Sei sulla pagina 1di 17

3rd International Conference

On Principalship and School Management


10-13 March 2008 Institute of Principalship Studies, University of Malaya
“School Improvement: Research, Development and Practice”

Effective Training for School Improvement: A Case Study in Malaysia

Sub-theme 1: Building Principal Capacity


Chan Yuen Fook (Ph.D)
Faculty of Education, MARA University of Technology
40200 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
yuenfook@salam.uitm.edu.my
Tel: 603-55227401
Fax: 603-55227412

Abstract

There is no denying that a school head has many important roles to play. When a school
teacher is appointed as a school head, he/she is expected to be competent in many
aspects. An effective school leader is expected to be a skilled classroom practitioner, a
curriculum leader, a technical expert, plus all the manifestations associated with being the
figurehead and with being ‘in control’ of the whole mechanism (school) all the time. In
order to equip a school head with the relevant skills and knowledge within the shortest
period of time, effective training is much more desirable compared to the socialization
process or gaining the relevant experience from the working place. It is thus the aim of
this study to look into the training of school heads and the relationship of learning and
school improvement projects to shed light of effective training in the 21 st century. A
descriptive study was conducted to investigate the learning of 221 school heads and the
organizational effectiveness due to the training in the School Leadership and
Management Course. The study measured the learning achieved by the school heads in
the training program and successfully identified important competencies that ought to be
acquired by the school administrators. Besides that, the study also identified the
influences of the training on school improvement projects and the relationship between
learning and organizational effectiveness. The findings of the study are useful for
training institutes to improve their training and for school heads to improve their own
competencies as a school leader in the learning organization.

(256 words)

1
Introduction

The head teacher is considered to be the key figure in leading staff members, parents, and
a student population to higher levels of educational attainment and a conviction that
schools will have to be led into new configurations of organization, staffing, program and
instruction, technology, parent and patron involvement, and accountability (Sybouts &
Wendel, 1994). In Malaysia, the general duties of a head teacher or headmaster or
principal are recorded in the Report of the Cabinet Committee (Ministry of Education,
Malaysia, 1985, pp. 89-90). These duties include the following:

• to implement all educational programs as stipulated by the Ministry of Education;


• to supervise and guide teachers in the school to ensure that the teaching-learning
processes are properly carried out;
• to monitor and supervise the education of pupils and matters such as discipline,
sport activities, societies, welfare work and the like;
• to establish good and effective public relations with parents and the public
through Parent-Teacher Associations (PTA) and the Boards of Governors or
Managers.

As the above mentioned, the duties and roles of a head teacher in Malaysia are diverse.
School heads have to deal with all kinds of difficult human behavior and ever changing
job nature (Manasse, 1982; Dickman, 1986; Hall, Mackay & Morgan, 1986, Sybouts &
Wendel, 1994). School heads have to be strong with the most needed competencies
(Leithwood, Begley & Cousin, 1990) in order to be competent in their posts. Based on
this assumption, Bowring-Carr & West-Burnham (1997: 118) defined the role of the
school head or head teacher as follow:

the skilled classroom practitioner plus curriculum leader, plus technical


expert, plus all the manifestations associated with being the figurehead
and with being ‘in control’ of the whole mechanism (school) all the time.

If schools are to achieve educational goals and fulfill expectations placed upon them, it is
imperative that head teachers be adequately prepared and not intimidated by demands on
them. In view of the possible significant impacts of head teachers on schools it could be
disastrous for school should head teachers exhibit a gross lack of confidence, feel
inadequate or experience negative feelings when discharging their duties. Hence, the
training of head teacher is essential as it could help head teachers learn and adapt to
reform and improve their instructional practices by providing time, mental space, and
opportunities for professional development. Furthermore, major research on innovations
and school effectiveness also showed that head teachers played key roles in the school
improvement and change process in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom
(Leithwood, 1990; Mortimore, 1995; Purkey and Smith, 1983). Perhaps one of the major
changes in the school leadership training has been the range of expectations placed on the
position; these expectations have moved from demands for management and control, with
presumptions for forced compliance, to the demand for an educational leader who can
foster staff development, program improvement, parent involvement, community support,

2
and student growth. These shifting expectations would not be easy to articulate in a
stable culture. Hence, to exact major changes and expectations for building head teachers
in a dynamic and changing environment becomes increasingly difficult in the new era
(Sybouts & Wendel, 1994).

The School Leadership and Management Training

The job of building head teacher is a combination of many things. Whether viewing the
training as cultural and economic necessity or looking at it from the perspective of the
self-fulfillment of each individual, the educational management and leadership training
institute is of the highest order of importance for the survival of our head teachers and for
the well being of each student. Not only are these great expectations placed on head
teachers, but these expectations are also imposed on training institutes in the midst of a
culture that is in rapid transition (Chew, 1986).

Thus, Institut Aminuddin Baki (the National Institute of Educational Management and
Leadership) or the Institute of Principalship Studies stationed in Universiti Malaya are in
the forefront to identify what constitutes the most suitable headship in the Malaysian
context. Institut Aminnudin Baki (IAB) began as the Malaysian Education Staff Training
Institute in 1979. It shifted to its present main campus in Genting Highlands in 1985 and
was renamed Institut Aminuddin Baki in 1988 in memory and in appreciation of the
contributions of the first Malaysian Chief Education Advisor. Since its establishment
IAB is focusing on in-service short term certificate or diploma programs for the existing
school heads or incumbents. However, the Institute of Principalship Studies which was
established in 2001 focuses more on conducting undergraduate and postgraduate degree
programs for the aspiring school heads.

There are many in-service school leadership and management programmes conducted in
IAB. Among all these courses, the National Professional Qualification for Headship
(NPQH) Program and the School Leadership and Management (SLM) Course are the two
of the major programs offered by IAB to enhance the competencies of school heads in the
primary and secondary schools in Malaysia. The NPQH programme is a one year
diploma programme started in 2000, It aims to train competent aspiring school heads who
will be able to handle their institutions or schools from multi-frame perspectives with
solid theoretical knowledge and high level management skills. The selected participants
need to attend a six-month training stint in IAB. Besides that participants also have to
carry out three innovation projects during their six-month internship program in the
school. The NPQH program was specifically designed to enhance the competencies of
the aspiring school head in seven core areas. These seven core areas include vision
development, effective organizational management, interpersonal skills, intrapersonal
skills, curriculum management, co-curriculum management and school leadership. The
course has a strong practical and participatory bias and provides opportunities for a
thorough examination of principles and practicalities.

3
However, the SLM program is a short term certificate program for all the newly
appointed school heads. This is an intensive four-week training course offered to the
incumbent senior assistants, headmasters and head teachers by Institut Aminuddin Baki.
The course aims to enhance the knowledge and management skills of participants and
introduce standard practices in curriculum management, school management, record
keeping, financial and office administration. The course comprises lecture sessions and
participants are required to write a project paper at the end of the course. Besides that,
participants need to sit for a final examination and receive a certificate in educational
leadership upon fulfillment of program requirements (IAB, 1991).

The review of these two important courses in IAB revealed the influences from the head
teacher training model of Crow and Glascock (1995). This model emphasizes that an
effective training program needs to have three important components, namely theory,
hands-on experience and analysis. These similar approaches were applied in both the
SLM and NPQH programs to help incumbent and aspiring head teachers to acquire the
relevant skills, knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors to their school management and
administration.

Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this study was to examine the learning enhancement among head
teachers in the School Leadership and Management (SLM) Course organized by Institut
Aminuddin Baki (The National Institute of Educational Management and Leadership).
The SLM Course was chosen due to its nature as the most important course for all the
incumbent head teachers in Malaysia. It provides the most basic skills and knowledge to
all of the newly appointed school heads in Malaysia as a quick start. The course consists
of three important competencies that must be acquired by a head teacher namely,
leadership and management competencies; curriculum and co-curriculum management
competencies, and finance and office management competencies. Specifically, the
objectives of the study were to:

1. Examine head teachers’ level of leadership and management competencies,


curriculum and co-curriculum management competencies, and finance and office
management competencies before and after the School Leadership and
Management (SLM) Course.

2. Identify the achievement of learning enhancement and school improvement


projects in the above mentioned aspects as the impact of the course.

4
Research Questions

This study endeavored to answer the following research questions:

1. What is the level of leadership and management competencies of head teachers


before and after the SLM Course?
2. What is the level of curriculum and co-curriculum management competencies of
head teachers before and after the SLM Course?
3. What is the level of finance and office management competencies of head
teachers before and after the SLM Course?
4. How significant is the learning enhancement achieved in the three main aspects
namely, leadership and management; curriculum and co-curriculum management
and finance and office management as the impact of the SLM Course?
5. What types of school improvement projects that have been implemented as the
impact of the SLM Course?

Methodology

The purpose of the study was to examine head teachers’ competencies in school
leadership and management before and after the SLM Course. Besides that, the study
was also intended to verify the learning enhancement and the implementation of school
improvement projects as the impact of the SLM course. The descriptive study was chosen
to allow a qualitative and quantitative description of the relevant features of the data
collected. Descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation were used to obtain
an accurate measurement. Besides that, t-test was employed to compare the competencies
of head teachers before and after the course. Simple random sampling technique was
used to choose 221 participants from 389 participants who had attended SLM Course in
IAB in 2002. Learning Enhancement Questionnaire was used to collect data regarding
with the level of competencies and enhancement of learning in three different aspects
namely leadership and management, curriculum and co-curriculum management, and
finance and office management. Besides that, open-ended interview questions were used
to identify school improvement projects that had been implemented in their schools after
the course.

Research Findings and Discussion

The Enhancement of Leadership and Management Competencies

The study involved 221 participants who had attended the SLM Course in IAB. At the
beginning of the course, participants were observed to have moderately low (Mean = 2.5
to 3.2) leadership and management competencies. The competencies of people skills,
recognizing individual differences and cultural differences, and appreciating staff
contribution are at the lowest level (Mean=2.5). These results are closely related to the
sudden change of their positions from a teacher to a school head. They were having some

5
difficulties of adjusting their roles from a teacher to a head teacher. As a school head,
they have to play their roles as a leader and have to concern more of the organization and
social interaction in the school. They have to realize that whatever that they do or they
say will have an impact on the organizational emotion.

Table 1: The enhancement of leadership and management competencies (n = 221)


Leadership and Management Competencies Pre Post
M SD M SD
Demonstrating pleasant personality and people skill 2.5 .8 3.8 .8
Recognizing individual differences 2.5 .7 3.8 .6
Appreciating cultural differences 2.5 .7 3.9 .6
Appreciating staff contribution 2.5 .8 3.9 .8
Applying the SWOT analysis technique 2.6 .8 3.9 .8
Generating school improvement strategies 2.6 .8 3.9 .7
Creating effective monitoring systems 2.6 .8 4.0 .7
Making references to Education Act 1996 3.0 .8 4.0 .7
Making references to government development policies 3.0 .7 4.0 .7
Managing organizational change 3.0 .7 4.0 .7
Making references to professional development circulars 3.0 .8 4.0 .7
Abiding to etiquette and protocol in official ceremony 3.0 .8 4.0 .7
Communicating ideas / plans in the public 3.0 .8 4.0 .7
Conducting staff motivational seminar 3.0 .7 4.0 .6
Monitoring student welfare and scholarship 3.0 .8 4.1 .7
Dealing with problematic and low performance staff 3.0 .7 4.1 .7
Dissolving conflicts among teachers 3.0 .7 4.1 .6
Providing guidance and counseling to the students 3.0 .7 4.1 .6
Writing memo/official letter to state / district education offices 3.1 .7 4.1 .6
Abiding to proper conduct of disciplinary action 3.1 .7 4.1 .6
Introducing safe, clean and beauty school concept 3.1 .7 4.2 .6
Conducting staff meeting 3.2 .7 4.2 .6
Average 2.9 .6 4.0 .5
Scale: 1=very low, 2=low, 3=moderate, 4=high, 5=very high

The findings indicated that head teachers lacked the competencies of applying SWOT
analysis technique (Mean = 2.6), generating school improvement strategies and creating
effective monitoring system in school. Their competencies of making references to
Education Act 1996, government policies, professional development circulars, and
abiding to etiquette and protocol were at the moderate level (Mean=3.0). Their
competencies of managing organizational change, communicating ideas, conducting staff
motivational seminar, monitoring student welfare and scholarship, dealing with
problematic staff, dissolving conflicts among teachers, providing guidance and
counseling to students were also at the moderate level. Head teachers’ competencies in
writing official letter, abiding to proper conduct of disciplinary action, introducing safe,
clean and beauty school concepts and conducting meeting were also at the moderate level
(ranged from 3.1 to 3.2) at the beginning of the course. Thus, the findings indicated that

6
head teachers were having moderate competencies in leadership and management
(Mean=2.8, SD=0.6) at the beginning of the course as shown in Table 1.

After the course, the findings showed that participants had improved all their leadership
and management competencies as they ranged from moderate level to high level (Mean =
3.8 to 4.2). Overall, head teachers’ leadership and management competencies also
indicated a higher level (Mean = 4.0, Standard Deviation = .5) at the end of the course.

Results displayed in Table 2, show that there was a significant difference between the
head teachers’ competencies before and after the SLM course. At the beginning of the
course, head teachers’ competencies were at the moderate level (Mean = 2.9, Standard
Deviation .6). However, after the course, participant had improved their competencies to
high level (Mean = 4.0, Standard Deviation .5). The t-test result indicated that there was
a significant difference (t = 47.9, p = .00) of learning enhancement before and after the
SLM course, even though the enhancement of 1.1 was small due to small measurement
scale used (Likert Scale of 1 to 5).

Table 2: T-tests results comparing leadership and management competencies before and
after the SLM course
Leadership & Management Mean Standard T df p
Competencies Deviation
Before SLMC (n = 221) 2.9 .6 47.9 220 .000
After SLMC (n = 221) 4.0 .5
Mean of the Enhancement = 1.1 Standard Deviation = .4
Note: Learning enhancement is the different between the competency before and after the course.

Range Interpretation
0.0 - 0.9 No improvement.
1.0 – 1.9 Limited improvement.
2.0 – 2.9 Moderate improvement.
3.0 – 3.9 Significant improvement.
4.0 – 4.9 Very significant improvement.

As the study of effective school proceeds, it has become clear that leadership and
management were two of the important sources of change in schools. Change is an
essential element of organizational development-a systematically planned, sustained
effort of self-study and improvement. School administrators are expected to identify and
meet evolving needs and wants and to implement necessary improvements. Interviews
conducted with the head teachers after the course indicated that more than 75% of the
head teachers admitted that they had implemented the following projects as the impact of
the course:

• Reviewed their school vision and mission


• Refined the organization chart and process flow chart
• Drafted a few strategic plans
• Implemented a few action plans

7
• Implemented MS ISO 9000 System
• Integrated ICT into teaching and learning
• Improved the school communication system with teachers, students and parents

The findings indicated the impact of the course on the school improvement projects and
what kinds of projects that will be implemented by head teachers after the course.
Morrison (1998) has explored the delineations between management and leadership and
the educational change. Besides that, Fullan (1993) had also studied the importance of
developing an understanding of attitudes towards change in education, as a prerequisite to
improving school performance. Thus, the enhancement of the leadership and
management competencies in this study is extremely crucial and critical to the success of
the implementation of school improvement projects.

According to David (1998), effective leaders are also good analysts and self-reflective
individuals who are honest about their own strengths and shortcomings. They are good
communicators. Hence, a good head teacher must be decisive, organized, efficient and
demonstrate a passion for his/her work. At the same time, s/he must also demonstrate
charisma, a sense of humor, empathy and reliability. Head teachers have greater success
if they have good people skills. According to Kauzes and Posner (1995), an effective
leader is able to bring out the best in others. S/he communicates a desire for each
individual within the organization to be successful. Teachers are treated in ways that
bolster self-confidence. Henceforth, a head teacher should never underestimate the
power of recognition of individuals for a job well done. Recognizing individual
contributions is one way to encourage people to continue doing noteworthy work. Verbal
recognition in front of one’s peers is powerful way to reward people. Teachers also
appreciate visible awards, such as certificates and plaques. And a simple ‘thank you’ can
go a long way toward making a person feel like a winner (Kouzes and Posner, 1995).

Thus, the findings in this study indicate that head teachers must enhance their
competencies as leaders and managers in order to be capable to bring changes in their
own organizations. Seller (2001) suggested that in order for school reform to be
successful, not only the competencies of head teachers need to be improved; the
organization must also change to enable and support the actions of the people to act as
leader and manager as they implement the processes required for more effective
educational practices.

The Enhancement of Curriculum and Co-Curriculum Management Competencies

Table 3 depicted the level of curriculum and co-curriculum management competencies of


head teachers before and after the SLM Course. Almost all of the co-curriculum
management competencies were comparatively lower than the competencies in planning,
implementing and supervising the curriculum activities. These findings indicated the
imbalance focus on co-curriculum activities in schools. Overall, head teachers were
noticed to have moderate level of competencies in curriculum and co-curriculum
management (Mean = 3.1 to 3.4) at the beginning of the course. After attending the

8
course, head teachers’ competencies improved indicating a higher level of competency
(Mean = 4.2, Standard Deviation = .5). This result is shown in Table 3.

Table 3: The enhancement of curriculum and co-curriculum management competencies


(n = 221)
Curriculum and Co-Curriculum Management Pre Post
Competencies M SD M SD

Planning co-curriculum activities 3.1 .7 4.1 .6


Implementing co-curriculum activities 3.1 .7 4.1 .6
Supervising co-curriculum activities 3.2 .7 4.2 .6
Planning curriculum activities 3.2 .6 4.2 .6
Implementing curriculum activities 3.2 .6 4.2 .6
Supervising curriculum activities 3.2 .7 4.2 .6
Supervising subject panel’s activities 3.3 .7 4.2 .6
Supervising student affair activities 3.4 .8 4.3 .6
Average 3.2 .6 4.2 .5
Scale: 1=very low, 2=low, 3=moderate, 4=high, 5=very high

Data presented in Table 4 indicate the t-test result of comparing curriculum and co-
curriculum management competencies before and after the SLM course. After the course,
head teachers’ competencies had been improved from moderate (Mean = 3.2, Standard
Deviation = .6) to high level (Mean = 4.2, Standard Deviation = .5). Overall, there is
only a limited improvement (Mean = 1.0, Standard Deviation = .4) occurred. However, t-
Test result displayed in Table 4 indicate that there was a significant difference (t = 35.3, p
= .000) of the participants’ competencies before and after the course.

Table 4: T-tests results comparing curriculum and co-curriculum leadership and


management competencies before and after the SLM course
Curriculum and Co- Mean Standard t df P
Curriculum Management Deviation
Competencies
Before SLMC (n = 221) 3.2 .6 35.3 220 .000
After SLMC (n = 221) 4.2 .5
Mean of the Enhancement = 1.0 Standard Deviation = .4
Note: Learning enhancement is the different between the competency before and after the course.

Range Interpretation
0.0 - 0.9 No improvement.
1.0 – 1.9 Limited improvement.
2.0 – 2.9 Moderate improvement.
3.0 – 3.9 Significant improvement.
4.0 – 4.9 Very significant improvement.

The findings obtained from the interviews with the head teachers who had attended the
SLM Course indicated that almost 80% of the head teachers had implemented the
following curriculum and co-curriculum projects as the impact of the course:

9
• Reviewed final exam papers in the workshops
• Assigned mentor teachers to guide novice teachers
• Enhanced the implementation of co-curriculum activities
• Invited expert teachers to share their knowledge in teaching and learning

However, the implementation of school improvement projects were only limited to the
routine activities of curriculum and co-curriculum activities. Most of the head teachers
who had attended the SLM course did not start with item analysis and item bank. The
unwillingness to initiate the assessment improvement projects may be due to the lack of
knowledge in this technical aspect. However, when school inspectorates visit a school,
assessment procedures often come under close scrutiny in one form or another. This
means that schools will have to explain and justify how they assess pupils’ work, keep
records and report to external bodies and parents. The lack of knowledge in this aspect
may affect the organization effectiveness. Assessment, like teaching itself, consists of
thousands of repeats and rehearsal of sometimes similar, sometimes different actions.
During their career, head teachers lay down deep structures, which inform their actions.
As school leaders seek to promote the success of all students, they must advocate,
nurture, and sustain instructional programs that emphasize student learning. Careful
reflection followed by deliberate efforts to change practice for the better are essential if
they are to improve their professional skills. Even though, there are many constraints of
time and energy, but professional training can help to enhance head teachers’ instructional
leadership.

The limited enhancement of curriculum and co-curriculum competencies in this study is


supported by the study of Malakoluntu (1999). Malakoluntu (1999) did an in-depth case
study of only two Malaysian head teachers. Malakoluntu’s findings indicated that these
two head teachers were not formally prepared to help teachers improve their instruction,
tap into their creative abilities and potential, and develop their human resources. They did
not reveal an-in-depth understanding of knowledge or theories related to teacher
professional development. According to Malakoluntu (1999), this shortcoming in their
preparation was not due to their individual failure to seek more knowledge. Instead, it
was due to systemic shortcomings. Even though, instructional leadership is also taught as
a component in the School Management and Leadership (SLM) Course, but, there were
not any courses directed specifically towards developing head teachers’ instructional
leadership per se. There were not any special courses to help head teachers learn about
the ways and means of developing teachers’ knowledge and skills and supporting teacher
development (IAB, 1991).

In such a situation where the head teachers were provided with limited professional
knowledge about teachers and teaching, and the special knowledge which could help
them orient their role in a specific direction according to their own will, the head teachers
relied extensively on their previous experiences, beliefs, and become very dependent on
the directives provided by the State Education Department and the Ministry of Education
(Malakoluntu, 1999). Good inspectors and advisers can also offer valuable insights into
what can be achieved, even in adverse circumstances, though it is a pity that not all

10
inspection frameworks permit such advice and comparative insights to be given. Besides
that, head teachers are encouraged to engage in discussions with teachers to generate
answers to all the curriculum and co-curriculum obstacles.

The Enhancement of Finance and Office Management Competencies

Data in Table 5 indicated the competencies of head teachers in finance and office
management were moderately low (Mean = 2.6 to 2.9) at the beginning of the course.
Competencies of estimating the cost of school operation and school development was at
the lowest level (Mean = 2.6, Standard Deviation = .9), however the competencies of
checking, controlling and monitoring school finance, preparing cash book, making
orders, upgrading the school filling system, monitoring “donation” and “collection” and
managing staff appointment and confirmation were at the highest level (Mean = 2.9,
Standard Deviation = .8) at the beginning of the course. Actually these findings were
closely related to the competencies of the head teacher assisted by his/her clerks.
Overall, most of the head teachers were having moderate competencies (Mean = 2.8,
Standard Deviation = .6) of finance and office management at the beginning of the course

Table 5: The enhancement of finance and office management competencies (n = 221)


Finance and Office Management Competencies Pre Post
M SD M SD
Estimating the cost of school operation 2.6 .9 3.8 .7
Estimating the cost of school development 2.6 .9 3.8 .7
Referring to staff development circulars 2.7 .8 4.0 .6
Referring to Chapter 'F' Medication 2.7 .7 4.0 .6
Making reference to circulars to approve leave for the staff 2.7 .8 4.0 .6
Solving cases identified by the auditor if any 2.7 .9 4.0 .8
Referring to social ethics in public service 2.7 .7 4.0 .6
Planning the use of school finance 2.7 .9 4.0 .7
Supervising the store management 2.7 .7 4.0 .6
Preparing the school account 2.7 .8 4.0 .7
Referring to General Orders 2.7 .7 4.0 .6
Checking, controlling and monitoring school finance 2.9 .9 4.0 .7
Preparing cash book 2.9 .9 4.1 .7
Making orders and purchasing 2.9 .8 4.1 .7
Upgrading the school filing system 2.9 .7 4.1 .6
Monitoring “donation” and “collection” 2.9 .9 4.1 .7
Managing staff appointment and confirmation 2.9 .8 4.1 .6
Average 2.8 .6 4.0 .5
Scale: 1=very low, 2=low, 3=moderate, 4=high, 5=very high

After the course, head teachers’ competencies in finance and office management
improved from moderate (Mean = 2.8) to high level (Mean = 4.0) level. The result
indicated that the lowest competencies after the course were still relating to estimating
the school operation and development cost (Mean = 3.8, Standard Deviation =. 7).

11
However, all of the competencies of finance and office management had been enhanced
to high level at the end of the course (Mean = 4.0, Standard Deviation = .5).

T-test result in Table 6 indicated that there was a significant difference (t = 4.1, p = .00)
of the finance and office management competencies among the head teachers before and
after the course. The competencies of the head teachers which were at the moderate level
(Mean = 2.8, Standard Deviation = .6) at the beginning of the course had been improved
to the high level (Mean = 4.0, Standard Deviation = .5) at the end of the course.
Generally, there was a limited enhancement of 1.2 with the standard deviation of .4 which
indicated a small enhancement of the learning in finance, and office management among
head teachers after they had attended the course.

Table 6: T-tests results comparing finance and office management competencies before
and after the SLM Course
Competencies of Finance Mean Standard t df p
& Office Management Deviation
Before SLMC (n = 221) 2.8 .6 4.1 220 .000
After SLMC (n = 221) 4.0 .5
Mean of the Enhancement = 1.2 Standard Deviation = .4
Note: Learning enhancement is the different between the competency before and after the course.

Range Interpretation
0.0 - 0.9 No improvement.
1.0 – 1.9 Limited improvement.
2.0 – 2.9 Moderate improvement.
3.0 – 3.9 Significant improvement.
4.0 – 4.9 Very significant improvement.

Interview results indicated that a total of 88% of the head teachers who had attended the
SLM Course had implemented the following finance and office management projects as
the impact of the course:

• Updated the filing system


• Improved the correspondence system
• Refined the job description and job specification
• Upgraded the office management system
• Upgraded the finance management system
• Resolved all of the audit commented cases

The enhancement of finance and office management competencies in this study is of


utmost importance. Hsieh and Shen (1998) pointed out that the most frequent request
from the school administrators was for training in financial and budgetary management.
A NPQH participant in Wales also found the preparatory training on financial
management was most useful (Draper & McMichael, 1998; Weindling, 1999; Wallace &
Rogers, 2001). In order for teachers to begin to assume greater responsibility for decision
making, leaders must work towards systematic, efficient and effective finance and office
management, assuring teachers that resources will be available and that their basic needs

12
will be met. Concerns regarding factors such as salary, job security, working conditions,
medication, and so on can make it difficult for a teacher to focus on higher levels such as
achievement, responsibility, recognition and advancement. Once the head teacher is able
to “take care of” the basic needs a teacher can then choose to improve his/her instruction
(Terry, 1999).

Therefore, the findings in this study indicated that resources in the form of money,
materials, time and opportunities must be made available to teachers. By providing for
adequate teaching supplies and materials and allowing for flexibility in budgeting head
teachers can alleviate some of the stress experienced by teachers. Successful leaders take
advantage of resources; respond to reasonable demands, nurture competence and support
new activities through a variety of organizational arrangements. Leaders can facilitate
the acquisition of resources by searching for other sources of funds such as grants, local
businesses, etc. and informing teachers of the possibilities (Terry, 1999). Thus, the
findings in this study show that it is important to improve the office and finance
management in school and maintain conditions necessary for teachers to be able to teach
effectively.

Comparison of the Learning Enhancement

The results concerning competencies enhancement showed that the enhancement of


competencies in finance and office management (mean of the competencies enhancement
= 1.2, standard deviation = .4) was highest followed by leadership and management
(mean of the competencies enhancement = 1.1, standard deviation = .4) and then
curriculum and co-curriculum management (mean of the competencies enhancement =
1.0, standard deviation = .4). The results were parallel to previous study of educational
leadership and management training (IAB, 1991).

Table 7: Comparison of Learning Enhancement


Competencies Enhancement Mean Standard
Deviation
Leadership and Management Competencies 1.1 .4
Curriculum and Co-Curriculum Management Competencies 1.0 .4
Finance and Office Management Competencies 1.2 .4
Overall 1.1 .3
Note: Learning enhancement is the different between the competency before and after the course.

Implication

The findings in this study indicated that even though the learning enhancement in the
three different competencies namely, leadership and management, curriculum and co-
curriculum management, and finance and office management was small but it was
significant. However, evaluative evidences in this study also illustrated that school
heads’ competencies and school improvement cannot progress very far without the
influence of external and internal agencies.

13
According to Kowalski (2003), schools, like other organizations, maintain a framework
that gives meaning to human activity; as an example, policy, regulation, vision, missions,
and curriculum help give structure and meaning to the work of teachers, students, and
administrators. Change threatens this framework; in essence, it threatens the school
social system. When people inside the school have little or no understanding of the
purposes or potentialities of change, they almost always develop high levels of anxiety
and resistance to change. Many head teachers are incapable of changing schools because
they know too little about organizational behavior and even less about organizational
change. Hence, both head teacher and teachers need to acquire the relevant knowledge to
change and improve their own school. In order to bring effective changes to their own
schools, head teachers also need to establish good relationships with the state and district
education offices.

Actually, capacity building is concerned with creating conditions, opportunities and


experiences for collaboration and mutual learning. This perspective embraces the notion
of professional community suggested by Harris (2001) where “head teachers and also
teachers participate in the learning process, have a shared sense of purpose, engage in
collaborative work and accept joint responsibility for the outcomes of their work”.
Henceforth, not only IAB and the Institute of Principalship Studies should play their roles
in the head teachers’ capacity building, other stakeholders such as the Ministry of
Education (MOE), State Education Departments (SED) and District Education Offices
(DEO) should also participate to facilitate the learning process of head teachers and
teachers for the betterment of the school administration.

In the centralized system of administration as in Malaysia, MOE, SED and DEO are in a
position to decide and enact policies, thus it is important that they understand teacher
learning, professional and intellectual needs, and the importance of the head teachers’
professional development. It is also important that the Ministry of Education realizes the
needs of the local actors and focuses its attention on facilitating and building the
infrastructure needed for local capacity building and sustenance (Malakoluntu, 1999).

Undeniably, the district education officer has an important role to play in providing head
teacher and teachers with a coherent framework for the improvement that takes into
account the individual school context. Therefore, a key role for the district education
officer is to monitor the progress of innovations and developments within individual
schools and to provide pressure and support where seems to be slow. The district
education officer is well placed to understand the individual demands and needs of
different personae in schools. Consequently, district education officers can ensure that
professional development for head teachers is approached in a way that addresses the
particular needs of individual head teachers (Harris, 2001). Unlike other external change
agents, district education officers have a close and intimate knowledge for their schools.
It could assist school heads in establishing the right pace of professional development and
to identify potential barriers that are particular to the implementation of ideas learnt in
IAB in their own schools. Evidences would suggest that district education officers
provide an important source of external agency to schools. Consequently, they are able to

14
adopt a more appropriate strategy to monitor the capacity building of head teachers in
their districts and to work more regularly and closely with them.

Conclusion

An effective leader makes a difference. Head teachers are expected to have an effect not
only on teachers’ motivations, but also on students’ academic achievement and the
organization effectiveness. Hence, improved learning of head teachers is essential to
ensure their organizational effectiveness. With better knowledge, skills and attitude of
educational management and leadership, school heads are expected to be more competent
in the school management. However, the findings in this study indicated that most of the
school heads still lack instructional leadership due to the over emphasis of administrative
roles. They have implemented more management projects than instructional programs
for the betterment of teaching and learning. The findings in this study propose that
Malaysian school heads should change their mindset of educational management and
leadership. This new thinking about school management and leadership poses new
challenges for school heads to change their conventional practices of administrative focus
to instructional focus. The key factor here is head teachers’ own understanding about
educational management and leadership. They need to have a better understanding of
educational management and leadership to enable them to go for a paradigm shift and
refocus on the implementation of the core technology of schooling.

References

Bowring-Carr, C. and West-Burnham, J. (1997). Effective learning in schools.


London: Pitman.

Chew Tow Yow. (1986). The National Institute of Educational Management, Malaysia.
World Yearbook of Education: The Management of Schools. Edited by Eric
Keyle & Agnes MeMahan. New York: Kogan Page.

Crow, G. M. and Glascock, C. (1995). Sosialization to a new conception of the


principalship. Journal of Educational Administration, 33 (1), 22-43.

David, Stephen, H. (1998). Taking aim at effective leadership. Leadership, 28 (2),


1, 17.

Dickman, M. H. (1986). The principalship and effective schools: An ethnographic


case study of a rural secondary school in relationship to criteria associated with
effective schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin:
Madison.

Draper, J. & McMichael, P. (1998). Making sense of primary headship: the surprises
awaiting new heads, School Leadership and Management, 18(2), 197-211.

15
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: probing the depths of educational reform. London:
Falmer.

Gates, B., Myhrvold, N. and Rinearson, P. (1996). Jalan di hadapan (ed. BM). Kuala
Lumpur: Utusan.

Hall, V., Mackay, H. and Morgan, C. (1986). Headteachers at work. Milton Keyness,
England: Open Universities Press.

Harris, A. (2001). Building the capacity for school improvement. School Leadership &
Management, 21(3), 261-270.

Hsieh, Chia-Lin, Shen, Jian-Ping. (1998). Teachers’, principals’ and


superintendents’ conceptions of leadership. School Leadership and Management,
18 (1), 107-121.

IAB (1991). Kajian pelaksanaan Kursus Pengurusan Pendidikan oleh Kementerian


Pendidikan Malaysia (1981 - 1991). Genting Highlands: Institut Aminuddin
Baki.

Kouzes, P. and Posner, B. (1995). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Kowalski, T.J. (2003). Contemporary school administration. Boston: Pearson


Education.

Leithwood, K. (1990). The principal’s role in teacher development. In Bruce Joyce,


(Eds.), Changing school culture through staff development. ASCD Yearbook.

Leithwood, K. A., Begley, P. T. and Cousins, J. B. (1990). The nature, causes and
consequences of principals’ practices: An agenda for future research. Journal of
Educational Administration, 28 (4), 5-31.

Manasse, A. L. (1982). The effective principal. A research summary. Reston, VA:


NASSP.

Morrison, K. (1998). Management theories of educational change. London:


Paul Chapman.
Mortimore, Peter. (1995). Key characteristics of effective schools. Papers presented at
the Effective School Seminar, Institut Aminuddin Baki, Genting Highlands,
Malaysia.

Ministry of Education Malaysia (1985). Report of the Cabinet Committee: To review


the implementation of Education Policy. Kuala Lumpur: Berita Publishing Sdn.
Bhd.

16
Purkey, S.C. & Smith, M.S. (1983). Effective schools: A Review. Elementary School
Journal, 83, 427-452.

Seller, W. (2001). Introduction. Reforming schools: Building the capacity for change.
School Leadership & Management, 21(3), 255-259.

Suseela, Malakolunthu. (1999). Creating supportive work climates for teachers in an


era of reform: Case studies of two Malaysia principals and the contexts in which
they work. Ph. D. Dissertation. Michigan State University.

Sybouts, W. and Wendel, F. C. (1994). The training and development of school


principals: A handbook. Greenwood Press: Westport.

Terry, P. M. (1999). Empowering teachers as leaders. National FORUM of Teacher


Education Journal (WWW.nationalforum.com).

Wallace, M. & Rogers, G. (2001). Potentially aspiring headteachers in small Welsh


Primary Schools: education professionals that policy makers forgot? School
Leadership & Management, 21(4), 441-461.

Weindling, D. (1997). Stages of headship in Bush, T; Bell, L; Bolam, R; Glatter, R &


Ribbin, P. (eds). Educational management: Redefining theory, policy and
practice. London: Paul Chapman.

17

Potrebbero piacerti anche