Leading School Management Practices

Establishing which management practices have the greatest impact on learner outcomes is a hugely important topic. This is particularly so at a time when provincial departments of Education are having to manage their schools with significantly reduced resources.

School principals have a massive amount on their plates. The South African Standard for Principalship defines eight core functions and the job profile of a public school principal, contains at least 48 areas of responsibility!

So, if learning outcomes are the core business of the school, which practices will help most in this regard? This data can then inform training initiatives, monitoring by circuit managers and reporting by principals themselves.

In 2012 Performance Solution Africa (PSA) undertook some research with the University of Cape Town to determine which of the school management practices it had defined, had an impact on assessment outcomes. The research indicated a statistically valid, linear relationship (results greater >.1) between different groups of practices - ‘All Practices’, ‘Top11’, ‘Top 7’ and ‘Top1’ and the school results achieved. Interestingly the research showed no significant correlation between the quality of infrastructure and the performance of the schools examined.

The Top 7 Practices which contributed to a 7% improvement in results at both Primary & Secondary Schools (in comparison to the control schools) were:

1. Curriculum being monitored and tracked

2. SMT meets regularly

3. Class visits being conducted

4. School & Curriculum Management Year plan in place

5. Monthly Financial tracking

6. Educator Absenteeism managed

7. Staff Recognition Procedure in place

   
   

This outcome aligns with international meta-analyses by Robinson, Lloyd & Rowe (2008), which highlights five high leverage leadership routines associated with significant gains in learner outcomes:

1.        Establishing goals and expectations

2.        Resourcing strategically

3.        Planning, coordinating & evaluating teaching and the curriculum

4.        Promoting & participating in teacher learning & development

5.        Ensuring an orderly & supportive environment

Drilling down one level, subsequent meta-analyses of Robinson et al.’s five dimensions identify that the following routines yield the largest effects on learner outcomes: (1) facilitate peer observations with debriefs; (2) provide structured feedback within 48 hours; (3) hold one on one coaching conferences; (4) convene termly curriculum mapping sessions; (5) set SMART growth targets at term start; (6) implement monthly data drills; and (7) protect weekly PLC time blocks.

Our own ongoing research, based on the data that we have from over 3,000 schools in South Africa, aligns strongly with our earlier findings in 2012 and broadly with the Robinson meta‐analyses. Our results assume an interplay between school functionality and performance outcomes. In other words, for a school to focus on learner results it must also be sufficiently functional.

So, our current seven focus areas which are informed by the Department of Education’s academic improvement programmes are as follows:

1.        A school Self-Evaluation and updated School Improvement Plan

2.        Functional School & Curriculum Management Plan (including LTSM)

3.        Attendance management and time on task

4.        Regular curriculum-focused SMT meetings

5.        Tracking and reporting curriculum coverage

6.        Regular subject meetings - scope, assessments

7.        Statistical & diagnostic analysis of assessment outcomes and remedial actions (using the DDD)

We have found that the school self evaluation and SIP is a very strong indicator of school functionality and we have developed a rubric for measurement of the SIP implementation.

The School and Curriculum Management plan sets the foundations for the teaching of the curriculum and enables the SMT to manage attendance and time on task.

At the SMT level, effective understanding and communication of the curriculum is facilitated by meetings of the SMT which are curriculum focused. These meetings should include tracking of and monitoring of curriculum coverage which must also take place at subject meetings run by Department Heads.

Ongoing diagnosis of assessment outcomes should always flow from the Data Driven Districts (DDD) dashboard which provides the necessary data for targeted instructional interventions, timely support for learners, and the prompt addressing of learning gaps.

Our implementation approach is therefore currently changing from supporting school leadership across a wide range of practices to first ensuring that they achieve 80% on the rubrics for each of these seven practices and then thereafter focusing on wider range of enabling and supporting practices.

PSA

June 2025

References:

Robinson, V., Lloyd, C. and Rowe, K. (2008) ‘The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: An Analysis of the Differential Effects of Leadership Types’, Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), pp. 635–674.