ground (breadth) and how deep (rigour of instruction) it can go to meet the learning needs of students. Essentially there are two evils bedevilling and frustrating the potential of struggling schools to rise and shine.
The two fundamental stumbling blocks are negativity and lack of accountability. It should be borne in mind that the degeneration of a school begins with a culture of indifference. It starts when basic things, which used to matter, are trampled upon and not given the prominence and attention they so deserve. Stagnation and degeneration start when simple things like time management, holding of department meetings, exchange of information and notes within and across departments and facilitation of senior staff by junior staff and vice versa are pushed into the background. Degeneration creeps in when silos find more expression than working together for a common good.
A school starts to rot when individuals feel adequate and complete without others and when people come to work to mark themselves present and not to make a difference. A downward trend is a sure thing when a school has little or nothing good to say about its leadership and when leaders express no confidence in their charges. People give up on their duties when they feel less valued, inspired and poorly governed. A culture of despondency is a certainty in an environment where no one sees his or her role in the destruction of a positve school culture but only finds faults in others. A blame game is a demonic spirit that must be exorcised by all. Getting a school out of the abyss entails delving deep into process of soul searching and introspection, which process must necessarily involve getting the basics right. Getting the basics right means increased accountability. Everyone must take responsibility for whatever is going right or wrong in the school. The question should be what was my role in the destruction of a school culture and what remedial measures can I embark on to restore a culture of hard work and excellence? Taking personal responsibility diminishes the blame game and keeps everybody engaged in the process of rebuilding and reconstruction. School leaders play a critical role in managing a turnaround process.
The role of a principal is to inspire hope, erase the worries of doubters and above all provide exemplary leadership, reinforce good practices and rebuke wayward behaviour. The principalship duties require fearless leadership, readiness to accept the blame for things that go wrong and readiness to share the credit with the troops for things that go right. Managing a school for results requires a keen and active interest in classroom matters. Instructional leadership is the hub of a school. Students and teachers get inspired when principals frequently visit classrooms to check the pulse of the teaching process and make inquiries about how things are going. Students get inspired when they find the school principals at the gate when they arrive in the morning.
The interactions with the school head, however, short and informal may be, go a long way to build a positive school culture. Those early birds be it teachers and students are encouraged to repeat the positive behaviour when it is reinforced by the school principal. A school turnaround programme should have a fixed time table detailing what is to be achieved by when. A school turnaround programme has a better chance of success and sustainability if it is a purely internal school initiative than when it is seen as an externally imposed agenda. This means schools should know that they are capable of starting a process of change, of their own accord, with minimal or no external influence. The academic prosperity of a school is best enjoyed and appreciated when orchestrated from the school itself. People in an organisation tend to endure the pain that comes with change when self driven and internally motivated.
Bringing about change requires everyone on board from the police man at the gate, the woman in white apparels in the kitchen, the secretary manning the principal’s office, the classroom practitioner and the principal in the office and the parent at home. All must be ready to share the glory of success and the debilitating pains of birthing a new high top-notch culture of excellence. It is a team enterprise.
