1. The scope and limitations for school principal action
What the local and global evidence point towards
Martin Gustafsson
Research on Socio-Economic Policy (ReSEP)
University of Stellenbosch
May 2019

2. GP 2016 (public): 2,083 principals
Primary (nothing above Gr 7)
Secondary (nothing below Gr 8)
Other
Average school size
% of learners Q1
198 85 22
1,048 16 Q2
153 73 20
1,159 14 Q3
375
152 47
868 24 Q4
283
157 60
965 Q5
232
155 71
1,011 23
937
1,091
943
983
100 57 33 10
Rest of SA 2016 (public): 21,546 principals
Primary (nothing above Gr 7)
Secondary (nothing below Gr 8)
Other
Average school size
% of learners Q1
5,021
1,661
1,357
361 28 Q2
3,910
1,574
822
429 26 Q3
2,874
1,313
494
592 27 Q4
681
338
163
767 9 Q5
789
433
116
736 10
419
612
491
477
100 54 32 14

3. Reaching the speed limit despite everything
Likely explanations…
CAPS
Access to materials
Assessments
Abilities of younger teachers
Pre-school participation
Martin Gustafsson’s Take on Data

4. ± our secondary schools
The empirical evidence on ‘school autonomy’ (principal agency)
Hanushek and Woessman
± our secondary schools
Analysis ‘controls for’ several other school and home background variables.
Yet even more rigorous analysis is needed to definitively determine cause and effect.
H&W: Education quality and economic growth.
± our primary schools

5. The NDP is strong on principal agency (but also accountability to communities)
Gradually give principals more administrative powers as the quality of school leadership improves, including in financial management, the procurement of textbooks and other educational material, and human resources management. These delegations ensure that principals are held accountable for their schools. Provincial departments will remain the employer of educators, and wages will continue to be centrally determined. (p. 310)
Externally administer and mark the ANA for at least one primary school grade to ensure that there is a reliable, system-wide measure of quality for all primary schools. This will serve as a snapshot of the health of the system and help authorities to develop targeted interventions. (p. 311)
Construct a results-oriented framework of mutual accountability where districts are accountable for supporting schools, including the nature of the support they provide, the number of times they have visited each school and what they did during the visits. Schools also need to be accountable to education authorities for their overall performance on key indicators. (p. 311)

6. The puzzle of getting ‘national assessments’ right
Where ANA went wrong
What we should do in future
No policy on how to use results, based on an honest view of what the results could tell us, and what they could not.
Have a policy on use and accountability which fits the data produced.
Putting provincial/national monitoring in the same system as school/district monitoring.
Accept more precise measurement of former, less precise of latter, especially i.t.o. progress over time.
Assuming that classical scores using different tests can yield comparability over time.
For the school-level system, run a small parallel ‘equating sample’, and provide IRT, not classical scores, to schools.
Trying to ‘micro-manage’ every grade.
NDP says focus on one grade.
No communication packages for districts, schools and parents.
NDP says we need these.

7. And what about strengthening powers of principals?
Highly political terrain – there are unions, and provincial and national tend to want direct power. But the NDP is with you.
Areas for action within existing policies… choice of materials, discretion to decide on spending, HR management.
Areas of policy reform… a learning focussed accountability framework, competency assessments for new appointees.