Quality of teaching

Article

Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning: Changing scenarios in basic schools of Ghana

Suseela Malakolunthu, John McBeath and Sue Swaffield

Abstract This article emerged as a case study from a fact-finding mission of a joint programme between the Centre for Commonwealth Education (CCE) in Cambridge University and the Institute for Educa- tional Planning and Administration (IEPA) in University of Cape Coast, Ghana, to embed innovative approaches to teaching and learning in the basic schools of the latter country. The strategy was to enhance the leadership capacity of the headteachers. A leadership for learning (LfL) model with five seminal principles was used to guide and direct the change process. It was organized on the basis of capacity building whereby CCE provided expertise consultation and Ghanaians contextualized learning materials, and their execution. At the close of the second year, the qualitative case study involving four schools revealed that conspicuous changes were indeed taking place at different lev- els. The case study also provided evidence that LfL tended to be a broad systemic ideology that relied on the collective effort of various stakeholders.

Keywords capacity building, education development, Ghana leadership for learning, teaching-learning

Introduction

In 2009, the sub-Saharan state of Ghana embarked on a collaborative programme with the UK to

build headteachers’ leadership capacity to enhance the quality of teaching and learning in the coun-

try’s basic schools. Ghana was represented by the Institute for Educational Planning and Admin-

istration (IEPA), University of Cape Coast, while the UK was represented by the Centre for

Commonwealth Education (CCE) of the University of Cambridge. CCE, on its part, had a close

working relationship with the Leadership for Learning Network in Cambridge, and had earlier

completed development of a Leadership for Learning (LfL) framework from the Carpe Vitam

Corresponding author:

Suseela Malakolunthu, Institute for Educational Leadership, University of Malaya, 59990 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Email: suseela@um.edu.my

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2014, Vol. 42(5) 701–717 ª The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1741143213510510 emal.sagepub.com

701

programme – a 3-year study of 8 higher education institutions and 24 schools in 7 western coun-

tries namely Austria, Australia, Denmark, the UK, Greece, Norway and the USA (MacBeath and

Dempster, 2008). The Carpe Vitam programme explored the links between leadership and learn- ing and emerged with five seminal principles that provided a framework for school success and

improvement. These five principles are: (1) a focus on learning; (2) an environment for learning;

(3) a learning dialogue; (4) shared leadership; and (5) mutual accountability. Within these broad

framing principles a set of more specific performance indicators were identified.

From the perspective of policymakers in Ghana, LfL is the latest development partnership pro-

gramme in its continuous effort to improve basic education. Since the launch of Ghana’s Educa-

tional Reform Programme in 1987, the government had been gaining from many policies and

interventions with the help of donor organizations to raise the conditions and standard of basic edu-

cation by 2015 in line with the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goal of Universal Pri-

mary Education (Adamu-Issah et al., 2007), for example the Primary School Development

Programme and Basic Education Sector Improvement Program (BESIP) (World Bank, 2004).

Also, in 1997, the Quality Improvement in Primary School (QUIPS) programme was sponsored

by USAID to improve teaching and learning (Osafo-Acquah and Asamoah-Gyimah, 2009). The

government’s initiatives and commitment have helped to improve awareness of and access to basic

education with a current enrolment rate of 80% and gender parity ratio of boys to girls at 1:0.7 (Modern Ghana News, 2009). However, the quality of education at the foundation level continued

to be a major concern (MacBeath et al., 2010).

Between 2004 and 2010, Ghana benefitted further from the EdQual programme launched by a

Consortium of the IEPA, University of Cape Coast in Ghana, the Institute of Educational Planning,

University of Dar e Salaam, Tanzania, and the Faculty of Education, University of Bath, UK. It was

funded by the Department for International Development (DfID) in the UK to improve quality of

education in low income countries, and was directed by the University of Bristol (Oduro and Bosu,

2010). Related research in the programme with regard to Ghana accentuated school leadership as a

relevant area that had to be addressed, as Oduro and Bosu (2010: 2) reported, ‘ . . . our research suggests strongly that it takes effective school leadership to achieve effectiveness and improve-

ment in teaching and learning. The leadership of the headteacher can make a positive difference

in the implementation of quality education initiatives in Ghana.’

The LfL programme, naturally, appeared to be the next sequential intervention for Ghana. It was

agreed by those involved that LfL would foster capacity building as innovation and commitment

would embrace not only the headteachers but all other stakeholders in the system. The partners

adopted a multiplier approach to the dissemination and embedding of the LfL principles whereby

CCE members would train the initial batch of 15 professional development leaders (PDLs) from

the University of Cape Coast, University of Winneba, Colleges of Education and Ghana Educa-

tional Services. They in turn would raise the awareness of education officials at the district and

regional levels. The Ghanaian team would then assume responsibility for the contextualization

of dissemination materials according to local needs and conditions.

Subsequently, the 15 PDLs trained the first cohort of 125 specially selected headteachers from

the 10 regions in the country. It was crucial that they modelled effective leadership themselves

with openness to challenge and a readiness to embrace new ways of learning. The training was

supervised by CCE personnel and conducted over 38 days on three occasions. The trained head-

teachers chose to describe themselves as school transformation leaders (STLs). All the training

for the PDLs and STLs were completed between May 2009 and April 2010. During the same

period, the first batch of 22 circuit supervisors, later increased to 60, were also exposed to the

702 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

702

LfL principles. The demonstrable impact of the first cohort of the headteachers was such that the

Ministry was persuaded to take responsibility for the future professional development of head-

teachers incorporating the five LfL principles. The Ghana Education Service (GES) incorporated

the LfL principles into the in-service training programmes of the Teacher Education Division

(TED). Thus, in a matter of one and a half years since commencement, over a thousand headtea-

chers in the basic school system and 632 district assistant directors and circuit supervisors had

taken part in sessions, such as one-day colloquium and two-week follow up workshops in which

they discussed the applicability and challenges of adopting the five LfL principles. All the third

tier training was undertaken by GES in collaboration with IEPA and with the help of the PDLs

and STLs (Bosu, 2011).

This article emerged from a fact finding mission in 2011 to gauge the impact and progress LfL

has made. The motivation for the article came from recognition of the effect LfL intervention had

reportedly produced on an educational system trying to re-invent itself. The intellectual curiosity

centred on the issue of how a school improvement model formulated in the western context of more

advanced countries could cater for the needs and conditions of a culturally different and less eco-

nomically developed country. Hence, the inquiry for the article aimed at resolving the potential

questions of, first, what kind of leadership impact did LfL make in basic schools subjected to the

intervention? Second, to what extent is there evidence that capacity building has actually taken

place in the case study schools? And, third, how have potential cultural conflicts or sensitivities

been addressed in the LfL schools?

Ghana’s Basic Schools

At the time of the LfL initiative, most basic schools were still grappling with fundamental prob-

lems. There were not enough places for the students and teacher availability was precarious. Place

shortage was managed by ‘shift schools’ using the same building at different times; but teacher

shortage seemed insurmountable. According to the Ministry of Education about 1000 teachers left

the service each year, an attrition rate that could not be compensated by the 9000 new entrants over

the same period. The primary reasons for teachers quitting were poor working conditions and sal-

aries, or a desire for further study. With regard to working conditions and salary the former

appeared to be a greater incentive in teacher retention. Moreover, because of an earlier generation

and increasing numbers of primary and junior high schools, many teachers in basic schools, espe-

cially in rural areas, barely possessed post-secondary education (Etsey et al., 2009).

Teaching and learning was also constrained by limited resources. Many schools lacked facilities

such as buildings, desks, chairs and books. Classes were held outside with children sitting on the

ground exposed to the elements or perhaps under a tree infested with ants. Lessons typically

reflected teachers’ own prior pedagogical experiences involving direct instruction, repetition and

rote learning. Classroom interactions were characterized by closed questions and one-word

answers often echoed by the whole class (Segura, 2009). Teacher-centred classroom practices

requiring a high degree of authority and sanctions in order to maintain discipline was a common

scenario (Dull, 2004). A major setback in most schools was a failure to adhere to a timetable, which

was commonly posted on the walls of the headteacher’s office; additionally, teacher absenteeism

and tardiness appeared to be a common problem (Abadzi, 2007). Other factors curtailing effective

teaching and learning were malnourishment and chronic illnesses, such as malaria.

The headteachers were appointed on the basis of teaching experience and seniority. They had no

structured pre-service preparatory courses. Once in post, training was typically very limited: in a

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning 703

703

five-year period (2002–2007), 75% of headteachers had received less than a week’s training (Mac- Beath and Swaffield, 2009). Otherwise, they had to make do with random offerings provided by

foreign aid initiatives. The mind set of many headteachers was to see themselves as custodians who

guarded resources, such as text books, maintained registers of teachers’ attendance and punctual-

ity, and checked lesson plans. Very few viewed themselves as leaders with linking their role and

pupil learning (Oduro and Bosu, 2010; Oduro et al., 2011).

Leadership for Learning

In the past decade, leadership for learning has gained popularity, viewed as an emergent model for

educational improvement in schools (Hallinger, 2010). Unlike earlier models of instructional and

transformational leadership, the new paradigm emphasized the relationship between school lead-

ership, system-wide context and learning at all levels. Hallinger (2010) described it as the reincar-

nation of instructional leadership, noting the scope of influence it required. He differentiated the

two formats as personalized at principal level (instructional leadership) and collaborative at stake-

holder level (leadership for learning). He added that leadership for learning had to build on

the nature and needs of the schools’ particular contexts, and alluded to it as academic capacity.

In a four-year longitudinal study of 192 elementary schools in one state in the USA, Hallinger and

Heck (2010) found evidence to support their claims. The authors described it as collaborative or

distributed leadership.

A distinctive feature of the leadership for learning is capacity building (Stoll, 2009; Swaffield

and MacBeath, 2010). Stoll (2009: 15) wrote of capacity as follows.

A habit of the mind focused on engaging in and sustaining the learning of people at all levels of the

educational system for the collective purpose of enhancing student learning in its broadest sense. It’s

a quality that allows people, individually and collectively, routinely to learn from the world around

them and to apply this learning to new situations so that they can continue on a path toward their goals

in an ever-changing context.

Fullan (2006: 60) defined capacity building as: ‘A policy, strategy, or action taken that increases

the collective efficacy of a group to improve student learning through new knowledge, enhanced

resources, and a greater motivation on the part of the people working individually and together.’

Capacity building was not a new concept but its potential role in education appeared to be gain-

ing attention only in recent years (Dinham and Crowther, 2011). Scholars also characterized it as a

very demanding, dynamic and multifaceted process (Hopkins et al., 1997; Stoll, 2009). But, it

allowed every entity, context and personnel in a system to participate, learn and contribute, which

augured well for its sustainability (Hopkins et al., 1997). Because of its all-encompassing nature,

capacity building also incorporated a cultural dimension (Peterson and Deal, 1998), as acknowl-

edged by Fullan (2006).

Method

The qualitative case study method was chosen to gain an holistic and in-depth understanding of the

impact of the LfL programme in Ghana’s basic schools. Four schools were selected as units of

assessment from the 125 led by the STLs. They were identified using the maximal variation sam-

pling technique (Creswell, 2005) by a local coordinator based on their geographical and

704 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

704

socioeconomic status, and gender composition of headteachers in three regions of Ghana: Eastern,

Central and Greater Accra.

A total of 68 respondents including 4 headteachers, 6 circuit supervisors, 22 teachers, 23 stu-

dents, and 13 parents and community members were involved in the study. The selection of head-

teachers and circuit supervisors was determined by their schools and districts, respectively, while

teachers were chosen based on their length of service, availability and willingness to participate,

and students were selected mainly from older classes (primary 4–6) because of their ability to

express themselves in English. Parents and community members were selected according to avail-

ability and ability to converse in English. Headteachers and circuit supervisors participated in one-

on-one interviews lasting about two hours; the others participated in focus group sessions lasting

about one and a half hours. The group sessions allowed informal interaction among the members.

As Kamberelis and Dimitradis (2008) have argued, interactional dynamics among group members

is a factor in generating information valuable to the study. The multiple sources provided a

variety of perspectives that helped to frame, challenge and reframe preconceptions (Atkinson and

Delamont, 2008). With a broad-based inquiry, the case study method required (Merriam, 1998;

Yin, 1994), on the one hand, advanced preparation of questions for various categories of respon-

dents and, on the other, spontaneous probing as discourses developed between interviewer and par-

ticipants. The two strategies provided the basis for rich data that could be used for comprehensive

interpretation (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2002; Merriam, 1998). All the data collection exercises

were carried out over 14 days on tight schedules. Responses were audio taped with the participants’

consent and were later transcribed verbatim. At the same time, observations, document analysis

and field notes were made in each school. The multiple sources of data helped in the triangulation

process and enhanced the findings of the study.

Headteachers were asked mainly about their understanding of the LfL principles and the chal-

lenges they faced in applying them. They were also asked to comment on the changes taking place.

With the teachers and students the emphasis was on their awareness of the LfL implementation and

how they experienced it personally. Parents and community members shared their views on the

kind of changes they observed in their children and in their schools.

Observations and field notes centred on the general atmosphere and ethos of the schools and

classrooms. They also included conditions in the school compound, buildings, toilets and play-

grounds. On the social and cultural front the general conduct of headteachers, teachers and students

as well as parents were explored. In classrooms the focus was on the nature of teacher–pupil inter-

actions, learning activities, use of illustrative materials and creative resource use of the immediate

environment. Documents for analysis included newsletters, school profile brochures, pictures, pos-

ters, teachers’ lists of responsibilities, duty rosters, teacher attendance records, teaching records,

students’ workbooks, and charts in the headteachers’ room.

Data Analysis

Data were analysed using the constant comparative method. Coding the data and comparing and

categorizing according to emergent themes helped to make sense of the voluminous data (Bogdan

and Biklen, 2003). Data coding was conducted at three levels, namely, descriptive, topical and ana-

lytic (Morse and Richards, 2002). In the descriptive coding, data were sorted according to the indi-

vidual schools. The product was then re-analysed and re-categorized under topical coding. Finally,

the analytic coding helped to shape the data into six themes that told the story of LfL in the four

case study schools, namely headteachers’ transformation, emergence in collaboration, teacher

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning 705

705

professional growth, pedagogical adaptations, parent and community involvement, and student

outcomes. They captured largely positive sentiments from the respondents as, evidently, LfL was

making a positive impact, although inhibited by a number of lingering problems from the past.

Headteacher Transformation

The various stakeholders concurred that headteachers showed more leadership after their induction

into LfL. They appeared more ‘knowledgeable, committed and confident’ in their job; maintained

a cordial relationship with the teachers and others in the community; and, displayed greater con-

cern for the ‘growth of the children’. As a result, there was a sudden burst of vibrancy in the

schools. As one circuit supervisor elucidated:

There is a big difference between the LfL schools and others. It has impacted the life of the

pupils, teachers and headteachers. Headteachers are now open. They run an open administration;

delegate duties to teachers; and, even involve pupils in administrative chores. There is a free flow

of information.

Another circuit supervisor commented on the headteacher in his district:

She is dynamic, approachable and introduces new ideas. She listens and is ready to change and respects

authority. Since 2008, I have been a circuit supervisor here, but in the past year I see tremendous

changes in this school.

Headteachers had begun to build and nurture relationships with teachers, parents and commu-

nity members. Their efforts to engage with them in school matters were described as ‘unprece-

dented’. One headteacher went out of his way to meet up with a parent who had not turned up

for a parent teacher association (PTA) meeting because of work difficulties. These heads also

appeared to have a positive influence on teachers. A circuit supervisor pointed out, ‘The teachers’

relationship with the community is different; the way they talk to parents is different.’ The head-

teachers also commented that parents and other community members were ‘ . . . keen to participate in school activities; show interest in the children’s learning; the SMC [school management com-

mittee] makes regular visits to the school and provides necessary support’. Records showed that

more parents attended the PTA meetings and were open in highlighting issues of concern.

Furthermore, headteachers took the initiative in organizing functions and events for the public.

One had recently introduced an ‘open day’ for parents to encourage them to spend time in the

school, reviewing their children’s workbooks and discussing their children’s performance and

progress with teachers. Another head had invited the local pastor to talk to staff and parents about

moral issues, while others invited retired public servants to assist in teaching and learning activ-

ities. Two of the four heads had succeeded in persuading members of the public to contribute to

their school’s resources. Another had convinced the local Volta River Authority to look into the

school building and its maintenance and named outside organizations that had made contributions

as ‘friends of the school’. Generally, a trend was developing for headteachers to take the initiative

to harness community resources for both maintenance and further development of the school. The

support of the district assembly and school alumni was also sought.

Headteachers were now paying greater attention to teaching and learning, providing their teach-

ers with teaching aids and learning materials with the promise of more. One talked about his

706 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

706

instruction to teachers: ‘If you want special equipment, material or aid you don’t have to wait until

the last minute. Tell me what you need, I will try to get them.’ Teachers concurred with his new

found initiative: ‘He in his own way tries to obtain the teaching learning materials so that we can

teach the concept well.’ These heads also observed classes in session and provided feedback to

teachers. One teacher commented: ‘He is not sitting in his room, but moves around class to class.

He always asks, ‘Master you have done this way, what about that way?’ He guides us on our teach-

ing.’ These visits were often followed by dialogues. ‘For this reason’, said another teacher, ‘ . . . even our environment has improved. Last time, the place was not clean. Now we focus on health

and sanitation, teach on how to keep the surroundings clean. Last time they had flu and cholera.

I came up with ‘‘veronica buckets’’ where children have running water to wash their hands . . . the children themselves are now learning basic hygiene.’

Although the headteachers appeared to have taken charge of leading the schools in a certain

way, they were not without their complaints. All of them regretted that the capitation grant from

the government was not disbursed on time. ‘The first term money would come in the third. We try

to get funds from NGOs and the community but we use them to make things better around here.

Moreover, I have to use my own funds to purchase materials.’ Two of them struggled with large

class sizes sometimes in excess of 65 students. But, they did not want to limit the intake for fear of

depriving children of their education.

Emergence in Collaboration

Unlike the past, teachers willingly took up more jobs. They felt honoured and empowered by their

new roles and greater decision-making power. One teacher explained, ‘At first, there was one per-

son who was doing all responsibilities, but now each one of us has a responsibility. We are moti-

vated, because it is recognition. It is a great feeling.’

For the heads, getting teachers to join a management team meant that they were able to muster

greater cooperation and support to make things happen. They were able to talk through issues and

work out ideas collectively and collaboratively. One headteacher presented a chart to show how he

had shared leadership with his teachers:

Everyone has a responsibility, a role to play. There is a teacher in charge of curriculum, examination,

culture, sanitation, counselling, and chapel service. Shared leadership – the roles are distributed. They

feel good being part of the system.

Efforts were also made to engage students more actively in school administration with the aim

of developing their leadership and sense of responsibility. As one teacher described it:

We also give our students some roles to play – as prefects, class assistants, chaplains, etc. In the class-

room we have group leaders who are responsible for discipline and learning of the group members. In

the group, they talk, they share ideas and discuss among each other.

Another teacher spoke equally positively about the school prefect board: ‘We have prefects who

help teachers. We have different responsibilities given to prefects. They help in the classroom and

out of classroom activities. They help out in the classroom management.’ She added that students

with these special responsibilities felt good about it, which was confirmed by one student: ‘I am a

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning 707

707

prefect in the school. I feel good to be a prefect because I get good name, teachers ask me to do

work and give me responsibilities. We are in charge of clubs, in the school.’

Teacher Professional Growth

A sense of professionalism appeared to be taking shape among the teachers with regard to teaching

and learning. The headteachers often talked to them and shared their views and ideas on teaching

and classroom management. They helped teachers to become more aware of collaboration, colle-

giality and collective learning – a move that, it was widely agreed, generated a great deal enthu-

siasm and excitement. One teacher said, ‘We share knowledge on subjects or topics and

discussions on helping students improve their learning.’ Teachers were inclined to seek help from

one another. Another added:

Sometimes, when we are not familiar with a topic ask a teacher who is good at it; we consult. One per-

son can help the other. With the little we know, we share.

Teachers showed concern about their own knowledge and preparation for a teaching session.

They talked about the ethics of not ‘polluting the kids’ by being ill-prepared and ill-informed. They

also used staff meetings to address their knowledge gaps: ‘We are all each other’s keepers. We

exchange ideas.’ In a couple of schools, teachers met on a regular basis, in addition to staff meet-

ings, to exchange professional ideas and teaching strategies. With a newfound spirit of collabora-

tion, collegiality and collective learning they were now embedding new approaches within formal

school routines and protocols.

We have school conferences where teachers meet once a term. We discuss ways of improving our prac-

tices. Also, when need arises we meet informally to discuss our topical issues to learn from our friends

and upgrade our knowledge.

While things were turning improving among the teachers with regard to their job roles, head-

teachers pointed out that many were ‘not properly qualified or trained’. From their perspective,

teachers with past experience and formal training (at least through distance learning) did a better

job of teaching. The school management committee of one school made sure to appoint only

trained teachers for teaching at all class levels.

Pedagogical Adaptation

Teachers were making amendments and readjustments to their pedagogical style, producing pos-

itive reactions from the students in terms of attendance and classroom participation. They were

more sensitive to student needs and learning difficulties. As one teacher described it:

Formerly some students were not coming to school on time. Now we can testify that early morning they

are already here. The children are serious in their class, they are not moving around. Last time some

were not serious. Students’ attitude towards school and learning has changed.

Asked about the nature of pedagogical changes, teachers said they now focused on students’

understanding of the subjects and topics, planning and teaching them in a way that students could

708 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

708

easily comprehend. They paid attention to the language they used and encouraged students to

speak out and ask questions, as one teacher explained:

Students participate because we interact easily with them. We ask questions, they answer without

panicking. They talk freely. Cordial relationship is also flowing in the class.

The teachers had also migrated from verbal dissemination of information to learning activities

and use of teaching aids. With the help of the headteachers, they procured teaching-learning mate-

rials and used them creatively to engage students more actively. The variety and simplicity of the

materials aroused students’ interest and curiosity. As one teacher commented:

We were focusing on teaching like talking. Now we use different kinds of materials for all subjects.

Students are excited because they can see, touch, and hear. We are also creative to draw our own mate-

rials; sometimes, students also help make them. They have the skills.

They formed small study groups with a nominated leader in which stronger students helped

weaker ones. These proved useful in encouraging independent learners. ‘They now learn on their

own; stay quiet, and do their work.’ The students have become so comfortable with the idea that

they practiced it even when the teachers were away. Students’ comments on the study groups:

‘Now we learn in groups. This is good because friends can teach.’ ‘We do work in groups. We learn

from friends.’ ‘Teachers give us homework. We have quizzes, spelling bees. We prepare together

to answer.’

There was a strong conviction among the teachers that these alternative forms of presenting

information engaged the students more meaningfully. Students, for their part, were quick to cele-

brate the change: ‘Now teachers use flash cards, diagrams, and posters. We can understand better.’

There was evidence of these in classrooms. Posters and other kinds of materials were also dis-

played outside the classrooms. In one school, posters on various topics hung on the tree trunks

in the courtyard. Teachers in that school said that learning was no longer restricted to the class-

rooms but carried out in the open space. Moreover, the posters on the trees helped students in their

revision, as was explained by some: ‘We have the posters and pictures pasted on the trees. It is nice

to see. We feel good because we can read as we play and during breaks.’

Homework had been a long-standing problem. The reasons cited were lack of resources such as

lighting, text books and relevant stationery, including note books and pencils. Most parents were

unable to support or supervise their children’s work. In some cases, students had to do domestic

chores. However, the teachers said they were managing homework more effectively now and con-

sidered it their responsibility to manage students’ learning beyond the classroom. As one teacher

explained: ‘Learning on the part of students is our problem. Now, our focus is how to prepare them

to sit down and work by themselves.’ They also worked on the quantity and quality of homework

they assigned.

There were also some parental comments as to the changes they observed in their children with

regard to homework. One of them said:

Last time he could not read. Now he can. Now he can speak good English. He does all the homework.

Every weekend he comes with plenty of homework and he is tidy and he is busy doing school work. I

am grateful to teachers.

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning 709

709

Another parent remarked: ‘My son is better now, he is improving. I am glad that they give

homework.’ The words of a sibling to a student reinforced the point: ‘Last time my brother never

did any homework. I was thinking ‘‘how come no homework?’’ Now he has a lot of homework.

Now every time he is doing homework.’

However, the schools were not without problems related to teaching and learning. There were

insufficient text books, even for the core subjects of English, maths and science. So, two or more

students would share one book. For moral and religious courses the whole class had to share one

book. Sometimes the textbooks did not match the syllabus. ICT classes had commenced but they

did not have the benefit of computers and trained teachers. One teacher raised the issue: ‘How

could we teach science when there are no beakers and mercury?’ Teachers involved in physical

education expressed a desire for better facilities and support. They believed they would help to

keep the students in the school.

Parent and Community Involvement

There appeared to be an emerging understanding regarding the role that parents and other commu-

nity members could play in school matters, as one headteacher explained:

Now we are trying to bring in the parents and other stakeholders. If we are really focusing on learning,

teachers alone cannot do everything. Parents and people from the district education office all should

come on board, so we all strive for a common goal.

One of the issues being addressed through this emerging collaboration was teacher shortage.

One school management committee chairperson said, ‘Last year, no teachers in the class. Now bet-

ter, through parent teacher association and school management committee, we have managed to

get trained teachers for every class.’ Others aimed at material benefits. In one of the schools, par-

ents and community members helped to raise money for a new kindergarten building to replace a

dilapidated shed. Skilled parents also made new benches for the students. ‘Previously, three or

more students shared a bench. Now, only two students are seated on [each] bench.’

Parental involvement in school matters also helped to ignite greater personal interest in chil-

dren’s education, which in turn enhanced teaching and learning, as another headteacher

commented:

Every PTA meeting we talk about the measures, how they can help their kids. Parents may not be edu-

cated; at least, they can ask ‘What did you learn today at school?’ This will show the kids that parents

care for their education. This will promote learning. I also ensure that parents provide their kids with

learning materials, pens, books, etc.

On the parents’ side, ‘I make sure that my child comes to school every day. I come to see, check

on her attendance.’ ‘I try to explain as much as I can to help my kids.’ ‘I make sure my children do

homework every evening. I check their books and ask questions about school.’

Parents, on their part, benefited from various discussions, for example, in relation to parenting.

Open days and events that some schools had initiated provided avenues for them to participate and

express their views. Also, these kept them informed about what was happening in school and in

relation to their children’s performance. One teacher said, ‘We are approachable, so they can come

and meet us, talk about their children.’ This was confirmed by the parents, as one stated: ‘Madam

710 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

710

[headteacher] invites us to school to talk to her and teachers.’ Another, who was a guardian to a

student, said, ‘We can come to school anytime and talk to headteacher. She talks to us about our

wards and motivates us to assist our wards in their studies. We understand our role now.’

Teachers even met the parents and guardians in their own villages, as described by a senior

teacher:

I live in the community, I usually meet them, and now they come and talk to me. We interact a lot about

their children. Parents will ask, ‘This boy is my son, this girl is my daughter, how is he or she perform-

ing?’ Then I ask ‘How is he at home?’ It is because they feel closer to us.

Student Outcomes

Attendance at school was still considered as a baseline measure for student outcomes which,

headteachers and teachers claimed, showed remarkable improvement. Along with it, classroom

conduct and participation, homework and execution of responsibilities served as key indicators.

‘We see a positive trend’, explained one headteacher. ‘I think it is because of the changes we are

making. There is a better environment around the school and in the classroom. And, the students

appreciate it.’

The first thing they did after becoming STLs, all four headteachers agreed, was to ‘to clean and

beautify the school, planting different kinds of plants, shrubs, and trees in the school compound’.

Teachers from a school situated on a hill slope commented: ‘It is a new initiative to plant here. This

also helps in controlling erosion along the slopes.’ ‘We provide a good environment by sweeping,

weeding, and planting new trees and keeping the school clean.’

The students echoed the same message:

Our toilets are clean, our ground is clean. We have many trees. The other schools here don’t have trees

like this. We were told to keep our school clean so that we won’t have diseases. No snake bites.

Teachers also acknowledged that their own behaviour towards students had changed from auto-

cratic and punitive to caring, rewarding and encouraging. This had contributed to the students’

engagement and enjoyment. Whereas teachers had used caning, harassment, intimidation and

insults to maintain discipline, they said that they did not have to do this anymore. Several teachers

made comments such as: ‘We praise them, sometimes we hug them, at times we give little gifts

when they do well.’ ‘We give them pens, pencils, erasers to encourage them.’ ‘We sing and dance.

We give them prizes. Everyone wants to get the prize, so they compete to get it.’

Students themselves testified to the change in classroom climate and relationship with their

teachers: ‘Teachers ask us questions. When we answer correctly they praise us. When we do well

in the exam, we also get small gifts.’ ‘Now our classrooms are quiet, we do our homework. Our

teachers don’t allow us to play around. We do our homework.’ ‘School is quiet, because children

don’t run around. All stay in class and do work. When teacher is not there, the class leader controls

the class. We have section leaders and we do work in groups.’

Schools have initiated clubs and societies that appealed to students. In the words of one student:

‘We have clubs; happen regularly. We have math and science club, scripture union, environmental

awareness club. We have club meetings after worship every Wednesday in the morning.’ They

paved the way for personal growth and created opportunity to hold positions. Students had become

more self-expressive, displaying self-esteem and demonstrating a greater sense of responsibility.

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning 711

711

Students also had their share of misgivings. Some of them lived with aged grandparents because

their parents were earning money elsewhere. Their grandparents could not help them with their

school work. Some children had to walk long distances and were late and tired when they reached

their school. Some went to fish early in the morning to earn extra money for the family. These stu-

dents found schooling very challenging although their teachers helped them by working late and

holding extra classes. Many teachers shared concerns about the lack of reading materials and pic-

tures, and computers that could help in student learning. The school library was cramped and also

did not have many books. The students also wanted to have more sport activities, such as football,

netball, volleyball and athletics. Some students were keen on music and suggested creating a band.

Discussion

The summative finding of the six major themes in the case study of the four schools makes a case

for the kind of changes and influence that may be attributed to LfL with regard to teaching and

learning. There were a lot of individual contributions by the various stakeholders of the school but,

more importantly, they programmed a communal involvement and collective effort to turn things

around. When the developments of the LfL schools were set against the background of the general

conditions of the basic schools across the country they presented two major findings. First, they

proved that significant and positive changes were possible even in dire conditions and in spite

of them. While the schools in the study may not yet measure up to what would be seen as an accep-

table standard of quality in teaching and learning, the progress achieved is, nevertheless, com-

mendable. Second, a strong and committed leadership with a clear vision and understanding of

the dynamics involved to bring about change was essential as demonstrated by the cadre of school

transformation leaders.

The leadership literature offers differing views as to the central role of school heads as leaders

and their impact on student outcomes as measured by standardized testing (Gaziel, 2007). Some

researchers have argued that there is no evidence as to the direct relationship between school lead-

ership and student outcome (Hallinger, 2010). This case study does offer evidence to the contrary;

school leadership does matter. It shows that there are both direct and indirect effects, on the one

hand, by personal intervention with children and classes and, on the other, through creating a more

positive school ethos and influencing teachers’ morale and pedagogical knowledge. It was

the headteachers’ initiative, personal modelling behaviour, approach to challenges and embrace

of the various stakeholders that was critical in the change process.

This raises the question as to why the headteachers did not or were not able to do the same

before their induction into LfL principles and practice. There may have been, until then, little

incentive to change their practice nor the knowledge and strategies to do so. They have now a

clearer vision of how to lead learning of their students, their teachers and themselves. They have

a sharper focus on the role of other stakeholders, how to connect with them, empower them and tap

into their hidden talents. It may be noteworthy that the four case study headteachers along with the

others in the first cohort of 125 had been screened and selected to ensure success of the LfL inter-

vention. They had already possessed leadership qualities but these had to be allowed to surface in a

context where these heads were able to review and reframe their thinking and practice.

At the same time, notice had to be taken of the other stakeholders’ voices such as the circuit

supervisors, teachers and community members. Many of them, at one time or another, had

expressed their hope that there would be improvement in basic education not only for the good

of their children but for the nation. There was a willingness to learn, work hard and make sacrifices

712 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

712

as they demonstrated. All they needed was inspiration, guidance and support. As events began to

unfold and good things started to happen all the stakeholders demonstrated they could also exercise

leadership on their own behalf – distributed leadership in action.

The LfL framework proved the catalyst, its five principles (a focus on learning, an environment

for learning, a learning dialogue, shared leadership and mutual accountability) offering a compre-

hensive and systemic road map. The premise of the framework is that each of these five principles

is inter-dependent and intrinsic to the change process (MacBeath and Dempster, 2008). While the

adoption of the principles could be seen as playing out in the case study schools, the most ambi-

tious of the principles, perhaps – mutual accountability – still had some way to grow in the climate

of lingering historic problems, lack of text books, delay in disbursement of capitation funds, and

lack of computers and trained teachers.

The implementation of LfL in Ghana’s basic schools has to be seen in the wider context of local,

regional and national decision making. While the focus has been on capacity building that would

be sustainable, any sense of ownership at school level has had to be endorsed and even promoted

by authorities at each of these hierarchical levels. While the consulting institution, in this case the

CCE in Cambridge, could offer ideas, reference to relevant knowledge and skills promotion

through workshop activities, there could be no guarantees or continued oversight in the implemen-

tation process. Moreover, consideration needed to be given to how a theoretical framework devel-

oped in certain western and more advanced countries might be culturally and contextually

compatible in a quite different and challenging context of an underdeveloped country.

While the 15 PDLs were essential to the implementation process they did not have to carry the

responsibility for its accomplishment. Their salient contribution was in helping to bridge the cul-

tural gap, contextualizing the LfL principles and acting as the crucial link and mediator with the

various levels of authority within the system. Their task was facilitated by the selection of the cru-

cial 125 headteachers allowing a pace of implementation which could not have been achieved with

a different less willing cohort. But, of course, all of these could not have been possible without the

crucial institutional support from the IEPA at the University of Cape Coast, the local collaborator.

In a catch phrase of the LfL principles, IEPA played the role of the critical friend in LfL Ghana

bringing together the authorities of the University’s Academic Board, Ghana Education Service,

the Association of Basic School Headteachers, the Ghana National Association of Teachers, and

the (then) Ministry of Education, Science and Sports (MacBeath, et al., 2010).

Another aspect that appears to have played out rather effectively in the implementation of LfL

in Ghana’s Basic Schools is the on-going research, development and adaptation of the programme.

Besides constituting a steering committee of representatives from both sides of the collaboration,

CCE conducted, prior to commencement, extensive research to understand the political-cultural

context of education in Ghana and the experiences of previous professional development pro-

grammes. Then, there was the anticipatory investigation of the opportunities and challenges espe-

cially with the PDLs on how LfL would impact the people on the ground. The ‘emphasis is on

understanding and exploring the applicability of a conceptualization of ‘‘Leadership for Learning’’

in the context of basic schools in Ghana’ (MacBeath et al., 2010: 8). This was followed further with

participant feedback from the training sessions and workshops. The findings were incorporated

into the development and adaptation of dissemination materials and training interventions to avoid

unwarranted set-backs. Where appropriate remedial actions were recommended and taken as in the

case of remuneration for headteachers to attend workshops. The awareness sessions on LfL for the

district directors and circuit supervisors were also planned and executed as the headteachers raised

concerns about system level commitment and support. Other issues that came up included the

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning 713

713

context of leadership, headteachers’ qualification and knowledge-base, teacher participation, cur-

rent practice of teaching-learning and assessment, and parental involvement. Nonetheless, the

strategy to prepare and commit cooperation and support from the various stakeholders seemed

to have worked well, at least, in the case study schools.

Conclusion

While this article has drawn on a small sample of schools, there is unambiguous evidence of the

LfL intervention having an impact not only on the quality of teaching and learning in basic schools,

but on the capacity of headteachers to revitalize their staffs and their communities. The four

schools studied provided evidence of an early stage of a long journey of transformation. They also

exemplified the process that may resonate with leaders who were enlightened on the LfL principles

and would translate them, with support from critical friends, as desirable practices at the classroom

and school level. Moreover, the Ghana government has fundamentally adopted the LfL framework

as a way forward at the policymaking level and incorporated it into in-service professional devel-

opment activities for the headteachers and teachers as well as other stakeholders. In fact, it was a

local initiative and collaboration among indigenous educational institutions such as IEPA, Univer-

sity of Cape Coast and GES that continued to educate and train about a thousand basic school per-

sonnel on the LfL principles after the Cambridge counterparts ceased their active involvement.

Indeed, there is a good chance of concluding that the LfL intervention in Ghana to develop the

leadership capacity of headteachers in order to improve the quality of education in the basic

schools is well set to succeed.

Acknowledgement

We are grateful to the Commonwealth Education Trust (CET) who through their funding of the Centre for

Commonwealth Education (CCE) made the Leadership for Learning Ghana programme and this research pos-

sible. We also extend our appreciation for the support and cooperation from our partners in Ghana: the Uni-

versity of Cape Coast; the Ghana Education Service; and the Ministry of Education.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-

cation of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abadzi H (2007) Absenteeism and Beyond: Instructional Time Loss and Consequences. The World Bank,

Independent Evaluation Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Adamu-Issah M, Elden L, Forson M, et al.. (2007) Division of policy and planning working papers achieving

universal Ghana by 2015: A reality or a dream? UNICEF.

Atkinson P and Delamont S (2008) Analytic perspectives. In: Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Collecting

and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Bogdan RC and Biklen SK (2003) Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and

Methods, 4th edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

714 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

714

Bosu R (ed.) (2011) Leadership for Learning Ghana Program. LfL Ghana Newsletter, 1(1): 3.

Centre for Commonwealth Education (2012) Programme briefing: the leadership for learning Ghana pro-

gramme. Available at: http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/centres/cce/publications/Programme%20briefings/

LfL_final8_AugRM.pdf

Coe C (2005) Dilemmas of Culture in African Schools: Youth, Nationalism and the Transformation of

Knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Creswell JW (2005) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and

Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Dinham S and Crowther F (2011) Sustainable school capacity building: one step back, two steps forward?

Journal of Educational Administration 49(6): 616–623.

Dull LJ (2004) Democracy and discipline in Ghanaian education. International Journal of Education

Development 24: 303–314.

Etsey K, Smith TM, Gyamera E, et al. (2009) Review of Basic Education Quality in Ghana. Basic Education

in Ghana: Progress and Problems. Final report. Washington, DC: USAID.

Fullan M (2006) Turnaround Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gaziel HH (2007) Re-examining the relationship between principal’s instructional/educational leadership and

student achievement. Journal of Social Science 15(1): 17–24.

Hallinger P (2010) Leadership for 21st Century School: From Instructional Leadership to Leadership for

Learning. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education.

Hallinger P and Heck RH (2010) Leadership for learning: does collaborative leadership make a dif-

ference in school improvement? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38(6):

654–678.

Hammersley M and Atkinson P (2002) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Routledge.

Hatch T (2001) It takes capacity to build capacity. Education Week 20(22): 44–47.

Hollins E (1996) Culture in School Learning: Revealing the Deep Meaning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hopkins D, Harris A and Jackson D (1997) Understanding the school’s capacity for development: growth

states and strategies. School Leadership and Management 17(3): 401–411.

Kamberelis G and Dimitradis G (2008) Focus groups: strategic articulations of pedagogy, politics, and

inquiry. In: Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE.

MacBeath J and Dempster N (eds) (2008) Connecting Leadership and Learning: Principles for Practice.

London, UK: Routledge.

MacBeath J, Frost D and Swaffield S (2008) Editorial. School Leadership & Management 28(4): 301–306.

MacBeath J and Swaffield S (2009) Leadership for Learning: The Ghana Programme Report. Cambridge:

Centre for Commonwealth Education, University of Cambridge.

MacBeath J, Swaffield S, Oduro G, et al. (2010) Developing leadership for learning in Ghana: opportunities

and challenges. Paper presented at the 23rd International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improve-

ment, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 5–8 January.

MacBeath J and Swaffield S (2011) Leadership for learning in Ghana. Paper presented at the 24th

International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Limassol, Cyprus, 4–7 January.

Merriam SB (1998) Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Modern Ghana News (2009) Making schools safer for girls. Available at: http://www.modernghana.com/

news/221253/1/making-schools-safer-for-girls.htm.

Morse JM and Richards L (2002) Read me First for a User’s Guide to Qualitative Methods. Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE.

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning 715

715

Oduro G, MacBeath J and Swaffield S (2011) Transforming school leadership, policy and practice in Ghana.

Paper presented at the UK Forum for International Education and Training, Oxford, 13–15 September.

Oduro G and Bosu R (2010) Leadership and management of change for quality improvement. EdQual –

Ghana Policy Briefs. University of Cape Coast.

Osafo-Acquah A and Asamoah-Gyimah K (2009) Impact of quality improvement in primary schools (QUIPS)

programme on the academic performance of pupils in new Edubiase Methodist primary school in the

Adansi east district of Ghana. Edo Journal of Counselling 2(2): 142–154.

Peterson K and Deal T (1998) How leaders influence the culture of schools. Educational Leadership 56(1): 28–30.

Segura CC (2009) Lost in translation: why the structures of formal schooling are not translating in rural

Ghana. Thesis, University of Toronto. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/17583

Stoll L (2009) Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity of learning? A changing land-

scape. Journal of Educational Change 10(2): 115–127.

Swaffield S and MacBeath J (2010) Leading professional development to build the capacity of headteachers

in Ghana. Paper presented at CamERA 2010.

World Bank (2004) Programme performance assessment report, Ghana. Report No. 29581.

Yin RK (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Author biographies

Suseela Malakolunthu is Associate Professor and the Director of the Leadership for Learning

and Research Network (LLRN) at the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. From 2005—

2006, under the Fulbright Fellowship, she conducted research on Multicultural education and

leadership at Stanford University. In 2009, she was appointed as a Research Fellow at the Hong

Kong Institute of Education. Since 2012, she is a Fellow at the Centre for Commonwealth Edu-

cation (CCE) at the Faculty of Education, Cambridge University. In 2013 she was appointed as

the Teacher Education Advisor to the Commonwealth Education Trust, UK. She is currently col-

laborating with CCE on a Teacher Learning Circle project and involved in a Leadership for

Learning (LfL) pilot study of the Cambridge International Examinations (CIE). She serves in the

editorial board of the Leadership and Policy Quarterly (LPQ) and reviews papers for several

international journals including the Comparative Education Review. She also provides consult-

ing services on school improvement and leadership development in the region.

John MacBeath, O.B.E., is Professor Emeritus at the University of Cambridge where he held the

Chair of Educational Leadership since 2000. Prior to that he was Director of the Quality in Education

Centre at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. From 1997 to 2001 he was a member of the Tony

Blair Government Task Force on Standards and from 1997 to 1999 a member of the Scottish Govern-

ment Action Group on Standards. Other consultancies have included OECD, UNESCO and ILO

(International Labour Organisation), the Bertelsmann Foundation and the European Commission on

a school self-evaluation and member of a EU working party on European indicators. He has been work-

ing as a researcher and consultant to the Education Bureau in Hong Kong since 1997. He is Past Pres-

ident of the International Congress on School Effectiveness and Improvement, Director of Leadership

for Learning: the Cambridge Network and Projects Director for the Commonwealth Centre for Edu-

cation. He was awarded the OBE for services to education in 1997 and an honorary doctorate from the

University of Edinburgh in 2009.

716 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5)

716

Sue Swaffield is a senior lecturer at the University of Cambridge Faculty of Education where she

teaches on masters and doctoral programmes and researches in the fields of leadership, school

improvement and assessment. Leadership for learning, critical friendship, support for headtea-

chers and assessment for learning are particular interests. She is currently working with schools

in Europe, Malaysia and New Zealand, as well as in Ghana. She is an executive editor of the

international journal Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, associate editor

of Professional Development in Education, and is on the editorial board of Reflective Teaching.

Her work in higher education builds on previous experiences as a school teacher and local

authority advisor.

Malakolunthu et al.: Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning 717

717