The utilisation of eight school-readiness components to turn-around dysfunctional schools to at least low-functioning sc

1. The utilisation of eight school-readiness components to turn-around dysfunctional schools to at least low-functioning schools Presentation at the CCEAM 2008 Conference Durban, South Africa 11 September 2008 08h30 - 10h00, Hall 3B Dr Muavia Gallie (PhD)

2. Graph 20 - Level of School Functionality B 100 School Ethos 90 Vision, Aims and Strategic Planning The Principal 80 The Principal and SMT 70 Structures, Roles and 60 Responsibilities Decision Making and 50 Communication Professional Work 40 Relationships Links with Parents and 30 Community SGB and DoE 20 Managing Change 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Level of School Functionality (SFI) Requests for use of the SFI - eduquest@movingup.co.za

3. Defining Dysfunctional schools • Schools who continue to function, but do not accomplish the purpose for which they were created; • Schools exist to help each child realise his or her fullest potential as a human being; • Schools become dysfunctional when they stop serving the needs of the individuals with them; • School can take on a life of their own where their main objective becomes self-preservation; • One of the key indicators that a school has become dysfunctional is the ‘no talk rule’. Those within the school are not permitted, and do not permit themselves, to speak (or even think) critically about the school • Critical thinking begins with the question “why?” Why are we doing this? Why are things arranged this way? Why do we do it this way and not that way? These kinds of questions are not allowed in a dysfunctional group; • The other indicator is the evolution of a priestly caste whose allegiance is more strongly tied to the school than it is to the learners the school is meant to serve - this means the teachers and administrators within the school

4. Conceptual Argument -Types of Functionalities (relating to the Core Purpose)

5. Three Levels of School Functionality Basics

6. Leadership Capabilities

7. Leadership Focus

8. Leadership ‘Eye’ is on …

9. Focus of Institutional Functions

10. Functional ‘Eye’ is on …

11. Indicators of LFS Low student performance High rate of student absenteeism High dropout rates of students High levels of disruption and violence Unclear Academic Standards High rate of staff turnover High rate of staff absenteeism A negative school atmosphere

12. Value Creation Sense of Being Valued by Others Sense of Being of Value Sense of Valuing Others

13. High Functioning Schools Spiritual Fulfilment Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Low Functioning Schools Non Functioning Schools

14. Example 1:Child-headed households in SA(2001 = July 2007)

15. Child-headed Households 0 – 14 yrs

16. Child-headed households 15 – 19 yrs

17. Child-headed households 0 – 19 yrs

18. 1. Indicators of LFS vs School Readiness Components

19. 2. Indicators of LFS vs School Readiness Components

20. 3. Indicators of LFS vs School Readiness Components

21. 4. Indicators of LFS vs School Readiness Components

22. 5-8. Indicators of LFS vs School Readiness Components

23. 1.Systemic location of the 8 Components

24. 2.Systemic location of the 8 Components

25. 3.Systemic location of the 8 Components

26. 4.Systemic location of the 8 Components

27. 5.Systemic location of the 8 Components

28. 6.Systemic location of the 8 Components

29. 7.Systemic location of the 8 Components

30. 8.Systemic location of the 8 Components

31. 1.System Dysfunctional Schools

32. 2.System Dysfunctional Schools Low-functional Schools

33. 3.System Dysfunctional Schools Low-functional Schools High-functional Schools