Elaine Browne.pdf - Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

A critical observation by Christie et al. (2007, 105) is that, in these schools, leadership was clear.
This was either “in the person of the principal and sometimes dispersed in SMTs, HODs, or
teachers themselves”.
Taylor (2009, 17) also highlights the importance of leadership during times of school and
curricular reform. He divides school management into two main functions which leaders of the
school and teachers share namely, “instructional leadership [which] gives priority to the
principal” and “transformational leadership” which includes the leading teachers and
management teams at schools. Such leadership assumes a division of labour within the
schooling system and allocates functions according to where and by whom they are best
performed by (Taylor 2009, 18). This kind of leadership creates conditions under which teachers
can work effectively and encourage good school performance amongst learners. Arends and
Phurutse (2009, 39) also advise school leaders to adopt a “supportive and caring management”
style in order to encourage their teachers to engage with the change. Taylor (2009, 20) believes
that when principals and leading teams are focused there are responsibility, shared duties
amongst teachers, a culture of hard work and high value attached to good performance. The
opposite is, principals who do not exercise a tight time management programme and who put
the blame of failure on circumstances outside their control like the unreliability of public
transport, a lack of teacher commitment or union interference. These principals fail in taking
responsibility. They do not exercise control over their work environment. As a result they do
not take ownership of curriculum management and implementation (Taylor 2009, 19).
9