Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:International Journal of Educational Management:Vol11.Issue5.1997:
Restructuring schools in Malta: the road to
improvement
Christopher Bezzina
He admaste r, St Martin’ s Co lle ge , Malta, and Le c ture r in Educ atio nal
Manage me nt and Planning, Unive rsity o f Malta
Examines a process of how
schools and their members
can develop the capacity to
refl ect on the nature and
purpose of their work
together. The focus is on
school-site management
practices as the way forward
to improve the quality of
education being provided.
Argues that for schools to
function better, a professional
culture which offers choice,
authority and responsibility
through more decision-making powers and a participative
structure at school level
needs to be nurtured. Proposes that a combination of
top-down and bottom-up
strategies to improvement
needs to be encouraged as
against purely a top-down or
bottom-up approach. Also
proposes a framework for
professional development at
school-site level.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [ 1997] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 194 ]
Introduction
Geor ge Ma r sh a ll, a 42-yea r -old secon da r y
sch ool tea ch er r eca lls th e day th a t h is h ea dtea ch er, wh om h e h a d a lw ays a ddr essed a s
Mr s Ben n ett, in vited h im to ca ll h er by h er
fir st n a m e. Th a t even t ca m e a fter Geor ge, wh o
h a d a lr ea dy been tea ch in g a t th e sch ool for
a r ou n d six yea r s, h a d ga in ed con fiden ce
th r ou gh pa r ticipa tion in a n IN SE T
pr ogr a m m e a n d h a d fin a lly sta r ted a sser tin g
h im self pr ofession a lly. “I th in k sh e saw m e in
a n ew w ay”, Geor ge sa id of h is h ea dtea ch er.
Tea ch er s, wh eth er in Ma lta , or a n y oth er
cou n tr y n eed to be seen in a n ew w ay. Th a t
ch a n ge in per ception ca n be th e be gin n in g of
em power m en t, a n d th e em power m en t of
tea ch er s is essen tia l if th e sch ools a r e to
im pr ove (Be zzin a , 1996; Con sta ble, 1995). As
lon g a s tea ch er s a r e n ot a dequ a tely va lu ed by
th em selves a n d by oth er s th ey a r e n ot a pt to
per for m w ith th e n ecessa r y a ssu r a n ce a n d
a u th or ity to do th e job a s well a s th ey ca n
(Adelm a n a n d Wa lk in g-E a gle, 1997; Goodla d,
1994; Reyn olds a n d Cu tta n ce, 1992).
If tea ch er s ca n be lifted in th r ee k ey a r ea s –
ea ch com plem en tin g th e oth er – th ey w ill be
a ble to flex m u scles th a t h ave been a llowed to
a tr oph y. Th ese th r ee a r ea s in volve sta tu s,
th eir k n ow ledge, a n d th eir a ccess to decision
m a k in g.
Th is pa per a ttem pts to pr esen t som e idea s
for discu ssion a n d pr oposes pa r ticu la r r ou tes
wh ich ca n h elp em power tea ch er s a n d
sch ools in pa r ticu la r a s th ey str ive tow a r ds
qu a lity im pr ovem en t.
Th r ou gh ou t th e wor ld, edu ca tion a l system s
h ave been a ccu sed of bein g extr em ely con ser va tive socia l in stitu tion s th a t r espon d ver y
slow ly, if a t a ll, to edu ca tion a l r efor m s, socia l
ch a n ges a n d a dva n ces in tech n ology. Th e
r ea son s for th is a r e a m u ltitu de of com plex
in ter r ela ted fa ctor s. Politica l, r eligiou s,
socia l, cu ltu r a l, a n d oth er in depen den t for ces
a ffect th e econ om ic gr ow th a n d socia l developm en t of a ll n a tion s a n d h en ce th e qu a lity of
edu ca tion pr ovided (Kin g, 1983; Ra ssek h a n d
Va idea n u , 1987).
Du e to th e in a bility to r espon d dir ectly to
ch a n ge, th e in flu en ce of sch ools is bein g
a tta ck ed fr om va r iou s qu a r ter s. In th e h ea r t
of th is deba te sta n ds th e tea ch in g pr ofession .
Tea ch er s a r e poin ted to a s both th e pr im a r y
ca u se of th e cu r r en t cr isis a n d a t th e sa m e
tim e th e best h ope for its even tu a l r esolu tion
(e.g. Ca r n e gie Ta sk For ce, 1986; Goodla d,
1984). As edu ca tor s we believe th a t we ca n
play a n im por ta n t, m aybe even deter m in in g
r ole in society. We tr u ly believe th a t sch ools
ca n m a k e a differ en ce. Yet, ou r per son a l exper ien ce w ith in sch ools a n d sch oolin g system s
sh ow s th a t we a r e m ost of th e tim e ch a sin g
wh a t ca n ea sily be ter m ed a n elu sive a im ,
th a t of pr om otin g th e fu ll developm en t of th e
in dividu a l a n d esta blish in g a n edu ca tive
society. On e won der s h ow fa r sch ools ca n
tr u ly a ct a s ch a n ge a gen ts, wh er e th ey ch a n ge
a n d in n ova te in or der to m eet th e dem a n ds of
socia l ch a n ge. On e m a in r ea son wh y sch ools
a r e power less in th is r espect is beca u se, m or e
often th a n n ot, th ey h ave to r eflect th e wh im s
of politica l ideologies. In fa ct, in or der to
u n der sta n d wh y sch ools a n d tea ch in g pr a ctices a r e con stitu ted a s th ey a r e, a n d h ow
a lter n a tives m ay be im plem en ted, we n eed to
be aw a r e of th e often con tr a dictor y socia l a n d
politica l for ces w ith in wh ich sch ools a n d
th eir tea ch er s a r e ca u gh t (Br a dley et a l., 1994;
La m ber t, 1988).
Th is pa per is ba sed on th e pr em iss th a t
sch ools, u n der cer ta in con dition s, ca n
becom e m u ch m or e vita l th a n th ey cu r r en tly
a r e. For sch ools to r espon d m or e effectively to
a n ever -ch a n gin g socia l r ea lity, it is cr u cia l
th a t th eir pr esen t or ien ta tion a n d focu s a r e
r eth ou gh t a n d even tu a lly r estr u ctu r ed.
In Ma lta we a r e cu r r en tly fa ced w ith a
r igidly h ier a r ch ica l, cen tr a lized system in
wh ich tea ch er s h ave gr ow n wea r y th r ou gh
disillu sion m en t a n d str ess (Bor g a n d F a lzon ,
1989; F a r r u gia , 1985, 1986, 1994). Ma ltese
sch ools h ave been m a in ly or ga n ized in th is
h ier a r ch y a n d m a n a ged fr om a top-dow n
a ppr oa ch . Con sequ en tly, h ea ds a n d tea ch er s
h ave been m a in ly r espon sible for im plem en tin g policies a n d decision s ta k en by edu ca tion a l a u th or ities a t cen tr a l level (Be zzin a ,
1995; Fen ech , 1992). Wh en tea ch er s a n d oth er
sta k eh older s h ave pa r ticipa ted in th e
decision -m a k in g of th e sch ool th eir in volvem en t h a s u su a lly been m er e tok en ism , a n d,
a s I h ave a r gu ed in th e pa st (Be zzin a , 1991),
a n d r ecen tly (Be zzin a a n d West, 1997),
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
tea ch er s h ave n ot been given th e oppor tu n ity
to develop in to lea r n in g or ga n iza tion s.
In r ecen t deca des th er e h a s been a gr ow in g
tr en d tow a r ds decen tr a liza tion a n d h en ce
sch ool-site m a n a gem en t (David, 1995-1996;
Her m a n a n d Her m a n , 1993; Moh r m a n et a l.,
1994). On e of th e m a jor im plica tion s beh in d
decen tr a liza tion a n d devolu tion of a u th or ity
to sch ools is tea ch er em power m en t (Steyn
a n d Squ elch , 1996; Weiss, 1993). As Ga bor a n d
Meu n ier (1993) a n d Sch m ok er (1997) a m on g
oth er s h ave poin ted ou t, tea ch er em power m en t is th e w ay for w a r d a n d th e on ly w ay th e
or ga n iza tion ca n tr u ly lea r n a n d im pr ove.
Th e m ost im por ta n t poin t th is pa per w ill
tr y to m a k e is th a t developm en t pla n s for th e
im pr ovem en t of edu ca tion ca n a r ise w ith in
ea ch in dividu a l sch ool – by th ose wh o wor k
a n d live in th em ea ch day. Su ch sch ool
r estr u ctu r in g w ill a lso n eed th e su ppor t of
effective a n d efficien t su ppor t ser vices.
Th er efor e, a pr odu ctive ten sion between
in n er -dir ected a n d ou ter -dir ected effor ts to
im pr ove is n eeded.
Th e pa per w ill be dir ected a t pr esen tin g a
pr ocess of h ow sch ools, a n d h en ce th e m em ber s of th e in stitu tion s, ca n develop th e
ca pa city to r efl ect on th e n a tu r e a n d pu r pose
of th eir wor k togeth er. Sch ools, wh ich a r e a
per son ifica tion of th e people wh o com pr ise
th em , m u st becom e m or e r espon sive to th eir
ow n pa r ticu la r pr oblem s a n d n eeds.
Resea r ch eviden ce (Ha r gr eaves a n d
Hopk in s, 1991; Hopk in s a n d Sebba , 1995) h a s
sh ow n th a t th e qu a lity of edu ca tion in sch ools
is h igh ly depen den t on :
• th e pr ofession a l com peten ce of th e edu ca tor s w ith in th e sch ool;
• a n efficien t su ppor tive in fr a str u ctu r e; a n d
• a m or e decen tr a lized gover n a n ce str u ctu r e.
If we believe th a t edu ca tor s a r e to h ave a n y
effect on ch a n ge, a n d th a t edu ca tion a l ch a n ge
depen ds la r gely on th e qu a lity of th e tea ch in g
for ce, th en we n eed to a n a lyse cr itica lly pr esen t edu ca tion system s, th e goa ls th ey a r e
tr yin g to a ch ieve a n d h ow th ey a r e goin g
a bou t th em (Ch a pm a n , 1993; F u lla n , 1995;
Ha r gr eaves et a l., 1996).
It is r ecogn ized th a t th e tr a n sfor m a tion of
edu ca tion r equ ir es a tr a n sfor m a tion of edu ca tion sta ff of a ll k in ds a n d a t a ll levels. Th e
qu a lity of su ch sta ff depen ds n ot m er ely on
th eir k n ow ledge a n d sk ill, bu t a lso on th e
de gr ee of th eir m otiva tion to u tilize th is
k n ow ledge a n d sk ill a n d on th e exten t of th e
oppor tu n ity ava ila ble to th em to do so. Con sequ en tly, qu a lita tive im pr ovem en t dem a n ds
con sider a tion of a w ide r a n ge of edu ca tion
sta ff, th e pr ovision of a dequ a te in cen tives,
a n d th e cr ea tion of gen u in e oppor tu n ity
th r ou gh th e pr ovision of su ppor t ser vices,
a dequ a te r esou r ces a n d oppor tu n ities to
pa r ticipa te in th e decision m a k in g a ffectin g
th eir wor k (e.g. F a r r u gia , 1985, 1986, 1994).
Th e m a in th r u st bein g m a de h er e is th a t
im plem en ta tion str a te gies ou gh t, a s m u ch a s
possible, to con sider th e m a in im plem en tor s,
th a t is, th ose wor k in g in sch ools a n d in cla ssr oom s, wh en con sider in g r efor m s. N a tu r a lly,
n o on e str a te gy for im pr ovem en t is defin ite.
Su ccess a n d/ or fa ilu r e depen d on a va r iety of
fa ctor s. Th e ch a r a cter istics wh ich n eed to be
h igh ligh ted a r e, fi r st, th e a ppr oa ch a dopted –
wh eth er top-dow n or bottom -u p – depen ds a
lot on th e pr eva ilin g a ttitu des of th e a u th or ities con cer n ed (be th ey, for exa m ple, depa r tm en ta l officia ls or a sch ool h ea d), a n d secon d,
th a t m ixes of top-dow n a n d bottom -u p str a tegies, wh ich a r e n ot n ecessa r ily tied eith er to
cen tr a l or sch ool-ba sed a pplica tion , ca n a lso
occu r (see F igu r e 1).
Th e top-dow n str a te gy of im plem en ta tion
m ea n s th a t dir ection s dr a fted a t cen tr a l level
w ill be execu ted in ea ch sch ool a cr oss th e
distr ict. (N ote: th e wor d distr ict is h er e u sed
th r ou gh ou t to r epr esen t th e “sm a llest u n it”
in to wh ich a cou n tr y is divided. Cou n tr ies
m igh t u se differ en t ter m s su ch a s r e gion s or
w a r ds to m ea n th e sa m e th in g). Sim ila r ly, a
bottom -u p a ppr oa ch m ea n s th a t sch ool-gen er a ted decision s, u n iqu e to ea ch settin g, w ill
va r y fr om sch ool to sch ool in th e distr ict.
Mixes of both str a te gies a r e, h owever, a lso
possible. For exa m ple, a dir ector a t n a tion a l
level ca n dir ect h ea dtea ch er s in ea ch sch ool
to set goa ls, pla n a n d esta blish pr ogr a m m es,
a n d to a ssess ou tcom es. By dir ectin g fr om th e
top a pr ocess to occu r a t ea ch sch ool w ith ou t
pr escr ibin g th e con ten t of th e decision s, a
va r ia tion on th e bottom -u p a ppr oa ch
em er ges.
Th e focu s of th is pa per w ill be dir ected
tow a r ds sch ool-site m a n a gem en t (SSM). Th e
pu r pose of r efor m policies n eed to be dir ected
tow a r ds cr ea tin g th e k in ds of in stitu tion a l
a r r a n gem en ts a n d or ga n iza tion a l str u ctu r es
th a t pr om ote edu ca tion a l excellen ce. E ven tu a l su ccess or fa ilu r e of sch ool r efor m
depen d on th e de gr ee to wh ich th a t pu r pose
ca n be a ccom plish ed. Th e pa per su ggests th e
Figure 1
Imple me ntatio n strate gie s to sc ho o l ac tio n
(adapte d fro m Cuban, 1 9 8 4 , p. 1 3 9 )
Ce ntral autho ritie s
To p-do wn
Distric t wide
Sc ho o l-base d
Sc ho o l
bo tto m-up
[ 195 ]
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
n eed to r efr a m e th e fu n da m en ta l qu estion s
a bou t sch ool r efor m . Ma n y r efor m s in ten ded
to a lter th e fu n da m en ta l str u ctu r es of sch ools
h ave m et w ith little su ccess beca u se th ey fa il
to a sk th e r igh t qu estion s (F u lla n a n d
Ha r gr eaves, 1996; Ru ddock , 1991; Sa r a son ,
1990). Most sta te r efor m s often a im for qu a lity
con tr ol, seek in g to m a k e existin g system s
m or e pr odu ctive bu t a t th e sa m e tim e n ot
distu r bin g cla ssr oom r oles or th e gover n a n ce
str u ctu r es of sch ools. Th e pa per look s in to
w ays a n d m ea n s of str en gth en in g sch ools a s
or ga n iza tion s – by ch a n gin g th eir in stitu tion a l n a tu r e (e.g. Bim ber, 1994; Br en n a n ,
1989) m a in ly th r ou gh sch ool-site m a n a gem en t pr a ctices (e.g. Ca ldwell a n d Spin k s,
1989; Da r lin g-Ha m m on d a n d McLa u gh lin ,
1995; David, 1994; Du iga n , 1988; Her m a n a n d
Her m a n , 1993).
The essence of educational reform
Con cer n for th e im pr ovem en t of edu ca tion is
w idely eviden t today in pr a ctica lly a ll cou n tr ies. On e m a jor developm en t th a t ca n be
obser ved w ith in th e pr esen t tr en d is th a t
m or e em ph a sis is bein g dir ected a t sch ool
level, a t th e w ay th e sch ool fu n ction s. N a tion s
h ave w a sted billion s of pou n ds on m a n y
poor ly con ceived bu t m aybe politica lly popu la r r efor m s wh ich in th e en d fa iled to pr odu ce
a n im pa ct a t th e m ost cr itica l level, th e
sch ool, a n d m or e so, th e cla ssr oom . Too fr equ en tly, r efor m s h ave been con tr a dictor y in
n a tu r e, poor ly im plem en ted a n d h a d to be
even tu a lly a ba n don ed or else left to die a
n a tu r a l dea th (e.g. Hopk in s, 1987). An y effor t
to im pr ove th e effectiven ess of sch ools ca n n ot
be in telligen tly dir ected w ith ou t u n der sta n din g th e dyn a m ics of sch ools. In fa ct J a m es
Con a n t’s a dvice over 30 yea r s a go th a t sch ools
sh ou ld be im pr oved “sch ool by sch ool”
(Con a n t, 1989, p. 96) is bein g r e-ech oed n ow by
m a n y edu ca tion a lists (e.g. Fer gu son , 1984;
Goodla d, 1983; Miles et a l., 1987). Un der sta n din g th e dyn a m ics of sch ool en ta ils lea r n in g
a bou t th e a ction s a n d in fl u en ces of tea ch er s,
pu pils, pa r en ts, com m u n ity m em ber s a n d
com m u n ity or ga n iza tion s, a n d th e w ays in
wh ich th ese in fl u en ces oper a te (Lin dle,
1995/ 1996; Glick m a n , 1993).
Su ch a per spective str esses th e view th a t
sch ools n eed to occu py a cen tr a l position in
edu ca tion a l discou r se dir ected tow a r ds
sch ool im pr ovem en t, a n d, tea ch er em power m en t is seen a s a power fu l m ea n s a n d a cr u cia l in gr edien t if sch ools a r e to im pr ove
(F ieldin g, 1995; Sick ler, 1988; West et a l., 1995).
Let u s explor e th e ter m s “sch ool im pr ovem en t” a n d “tea ch er em power m en t” in som e
m or e deta il.
[ 196 ]
School improvement: what does it
entail?
Th e wor k in g defin ition pr oposed h er e is th a t
developed by th e In ter n a tion a l Sch ool
Im pr ovem en t P r oject (ISIP ) (Hopk in s, 1990).
ISIP defin es sch ool im pr ovem en t a s:
… a system a tic, su sta in ed effor t a im ed a t
ch a n ge in lea r n in g con dition s a n d oth er
r ela ted in ter n a l con dition s in on e or m or e
sch ools, w ith th e u ltim a te a im of a ccom plish in g edu ca tion a l goa ls m or e effectively
(Va n Velzen et a l., 1985, p. 48).
P r a ctica l a n d r esea r ch exper ien ce over th e
pa st deca de h a s su ppor ted th r ee m a in con clu sion s. F ir st, a ch ievin g ch a n ge is m u ch m or e a
m a tter of im plem en ta tion of n ew pr a ctices a t
sch ool level th a n it is of sim ply decidin g to
a dopt th em . Secon d, sch ool im pr ovem en t is a
ca r efu lly pla n n ed a n d m a n a ged pr ocess th a t
ta k es pla ce over a per iod of yea r s. It is n ot
som eth in g h a ph a za r d, or th a t ca n ta k e pla ce
over n igh t. On th e con tr a r y it r equ ir es a system a tic a n d su sta in ed effor t over tim e.
Ch a n ge is a pr ocess n ot a n even t. Th ir d,
sch ool im pr ovem en t is a m u ltilevel pr ocess.
Th a t is, it goes beyon d cla ssr oom ch a n ge,
a doptin g a “cla ssr oom exceedin g” per spective. Ch a n ge pr esu pposes a tten tion to oth er
r ela ted con dition s both w ith in a n d ou tside
th e sch ool, su ch a s th e sch ool or ga n iza tion a l
str u ctu r e, com m u n ica tion between tea ch er s,
th e sch ool eth os a n d clim a te, a n d th e type of
su ppor t ser vices th e sch ool r eceives fr om
edu ca tion a u th or ities (Hopk in s, 1990; Va n
Velzen et a l., 1985).
Su ch a defin ition ch a llen ges th e existin g
m odel wh ich sees sch ools (a n d tea ch er s) a s
pa ssive r ecipien ts to th e ch a n ge pr ocess. Th e
pr oposa l h er e is on e wh ich sees sch ools a s
both th e objects of a n d th e a r en a s for edu ca tion a l im pr ovem en t a n d ch a n ge. Sch ools a n d
th eir sta ff n eed to becom e a ctive pa r ticipa n ts
in th e pr ocess of sch ool im pr ovem en t. Th is
im plies th a t edu ca tor s a t sch ool level n eed to
be w illin g to ta k e ch a r ge. Th is lea ds u s to
explor e th e a r ea of tea ch er em power m en t.
What is empowerment?
Tea ch er em power m en t is defin ed a s th e
tr a n sfer of a u th or ity of k ey sch ool issu es to
th ose wh o a r e cen tr a lly in volved in sch ool
life. In oth er wor ds, em power m en t dea ls w ith
th e givin g of decision -m a k in g a u th or ity to
people wh o in th e pa st h a d look ed to a n
a u th or ity to m a k e decision s. Su ch a n
a ppr oa ch en cou r a ges h ea ds a n d tea ch er s to
becom e th e m a in a ctor s in decision s wh ich
a ffect sch ool life a n d sch ool developm en t in
pa r ticu la r (Her m a n a n d Her m a n , 1993;
Ma er off, 1988).
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
Accor din g to a n u m ber of a u th or s, em pow er m en t cover s th r ee m a in a r ea s: sta tu s,
k n ow ledge a n d a ccess to decision m a k in g.
Ma er off believes th a t “boostin g th e sta tu s of
tea ch er s is fu n da m en ta l” (Ma er off, 1988,
p. 474) a s th is w ill h elp th em to look on th em selves a n d th eir collea gu es w ith th e a ppr opr ia te dign ity a n d r espect. Tea ch er s ca n on ly
ga in th is th r ou gh th eir ow n in dividu a l a n d
con cer ted effor t to r ea lly ta k e ow n ersh ip of
th eir pr ofession wh ich for so lon g h a s been in
th e h a n ds of oth er s. To a ch ieve su ch sta tu s,
tea ch er s n eed to feel th a t th ey a r e im por ta n t,
a n d th a t th eir exper ien ces a n d exper tise a r e
va lu ed a n d tr u sted. On th e oth er h a n d,
k n ow ledge is in itself power a n d a n in cr ea se
in on e’s k n ow ledge ba se is a n obviou s step to
em power m en t. Tea ch er s ca n m a k e gr ea ter
dem a n ds on sch ool-site m a n a gem en t pr a ctices if th ey sh ow th e a u th or ities a n d th e
com m u n ity a t la r ge th a t th ey (i.e. tea ch er s)
k n ow wh a t th ey a r e ta lk in g a bou t. Access to
decision m a k in g im plies th a t tea ch er s’ idea s
a n d con tr ibu tion s a r e im por ta n t a n d fu n da m en ta l if th e sch ool is to m ove for w a r d.
Hen ce, h ea dtea ch er s n eed to cr ea te oppor tu n ities for tea ch er s to exer cise decision
m a k in g wh ich goes beyon d wh a t ta k es pla ce
in th e cla ssr oom .
Tea ch er s exper ien ce em power m en t wh en
th ey h ave oppor tu n ities to im pr ove th eir
in str u ction a l tech n iqu es; wh en th ey deepen
th eir k n ow ledge a n d u n der sta n din g of th e
a r ea s th ey tea ch ; wh en th ey a dopt a h olistic
per spective to sch ool life; wh en tea ch er s sta r t
in volvin g th em selves in differ en t sch ool m a tter s beyon d th eir su bject m a tter. Su ch
in volvem en t m ea n s h avin g a gr ea ter say in
decision s wh ich a ffect th eir r oles a t sch ool
both dir ectly a n d in dir ectly.
Un for tu n a tely th is is n ot ver y m u ch eviden ced in ou r sch ools. Tea ch in g is still ver y
m u ch pr a ctised in isola tion , a n d colle gia lity
is n on -existen t for m a n y tea ch er s. As a r esu lt,
th e tea ch er ’s ow n k n ow ledge a n d a ttitu de
tow a r ds pr ofession a l developm en t h a s been
a llowed to a tr oph y. Mor eover, som e r esea r ch
on tea ch er em power m en t r evea l th a t som e
tea ch er s do n ot u n der sta n d em power m en t,
oth er s do n ot w a n t to a ccept th e r espon sibility th a t a ccom pa n ies em power m en t, a n d
oth er s w a n t to avoid th e lea der sh ip a n d
power it offer s (Her m a n a n d Her m a n , 1993;
Midgley a n d Wood, 1993).
However, if we a r e optim istic th a t tea ch er s
possess lea der sh ip qu a lities, or a r e w illin g to
lea r n a n d com m it th em selves tow a r ds th e
im pr ovem en t of th e sch ool, a n d, lik e Ma er off
(1988, p. 476), feel con fiden t th a t “tea ch er s a r e
h u n gr y for stim u la tin g edu ca tion a l exper ien ces” th en we w ill do ou r u tm ost to cr ea te
oppor tu n ities wh er e tea ch er em power m en t
ca n ta k e pla ce. If we a ccept th e pr em iss th a t
th e u ltim a te power to ch a n ge is in th e “h ea ds,
h a n ds a n d h ea r t” of th e edu ca tor s wh o wor k
in sch ools (Sir otn ik a n d Cla r k , 1988, p. 660),
a n d th a t th e sch ool sta ff is th e k ey to im pr ovem en t (Clift et a l., 1989; Goodla d, 1984;
Ha r gr eaves, 1997; Hopk in s, 1987) th en fu tu r e
sch ool r efor m policies a n d pr a ctices w ill
r efl ect su ch a n or ien ta tion .
Th is, in m y opin ion , is on e of th e m a jor
ch a llen ges fa cin g edu ca tor s wor ldw ide: th a t
of sh iftin g fr om a bu r ea u cr a tic, top-dow n
m odel to on e wh ich em ph a sizes sch ool-site
m a n a gem en t, th a t is, on e in wh ich edu ca tor s
a t sch ool level a r e en cou r a ged to ta k e decision m a k in g m or e ser iou sly a n d en dor se th e
r espon sibilities th a t su ch devolu tion en ta ils
(Holly a n d Sou th wor th , 1989; West-Bu r n h a m ,
1992; West, 1995). If tea ch er em power m en t is
u tilized pr oper ly, m em ber s of sta ff w ill slow ly
be gin to feel th a t th ey a r e r espected a n d va lu ed a s in dividu a ls wh o ca n con tr ibu te in
m ea n in gfu l w ays to sch ool im pr ovem en t. It is
a slow pr ocess wh ich ca n be gr u ellin g a t
tim es, w ith its u ps a n d dow n s, h owever it is
th e r oa d wor th ta k in g.
Improving schools from within
Th e con cept of sch ool-site m a n a gem en t
(SSM) th er efor e im plies a n d in volves sign ifica n t a n d con sisten t decen tr a liza tion to th e
sch ool level, of a u th or ity to m a k e decision s
r ela ted to th e a lloca tion of r esou r ces. Hen ce
th e self-m a n a gin g sch ool con ceptu a lized by
Ca ldwell a n d Spin k s a n d oth er s is on e in
wh ich th e in dividu a l sch ool is given th e
power, r espon sibility a n d r esou r ces to set
goa ls a n d deter m in e n eeds a n d pr ior ities; to
cr ea te sch ool policies con sisten t w ith system
gu idelin es a n d pa r a m eter s; to pla n a n d im plem en t pr ogr a m m es a n d to a lloca te r esou r ces
a ccor din gly; a n d to eva lu a te th e effectiven ess
of r esou r ce a lloca tion decision s (Ca ldwell a n d
Spin k s, 1989; Wa lla ce et a l., 1996).
Th is section pr esen ts th e m a in poten tia l
ch a r a cter istics of SSM, develops a r a tion a le
ba sed on sch ool effectiven ess, pr esen ts a
fr a m ewor k for pr ofession a l developm en t a n d
th e m a in ch a r a cter istics beh in d a sch ool
developm en t pr ocess. For sever a l yea r s n ow I
h ave been r eview in g th e liter a tu r e on SSM,
discu ssin g, a n a lysin g, tr yin g ou t possibilities
w ith collea gu es in differ en t con texts a n d in
differ en t cou n tr ies, a n d u n der ta k in g m y ow n
em pir ica l r esea r ch . F r om th is I h ave dr aw n a
n u m ber of con clu sion s a s to wh a t SSM
en ta ils:
• SSM is a bou t ow n er sh ip.
• SSM is a bou t em power m en t of k ey sta k eh older s in edu ca tion a l decision m a k in g.
[ 197 ]
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
• SSM offer s poten tia l for en h a n ced or ga n iza tion a l effectiven ess a n d im pr oved stu den t
ou tcom es.
• SSM is ba sed on on e m a jor belief: th e sch ool
a s a cen tr e of cr itica l in qu ir y n ot a s a ta r get
of ch a n ge.
• SSM in volves sta ff developm en t, n etwor k in g a n d pr oblem -cen tr ed a ctivities.
• SSM en ta ils a colla bor a tive a ppr oa ch to
developm en t.
• SSM is n ot a bou t m on ey.
• SSM focu ses dir ectly on th e lea r n er (i.e.
pu pil or edu ca tor ) a n d h is/ h er n eeds.
A framework for professional development
For SSM to su cceed a n d be effective, sch ools,
a n d m or e so cen tr a l a u th or ities, n eed to
develop a fr a m ewor k for su ch pr ofession a l
developm en t to ta k e pla ce. Th e con ceptu a l
fr a m ewor k illu str ated in F igu r e 2 pr ovides a
str u ctu r a l sta r tin g poin t for pla n n in g a n d
or ga n izin g th e design of th e va r iou s a ctivities
th a t con stitu te th e “self-in n ova tive” sch ool. Its
pu r pose is to a ssist sch ool a dm in istr a tor s to
r ecogn ize th e elem en ts con tr ibu tin g to a n
in tegr a ted pr ogr a m m e th a t a ck n ow ledges th e
im por ta n ce of a va r iety of con cepts a n d fea tu r es wh ich , wh en br ou gh t togeth er, con tr ibu te to a descr iption of sta ff developm en t
Figure 2
A pro fe ssio nal de ve lo pme nt pro gramme frame wo rk
Strate gic planning and de ve lo pme nt
Instruc tio nal le ade rship
Sc ho o l
de ve lo pme nt
Curric ulum
de ve lo pme nt
Performanc e
appraisal
pro c e ss
Manage me nt
de ve lo pme nt
Pe rso nal
de ve lo pme nt
th a t is h olistic, ba la n ced a n d devised to ben efit
th e sch ool a n d in dividu a l pr a ctition er s in it.
Strategic planning and development
Wh eth er you a r e a h ea d or lea der of a sm a ller
sch ool tea m , you h ave a pa r t to play in th e
pla n n ed oper a tion a n d a ch ievem en ts of th e
sch ool. Hen ce th is fr a m ewor k for
pr ofession a l developm en t sta r ts w ith a focu s
on str a te gic pla n n in g a n d developm en t,
issu es wh ich m a n a ger s a t a ll levels in a
sch ool sh ou ld be n ot on ly fa m ilia r w ith bu t
a ctively in volved in – in a colla bor a tive sen se
(Davies a n d E llison , 1996; Robbin s a n d Alvy,
1995; Ru ss, 1995; Wa lla ce et a l., 1996).
Instructional leadership
In str u ction a l lea der sh ip is a con cept th a t
goes by m a n y n a m es. In th e liter a tu r e on th is
topic it is va r iou sly r efer r ed to a s cu r r icu lu m
lea der sh ip, edu ca tive, pr ofession a l or even
a ca dem ic lea der sh ip. It is lea der sh ip th a t
or ien ts itself on in str u ction fi r st a n d for em ost. It is lea der sh ip th a t con cer n s itself w ith
wh a t goes on in cla ssr oom s a n d m a k es edu ca tion a l m a tter s th e pr ior ity. Its position in g in
th is fr a m ewor k is deliber a te a n d sign ifies its
sta tu s a s th e u n der lyin g solid ba se su ppor tin g th e m ix of elem en ts th a t con stitu te a ba la n ced sta ff developm en t pr ogr a m m e.
Th e cor e ta sk s of in str u ction a l lea der sh ip
a r e r ela ted to pla n n in g for in str u ction (pr ogr a m m e developm en t, sta ff deploym en t a n d
r esou r ce pr ovision ); m a n a gin g th e oper a tion
of in str u ction (or ga n iza tion , sta ff or ien ta tion , pr ogr a m m e su per vision , a ssessm en t
a n d tea ch in g su per vision ); a n d developm en t
(a ppr a isin g sta ff, a r r a n gin g sta ff developm en t a n d eva lu a tin g pr ogr a m m es). In spite of
com petin g dem a n ds on th e pr ior ities of
sch ool lea der s today, th is r ole is a ck n ow ledged by m ost h ea ds a s cr u cia l to su ccessfu l
sch ool m a n a gem en t a n d, in r ea lity, th e su ccess of in str u ction a l lea der sh ip en deavou r s
w ill depen d on th e exten t to wh ich a dm in istr a tor s a n d tea ch er s a r e em power ed to con tr ibu te to th e ta sk (Be zzin a , 1995; Poplin , 1992;
West-Bu r n h a m , 1992).
Performance appraisal process
At th e h ea r t of a n y sch ool developm en t pr ogr a m m e is th e m ea n s by wh ich we get to k n ow
wh a t n eeds to be im pr oved a n d wh y, befor e we
set a bou t th e ta sk of decidin g h ow we w ill do
th is. In sh or t, a ppr a isa l is a bou t two th in gs:
a ccou n ta bility a n d eva lu a tion . I pa r ticu la r ly
lik e th e w ay Kelly sta tes th e fa cts:
Accou n ta bility, a s w a s well a ppr ecia ted by
th e a n cien t Gr eek s, is a n essen tia l elem en t of
dem ocr a cy – a n elem en t wh ich is too little
eviden t in pr esen t-day ver sion s of dem ocr a cy. An d som e for m of eva lu a tion or
[ 198 ]
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
a ppr a isa l of per for m a n ce is clea r ly its ba se...
With ou t som e k in d of eva lu a tion it is difficu lt to see wh a t ba sis m igh t exist for a n y r ea l
developm en t eith er of th e cu r r icu lu m or of
th e tea ch er s th em selves. For a pr er equ isite
of im pr ovem en t m u st be som e eva lu a tion of
pr eviou s per for m a n ce. (Kelly, 1987, p. 215)
Wh ile we ca n be con fiden t th a t tea ch er s h ave
a lw ays en ga ged in con sta n t, in for m a l
a ppr a isa l of th eir wor k , or in th e pa st h ave
h a d th is fu n ction per for m ed by a n ou tside
a gen cy, we m u st n ot be com pla cen t a bou t th e
n eed to for m a lize a n d im plem en t visible
a ppr a isa l pr ocesses wh ich a r e in th e n a tu r e
of pr ofession a l developm en t r a th er th a n per iodic deten tion ! An idea l pr ocess wou ld be
effective in a ch ievin g fou r th in gs:
1 iden tifyin g developm en t n eeds;
2 pr ovidin g h on est a n d objective feedba ck ;
3 m a k in g dia logu e a bou t im pr ovem en t possible; a n d
4 br in gin g a bou t a gr eed a n d desir ed ch a n ge.
At th is poin t I m u st sta te m y position in th e
on goin g deba te on th e con ten tiou s topic of
a ppr a isa l. I believe it is n ot on ly essen tia l for
pr ofession people to gr a sp th e n ettle bu t a lso
vita l th a t th ey h a n dle it well. In or der to ju dge
th e wor k of th ose we a r e r espon sible for, we
m u st be a ble to obta in a n d give qu a lity feedba ck a bou t per for m a n ce. It is th er efor e cr itica l th a t we h ave m a n a gem en t a n d in ter per son a l sk ills th a t m a k e ta lk in g a n d listen in g
possible in th is con text.
Elements of a staff development
programme
A sta ff developm en t pr ogr a m m e fou n ded on a
cor e elem en t of a ppr a isa l is su ppor ted by
sou n d gu idin g pr in ciples r ela ted to sch ool
pla n s a n d qu a lity in str u ction a l lea der sh ip.
On ce a sch ool’s str a te gic pla n is esta blish ed
a n d lea der s a t a ll levels a gr ee th a t in str u ction
is th e pr ior ity to focu s on , a n d th e or ga n iza tion is a ble to iden tify a n d com m u n ica te
str en gth s a n d wea k n esses, th en lea der s a r e in
a position to pla n for sta ff developm en t in a
w ay th a t a ck n ow ledges per son a l ta r gets,
tea m ta r gets a n d wh ole-sch ool pla n s for in stitu tion a l ch a n ge. A sta ff developm en t pr ogr a m m e ca lls for fou r gen er a l in gr edien ts to
obta in th e r igh t m ix. Th ese a r e:
1 cu r r icu lu m developm en t;
2 per son a l developm en t;
3 m a n a gem en t developm en t;
4 sch ool developm en t.
All of th ese m u st be pr esen t to som e de gr ee in
or der to cr ea te a sou n d pr ogr a m m e.
Curric ulum de ve lo pme nt
In th e fir st qu a dr a n t is cu r r icu lu m developm en t. Th is ter m ca n a pply eith er to a set of
lesson s or to a n a tion a l cu r r icu lu m pr oject
a n d ever yth in g in between ! Sever a l cla ssica l
th eor ists in th is field h ave devised pr ocesses
for cu r r icu lu m developm en t wh ich , a lth ou gh
th ey da te ba ck to th e m iddle of th is cen tu r y,
a r e still in u se today. On e su ch m odel, w ith
wh ich you a r e pr oba bly fa m ilia r, is Tyler ’s
m odel th a t r equ ir es con sider a tion of fou r
a spects of a cu r r icu lu m : objectives, con ten t,
or ga n iza tion a n d eva lu a tion . For a m or e
com plex m odel on e ca n tu r n to th e wor k of
Reid et a l. (1987) wh o r ecom m en ded a loopin g
a ppr oa ch , on th e a ssu m ption th a t steps m ay
be r evisited a lon g th e w ay.
Th ey pr opose a seven -step cu r r icu lu m
developm en t m odel:
1 iden tification of a pu r pose for developm en t;
2 for m u la tion of th e design a n d objectives;
3 tea ch in g str a te gy decision s a n d tr a in in g;
4 pr odu ction of m a ter ia ls a n d r esou r ces;
5 cla ssr oom r esea r ch a n d tr ia llin g;
6 im plem en tin g th e n ew cu r r icu lu m ;
7 eva lu a tin g th e n ew cu r r icu lu m .
An y a ttem pt to develop a cu r r icu lu m sh ou ld
of cou r se en com pa ss a ll th ese a ctivities,
wh eth er or ga n ized on a n a tion a l, r e gion a l or
loca l sca le. Th e types of qu estion s we m u st
a sk ou r selves a t sch ool level a r e:
• How m u ch developm en t ca n a sch ool
su sta in ?
• Wh a t w ill th is m ea n for th e tr a in in g a n d
developm en t of th ose wh o w ill be in volved?
• How is th e cu r r icu lu m pr ogr a m m e to be
m on itor ed a n d r eviewed?
• How often ca n or sh ou ld we ch a n ge th e
cu r r icu la ?
• Wh o is to be in volved in su ch wor k ?
• How w ill th is a ffect pr a ctice?
I a m su r e th a t th e r ea der ca n a dd h is/ h er ow n
qu estion s to th is list.
Pe rso nal de ve lo pme nt
In th e secon d qu a dr a n t is per son a l developm en t. In to th e a r ea of per son a l developm en t
fa lls a wh ole r a n ge of socia l, politica l a n d
cu ltu r a l sk ills th a t a ffect ou r r ela tion sh ips
w ith oth er s. Socia l a bility to com m u n ica te
effectively or to be a sser tive in or der to be
effective; politica l com peten ce in bein g a ble
to n e gotia te a good dea l for on e’s tea m ; cu ltu r a l sen sitivity, u n der sta n din g a n d con fiden ce, a r e som e of th ese essen tia l sk ills. A
cr u cia l com pon en t in th is a r ea is self-developm en t: th e w illin gn ess to r eflect on ou r ow n
th eor ies a n d a ction s a n d ta k e steps to
im pr ove. An d, a s we h ave sta ted ea r lier, if
a ppr a isa l system s a r e to be n ot on ly design ed,
bu t a lso im plem en ted, th en pr a ctition er s wh o
m a n a ge oth er people w ill n eed tr a in in g in
sk ills th a t h elp to cope w ith difficu lt situ a tion s a n d in ter per son a l pr oblem solvin g;
[ 199 ]
sk ills th a t en a ble th em to r ecogn ize th e com plexity of th e tea ch in g ta sk a n d dea l w ith
con testa ble issu es, a n d do th is in a w ay th a t
r espects th e dign ity a n d pr ofession a lism of
collea gu es. Th er e is still a lot of lea r n in g to be
don e in th is a r ea a n d we n eed to develop dia gn ostic a n d r efl ective a ppr oa ch es wh ich a llow
on e to con fr on t pr ofession a l con cer n s open ly
a n d n e gotia te pla n s for tr a in in g a n d developm en t a lon g th e w ay.
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
Manage me nt de ve lo pme nt
In th e th ir d qu a dr a n t is m a n a gem en t developm en t. Th is r ela tes to th e body of in for m a tion ,
th eor y a n d sk ills wh ich en a bles sch ool
a dm in istr a tor s to wor k effectively w ith a n d
th r ou gh oth er s to a ccom plish or ga n iza tion a l
goa ls. A com pr eh en sive view of m a n a gem en t
developm en t is pr esen ted by McMa h on a n d
Bola m (1990) wh o ca te gor ize m a n a gem en t
developm en t in th r ee w ays:
1 M a n a gem en t su ppor t: wh ich r efer s to
sch ool a r r a n gem en ts a n d pr ocedu r es for
pr ofession a l gr ow th , su ch a s job r ota tion
a n d en h a n cem en t, pr om otion , per for m a n ce a ppr a isa l, equ a l em ploym en t
oppor tu n ities, ca r eer developm en t, a n d
th e pr a ctica l issu e of r esou r cin g sta ff
en ga gem en t in in itia tives th a t em power
th em to develop.
2 M a n a gem en t tra in in g: wh ich r efer s to in ser vice cou r ses, wor k sh ops, con fer en ces
a n d tr a in in g oppor tu n ities wh ich th e
sch ool or ga n izes in ter n a lly, or sen ds pr a ctition er s to, w ith th e in ten tion of ga in in g
pr a ctica l in for m a tion a n d lea r n in g sk ills
to sh a r e w ith collea gu es.
3 M a n a gem en t ed u ca tion : wh ich r efer s to
exter n a l stu dy pr ogr a m m es th a t em ph a size th eor y a n d r esea r ch ba sed k n ow ledge,
lea d to qu a lifica tion s a n d in cr ea sin gly
in cor por a te exper ien tia l lea r n in g m eth ods
th a t en cou r a ge pr a ctition er s to a pply
lea r n in g to pr a ctice.
Lea der s a n d poten tia l lea der s wh o h ave
r espon sibility for m a n a gin g sch ools or a r ea s
Figure 3
Sc ho o l de ve lo pme nt c yc le
Audit
‘ Whe re are we no w? ’
‘ Where do we want
to go ? ’
Evaluatio n
‘ Ho w are
we do ing? ’
Targe ts
Imple me ntatio n
pro c e ss
[ 200 ]
Aims
‘How do we get there? ’
of cu r r icu lu m a n d ser vices sh ou ld h ave
a ccess to developm en t oppor tu n ities in a ll
th r ee of th ese m a n a gem en t developm en t
ca te gor ies.
Sc ho o l de ve lo pme nt
In th e fou r th qu a dr a n t is sch ool developm en t.
Th is con cept h a s been well defin ed by P r ebble
a n d Stew a r t:
Sch ool developm en t is a pla n n ed, con tin u in g
effor t to a ddr ess h ow th e in stitu tion dia gn oses a n d m a k es decision s w ith in its sph er e
of in flu en ce. It r ela tes ch a n ge w ith pu r pose,
m a k es over t th e pr eva ilin g beliefs, va lu es,
n or m s of its popu la tion , a n d begin s w ith th e
a ssista n ce of a con su lta n t wh o h a s th e con fiden ce of th e en tir e gr ou p. Im plicit w ith in
th is defin ition is th e n otion th a t su ch a str a tegy m u st be a colla bor a tive r ela tion sh ip
dea lin g w ith both r ea l a n d per ceived pr oblem s (P r ebble a n d Stew a r t, 1984, p. 156).
Th is in volves th e system a tic r eview of sch oolw ide a ctivities in a pr oblem -solvin g cycle of
explor a tion , feedba ck , a n d tr ia llin g of in itia tives lea din g to con sider ed a n d well-pla n n ed
ch a n ge, wh ich is th en eva lu a ted. Sch ool
developm en t is ba sed on th e ch a r a cter istics
sh ow n in F igu r e 3.
Concluding remarks
For sch ools wh ich w ish to m a k e th e best u se
of lim ited r esou r ces, m eet obliga tion s to
im pr ove th e ca pa bilities of sta ff (a n d th u s
im pr ove th e edu ca tion a l exper ien ces of stu den ts), a n d devise sta ff developm en t
pr ogr a m m es wh ich a r e r eleva n t, m ea n in gfu l
a n d effective, a com m itm en t to pla n n in g a n d
a for m of n eeds a n a lysis is essen tia l.
Alth ou gh few sch ools a gr ee th a t th ey do th is
ta sk well, th er e a r e sever a l exa m ples of sm a ll
a n d good be gin n in gs on wh ich to bu ild.
Th e m essa ge bein g pu t for w a r d is a sim ple
on e. In or der to design a n d im plem en t a SSM
pr ogr a m m e wh ich cou ld im pa ct positively on
sch ool pr a ctices, on e m u st sta r t by eva lu a tin g
th e exten t to wh ich in str u ction a l lea der sh ip
a n d pla n n in g pr a ctices a r e pr ovidin g a sou n d
fou n da tion for pr ogr a m m e developm en t. Th e
Old Testa m en t tells u s th a t “people w ith ou t a
vision sh a ll per ish ”. With ou t a vision sch ool
people w ill con tin u e to favou r wh a tever
a ction pr om ises to extin gu ish a fi r e m ost
qu ick ly – so th a t th ey ca n m ove to th e n ext
fir e. A sch ool w ith ou t a vision m ay n ot per ish , it m ay even be fr ee of fir es, bu t it w ill n ot
develop ver y m u ch .
P a ssion a te com m itm en t, su ch a s a n y SSM
pr ogr a m m e n eeds to be ba sed on , com es w ith
th e em a n cipa tion of ou r m in ds a n d ou r
a tta ch m en t, r ea tta ch m en t for som e, to
pu r poses wor th wor k in g for. Restr ictive
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
en vir on m en ts con fin e a n d sm oth er cr ea tivity
a n d pu r pose. A pr ofession a lly a ddr essed a n d
r u n sch ool-site m a n a gem en t pr ogr a m m e ca n
liber a te pr ofession a ls a n d en a ble th em to
r edesign sch oolin g. Th is is th e ch a llen ge
wh ich aw a its Ma ltese sch ools, on e wh ich is
w ith in ou r gr a sp.
References
Adelm a n , N.E . a n d Wa lk in g-E a gle, K.P. (1997),
“Tea ch er s, tim e, a n d sch ool r efor m ”, in
Ha r gr eaves, A. (E d.), R eth in k in g Ed u ca tion a l
Ch a n ge w ith Hea r t a n d M in d, ASCD,
Alexa n dr ia , VA, pp. 92-110.
Be zzin a , C. (1991), “Im pr ovin g th e qu a lity of
sch oolin g in Ma lta ”, T h e In ter n a tion a l
J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t, Vol. 5
N o. 4, pp. 14-18.
Be zzin a , C. (1995), “Th e Ma ltese pr im a r y sch ool
pr in cipa lsh ip: per ception s, r oles a n d
r espon sibilities”, u n pu blish ed P h D Th esis,
Br u n el Un iver sity.
Be zzin a , C. (1996), “Sch ool-ba sed developm en t”,
in Ven tu r a , F. (E d.), S econ d a r y Ed u ca tion in
M a lta : Ch a llen ges a n d Oppor tu n ities, MUT
P u blica tion s Ltd, Ma lta , pp. 28-46.
Be zzin a , C. a n d West, N. (1997), “Tea ch er
em power m en t: th e w ay a h ea d for qu a lity
im pr ovem en t”, M a n a gem en t in Ed u ca tion ,
Vol. 11 N o. 2, pp. 31-2.
Bim ber, B. (1994), Decen traliz ation M ira ge:
Com parin g Decision M ak in g A rran gem en ts in
Fou r High S ch ools, In stitu te on Edu cation a n d
Tr a in in g, Ra n d Cor por ation , Sa n ta Mon ica ,
CA.
Bor g, M.G. a n d F a lzon , J .Z. (1989), “Str ess a n d job
sa tisfa ction a m on g pr im a r y sch ool tea ch er s
in Ma lta ”, Ed u ca tion a l R eview , Vol. 41 N o. 3,
pp. 271-9.
Br a dley, H., Con n er, C. a n d Sou th wor th , G. (E ds)
(1994), Dev elopin g T ea ch ers Dev elopin g
S ch ools, David F u lton , Lon don .
Br en n a n , J . (1989), “A tim e to ch a n ge?”, T h e
In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l
M a n a gem en t, Vol. 3 N o. 3, pp. 7-9.
Ca ldwell, B.J . a n d Spin k s, J .M. (1989), T h e S elfM a n a gin g S ch ool, Th e F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
Ca r n e gie Ta sk For ce (1986), A N a tion Prepa red :
T ea ch ers for th e 21st Cen tu r y, Ca r n e gie For u m
on E du ca tion a n d th e E con om y, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ch a pm a n , J . (1993), “Lea der sh ip, sch ool-ba sed
decision m a k in g a n d sch ool effectiven ess”,
in Dim m ock , C. (E d.), S ch ool-B a sed M a n a gem en t a n d S ch ool Effectiv en ess, Rou tledge,
Lon don , pp. 201-18.
Clift, P.S., N u tta ll, D.L. a n d McCor m ick , R. (E ds)
(1989), S tu d ies in S ch ool S elf-Eva lu a tion , Th e
F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
Con a n t, J .B. (1989), “Th e Am er ica n h igh sch ool
today: a fi r st r epor t to in ter ested citizen s”,
in Or lich , “E du ca tion r efor m : m ista k es,
m iscon ception s, m isu ses”, Ph i Delta Ka ppa n ,
Vol. 70 N o. 7, p. 513.
Con sta ble, H. (1995), “Developin g tea ch er s a s
exten ded pr ofession a ls”, in Bu sh er, H. a n d
Sa r a n , R. (E ds), M a n a gin g T ea ch ers a s
Profession a ls in S ch ools, Koga n P a ge, Lon don ,
pp. 151-66.
Cu ba n , L. (1984), “Tr a n sfor m in g th e fr og in to a
pr in ce: effective sch ools r esea r ch , policy a n d
pr a ctice a t th e distr ict level”, Ha r va rd
Ed u ca tion a l R eview , Vol. 54 N o. 2, pp. 129-51.
Da r lin g-Ha m m on d, L. a n d McLa u gh lin , M.W.
(1995), “Policies th a t su ppor t pr ofession a l
developm en t in a n er a of r efor m ”, Ph i Delta
Ka ppa n , Vol. 76 N o. 8, pp. 597-604.
David, J .L. (1994), “Sch ool-ba sed decision m a k in g:
Ken tu ck y’s test of decen tr a liza tion ”, Ph i Delta
Ka ppa n , Vol. 75 N o. 9, pp. 706-12.
David, J .L. (1995/ 6), “Th e wh o, wh a t, a n d wh y of
site-ba sed m a n a gem en t”, Ed u ca tion a l L ea d er sh ip, Vol. 53 N o. 4, Decem ber -J a n u a r y, pp. 4-9.
Davies, B. a n d E llison , L. (1996), “Bu ildin g a
fu tu r es a n d a str a te gic per spective in sch ool
developm en t pla n n in g”, pa per pr esen ted a t
th e BE MAS Resea r ch Con fer en ce: P a r tn er s in
Ch a n ge: Sh a pin g th e F u tu r e, 25-27 Ma r ch ,
Robin son Colle ge, Ca m br idge.
Du ign a n , P.A. (1988), “Refl ective m a n a gem en t: th e
k ey to qu a lity lea der sh ip”, T h e In ter n a tion a l
J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t, Vol. 2
N o. 2, pp. 3-12.
F a r r u gia , C.J . (1985), “Th e sta tu s of sch ool tea ch er s in Ma lta ”, u n pu blish ed P h D Th esis,
Un iver sity of Lon don .
F a r r u gia , C.J . (1986), “Ca r eer ch oice a n d sou r ces
of occu pa tion a l sa tisfa ction a n d fr u str a tion
a m on g tea ch er s in Ma lta ”, Com pa ra tiv e
Ed u ca tion , Vol. 22 N o. 3, pp. 221-31.
F a r r u gia , C.J . (E d.) (1994), A N ew V ision For
Pr im a r y S ch ools, MUT P u blica tion s, Ma lta .
Fen ech , J . (1992), “P r im a r y sch oolin g in Ma lta :
a n h istor ica l a n d eth n ogr a ph ic stu dy”,
u n pu blish ed P h D Th esis, Un iver sity of
Lon don .
Fer gu son , M. (1984), T h e A qu a r ia n Con spira cy,
P a la din , Lon don .
F ieldin g, M. (1995), “Ma ppin g th e pr ogr ess of
ch a n ge”, pa per pr esen ted a t th e E u r opea n
Con fer en ce on E du ca tion a l Resea r ch ,
Un iver sity of Ba th , 14-17 Septem ber.
F u lla n , M. (1995), Ch a n ge Forces: Prob in g th e
Depth s of Ed u ca tion a l R efor m , Th e F a lm er
P r ess, Lon don .
F u lla n , M. a n d Ha r gr eaves, A. (1996), W h a t’s
Wor th Figh tin g for in You r S ch ool, 2n d ed.,
Tea ch er s Colle ge P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ga bor, C. a n d Meu n ier, G. (1993), “P u ttin g th e
power in to em power m en t”, J ou r n a l for Qu a lity a n d Pa r ticipa tion , Vol. 16 N o. 1, pp. 98-101.
Glick m a n , C.D. (1993), R en ew in g A m er ica ’s
S ch ools: A Gu id e for S ch ool-B a sed A ction ,
J ossey-Ba ss, Sa n F r a n cisco, CA.
Goodla d, J .I. (1983), “A stu dy of sch oolin g: som e
fi n din gs a n d h ypoth esis”, Ph i Delta Ka ppa n ,
Vol. 64 N o. 7, pp. 465-70.
Goodla d, J .I. (1984), A Pla ce ca lled S ch ool:
Prospects for th e Fu tu re, McGr aw -Hill,
N ew Yor k , N Y.
Goodla d, J .I. (1994), W h a t S ch ools A re For,
Ph i Delta Ka ppa, In dia n a .
[ 201 ]
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
[ 202 ]
Ha lla ck , J . (1990), In v estin g in th e Fu tu re: S ettin g
Ed u ca tion a l Pr ior ities in th e Dev elopin g
World, UN E SCO: IIE P, P a r is.
Ha r gr eaves, A. (E d.) (1997), R eth in k in g
Ed u ca tion a l Ch a n ge w ith Hea r t a n d M in d,
Associa tion for Su per vision a n d Cu r r icu lu m
Developm en t, Alexa n dr ia , VA.
Ha r gr eaves, A., E a r l, L. a n d Rya n , J . (1996),
S ch oolin g for Ch a n ge, Th e F a lm er P r ess,
Lon don .
Ha r gr eaves, D.H. a n d Hopk in s, D. (1991), T h e
Em pow ered S ch ool, Ca ssell, Lon don .
Her m a n , J .J . a n d Her m a n , J .L. (1993), S ch oolb a sed M a n a gem en t: Cu r ren t T h in k in g a n d
Pra ctice, Th om a s C P u blish er s, Illin ois.
Holly, P. a n d Sou th wor th , G. (1989), T h e Dev elopin g S ch ool, F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
Hopk in s, D. (1987), Im provin g th e Qu a lity of
S ch ools, Acco, Leu ven , Belgiu m .
Hopk in s, D. (1990), “Th e In ter n a tion a l Sch ool
Im pr ovem en t P r oject (ISIP ) a n d effective
sch oolin g: tow a r ds a syn th esis”, S ch ool
Orga n isa tion , Vol. 10 N os 2 a n d 3, pp. 179-94.
Hopk in s, D. a n d Sebba , J . (1995), “Im pr ovin g
sch ools: a n over view of im pr ovin g th e qu a lity
of edu ca tion for a ll pr ojects”, pa per pr esen ted
a t th e E u r opea n Con fer en ce on E du ca tion a l
Resea r ch , Un iver sity of Ba th , 14-17 Septem ber.
Kelly, A.V. (1987), Kn ow led ge a n d Cu r r icu lu m
Pla n n in g, Ha r per & Row, Lon don .
Kin g, E .J . (1983), “Ch a n gin g edu ca tion for a
ch a n gin g society”, Ed u ca tion a n d S ociety,
Vol. 1 N o. 1, pp. 5-12.
La m ber t, L. (1988), “Sta ff developm en t
r edesign ed”, Ph i Delta Ka ppa n , Vol. 69 N o. 9,
pp. 665-8.
Lin dle, J .C. (1995/ 6), “Lesson s fr om Ken tu ck y
a bou t sch ool-ba sed de
improvement
Christopher Bezzina
He admaste r, St Martin’ s Co lle ge , Malta, and Le c ture r in Educ atio nal
Manage me nt and Planning, Unive rsity o f Malta
Examines a process of how
schools and their members
can develop the capacity to
refl ect on the nature and
purpose of their work
together. The focus is on
school-site management
practices as the way forward
to improve the quality of
education being provided.
Argues that for schools to
function better, a professional
culture which offers choice,
authority and responsibility
through more decision-making powers and a participative
structure at school level
needs to be nurtured. Proposes that a combination of
top-down and bottom-up
strategies to improvement
needs to be encouraged as
against purely a top-down or
bottom-up approach. Also
proposes a framework for
professional development at
school-site level.
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [ 1997] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
© MCB Unive rsity Pre ss
[ ISSN 0951-354X]
[ 194 ]
Introduction
Geor ge Ma r sh a ll, a 42-yea r -old secon da r y
sch ool tea ch er r eca lls th e day th a t h is h ea dtea ch er, wh om h e h a d a lw ays a ddr essed a s
Mr s Ben n ett, in vited h im to ca ll h er by h er
fir st n a m e. Th a t even t ca m e a fter Geor ge, wh o
h a d a lr ea dy been tea ch in g a t th e sch ool for
a r ou n d six yea r s, h a d ga in ed con fiden ce
th r ou gh pa r ticipa tion in a n IN SE T
pr ogr a m m e a n d h a d fin a lly sta r ted a sser tin g
h im self pr ofession a lly. “I th in k sh e saw m e in
a n ew w ay”, Geor ge sa id of h is h ea dtea ch er.
Tea ch er s, wh eth er in Ma lta , or a n y oth er
cou n tr y n eed to be seen in a n ew w ay. Th a t
ch a n ge in per ception ca n be th e be gin n in g of
em power m en t, a n d th e em power m en t of
tea ch er s is essen tia l if th e sch ools a r e to
im pr ove (Be zzin a , 1996; Con sta ble, 1995). As
lon g a s tea ch er s a r e n ot a dequ a tely va lu ed by
th em selves a n d by oth er s th ey a r e n ot a pt to
per for m w ith th e n ecessa r y a ssu r a n ce a n d
a u th or ity to do th e job a s well a s th ey ca n
(Adelm a n a n d Wa lk in g-E a gle, 1997; Goodla d,
1994; Reyn olds a n d Cu tta n ce, 1992).
If tea ch er s ca n be lifted in th r ee k ey a r ea s –
ea ch com plem en tin g th e oth er – th ey w ill be
a ble to flex m u scles th a t h ave been a llowed to
a tr oph y. Th ese th r ee a r ea s in volve sta tu s,
th eir k n ow ledge, a n d th eir a ccess to decision
m a k in g.
Th is pa per a ttem pts to pr esen t som e idea s
for discu ssion a n d pr oposes pa r ticu la r r ou tes
wh ich ca n h elp em power tea ch er s a n d
sch ools in pa r ticu la r a s th ey str ive tow a r ds
qu a lity im pr ovem en t.
Th r ou gh ou t th e wor ld, edu ca tion a l system s
h ave been a ccu sed of bein g extr em ely con ser va tive socia l in stitu tion s th a t r espon d ver y
slow ly, if a t a ll, to edu ca tion a l r efor m s, socia l
ch a n ges a n d a dva n ces in tech n ology. Th e
r ea son s for th is a r e a m u ltitu de of com plex
in ter r ela ted fa ctor s. Politica l, r eligiou s,
socia l, cu ltu r a l, a n d oth er in depen den t for ces
a ffect th e econ om ic gr ow th a n d socia l developm en t of a ll n a tion s a n d h en ce th e qu a lity of
edu ca tion pr ovided (Kin g, 1983; Ra ssek h a n d
Va idea n u , 1987).
Du e to th e in a bility to r espon d dir ectly to
ch a n ge, th e in flu en ce of sch ools is bein g
a tta ck ed fr om va r iou s qu a r ter s. In th e h ea r t
of th is deba te sta n ds th e tea ch in g pr ofession .
Tea ch er s a r e poin ted to a s both th e pr im a r y
ca u se of th e cu r r en t cr isis a n d a t th e sa m e
tim e th e best h ope for its even tu a l r esolu tion
(e.g. Ca r n e gie Ta sk For ce, 1986; Goodla d,
1984). As edu ca tor s we believe th a t we ca n
play a n im por ta n t, m aybe even deter m in in g
r ole in society. We tr u ly believe th a t sch ools
ca n m a k e a differ en ce. Yet, ou r per son a l exper ien ce w ith in sch ools a n d sch oolin g system s
sh ow s th a t we a r e m ost of th e tim e ch a sin g
wh a t ca n ea sily be ter m ed a n elu sive a im ,
th a t of pr om otin g th e fu ll developm en t of th e
in dividu a l a n d esta blish in g a n edu ca tive
society. On e won der s h ow fa r sch ools ca n
tr u ly a ct a s ch a n ge a gen ts, wh er e th ey ch a n ge
a n d in n ova te in or der to m eet th e dem a n ds of
socia l ch a n ge. On e m a in r ea son wh y sch ools
a r e power less in th is r espect is beca u se, m or e
often th a n n ot, th ey h ave to r eflect th e wh im s
of politica l ideologies. In fa ct, in or der to
u n der sta n d wh y sch ools a n d tea ch in g pr a ctices a r e con stitu ted a s th ey a r e, a n d h ow
a lter n a tives m ay be im plem en ted, we n eed to
be aw a r e of th e often con tr a dictor y socia l a n d
politica l for ces w ith in wh ich sch ools a n d
th eir tea ch er s a r e ca u gh t (Br a dley et a l., 1994;
La m ber t, 1988).
Th is pa per is ba sed on th e pr em iss th a t
sch ools, u n der cer ta in con dition s, ca n
becom e m u ch m or e vita l th a n th ey cu r r en tly
a r e. For sch ools to r espon d m or e effectively to
a n ever -ch a n gin g socia l r ea lity, it is cr u cia l
th a t th eir pr esen t or ien ta tion a n d focu s a r e
r eth ou gh t a n d even tu a lly r estr u ctu r ed.
In Ma lta we a r e cu r r en tly fa ced w ith a
r igidly h ier a r ch ica l, cen tr a lized system in
wh ich tea ch er s h ave gr ow n wea r y th r ou gh
disillu sion m en t a n d str ess (Bor g a n d F a lzon ,
1989; F a r r u gia , 1985, 1986, 1994). Ma ltese
sch ools h ave been m a in ly or ga n ized in th is
h ier a r ch y a n d m a n a ged fr om a top-dow n
a ppr oa ch . Con sequ en tly, h ea ds a n d tea ch er s
h ave been m a in ly r espon sible for im plem en tin g policies a n d decision s ta k en by edu ca tion a l a u th or ities a t cen tr a l level (Be zzin a ,
1995; Fen ech , 1992). Wh en tea ch er s a n d oth er
sta k eh older s h ave pa r ticipa ted in th e
decision -m a k in g of th e sch ool th eir in volvem en t h a s u su a lly been m er e tok en ism , a n d,
a s I h ave a r gu ed in th e pa st (Be zzin a , 1991),
a n d r ecen tly (Be zzin a a n d West, 1997),
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
tea ch er s h ave n ot been given th e oppor tu n ity
to develop in to lea r n in g or ga n iza tion s.
In r ecen t deca des th er e h a s been a gr ow in g
tr en d tow a r ds decen tr a liza tion a n d h en ce
sch ool-site m a n a gem en t (David, 1995-1996;
Her m a n a n d Her m a n , 1993; Moh r m a n et a l.,
1994). On e of th e m a jor im plica tion s beh in d
decen tr a liza tion a n d devolu tion of a u th or ity
to sch ools is tea ch er em power m en t (Steyn
a n d Squ elch , 1996; Weiss, 1993). As Ga bor a n d
Meu n ier (1993) a n d Sch m ok er (1997) a m on g
oth er s h ave poin ted ou t, tea ch er em power m en t is th e w ay for w a r d a n d th e on ly w ay th e
or ga n iza tion ca n tr u ly lea r n a n d im pr ove.
Th e m ost im por ta n t poin t th is pa per w ill
tr y to m a k e is th a t developm en t pla n s for th e
im pr ovem en t of edu ca tion ca n a r ise w ith in
ea ch in dividu a l sch ool – by th ose wh o wor k
a n d live in th em ea ch day. Su ch sch ool
r estr u ctu r in g w ill a lso n eed th e su ppor t of
effective a n d efficien t su ppor t ser vices.
Th er efor e, a pr odu ctive ten sion between
in n er -dir ected a n d ou ter -dir ected effor ts to
im pr ove is n eeded.
Th e pa per w ill be dir ected a t pr esen tin g a
pr ocess of h ow sch ools, a n d h en ce th e m em ber s of th e in stitu tion s, ca n develop th e
ca pa city to r efl ect on th e n a tu r e a n d pu r pose
of th eir wor k togeth er. Sch ools, wh ich a r e a
per son ifica tion of th e people wh o com pr ise
th em , m u st becom e m or e r espon sive to th eir
ow n pa r ticu la r pr oblem s a n d n eeds.
Resea r ch eviden ce (Ha r gr eaves a n d
Hopk in s, 1991; Hopk in s a n d Sebba , 1995) h a s
sh ow n th a t th e qu a lity of edu ca tion in sch ools
is h igh ly depen den t on :
• th e pr ofession a l com peten ce of th e edu ca tor s w ith in th e sch ool;
• a n efficien t su ppor tive in fr a str u ctu r e; a n d
• a m or e decen tr a lized gover n a n ce str u ctu r e.
If we believe th a t edu ca tor s a r e to h ave a n y
effect on ch a n ge, a n d th a t edu ca tion a l ch a n ge
depen ds la r gely on th e qu a lity of th e tea ch in g
for ce, th en we n eed to a n a lyse cr itica lly pr esen t edu ca tion system s, th e goa ls th ey a r e
tr yin g to a ch ieve a n d h ow th ey a r e goin g
a bou t th em (Ch a pm a n , 1993; F u lla n , 1995;
Ha r gr eaves et a l., 1996).
It is r ecogn ized th a t th e tr a n sfor m a tion of
edu ca tion r equ ir es a tr a n sfor m a tion of edu ca tion sta ff of a ll k in ds a n d a t a ll levels. Th e
qu a lity of su ch sta ff depen ds n ot m er ely on
th eir k n ow ledge a n d sk ill, bu t a lso on th e
de gr ee of th eir m otiva tion to u tilize th is
k n ow ledge a n d sk ill a n d on th e exten t of th e
oppor tu n ity ava ila ble to th em to do so. Con sequ en tly, qu a lita tive im pr ovem en t dem a n ds
con sider a tion of a w ide r a n ge of edu ca tion
sta ff, th e pr ovision of a dequ a te in cen tives,
a n d th e cr ea tion of gen u in e oppor tu n ity
th r ou gh th e pr ovision of su ppor t ser vices,
a dequ a te r esou r ces a n d oppor tu n ities to
pa r ticipa te in th e decision m a k in g a ffectin g
th eir wor k (e.g. F a r r u gia , 1985, 1986, 1994).
Th e m a in th r u st bein g m a de h er e is th a t
im plem en ta tion str a te gies ou gh t, a s m u ch a s
possible, to con sider th e m a in im plem en tor s,
th a t is, th ose wor k in g in sch ools a n d in cla ssr oom s, wh en con sider in g r efor m s. N a tu r a lly,
n o on e str a te gy for im pr ovem en t is defin ite.
Su ccess a n d/ or fa ilu r e depen d on a va r iety of
fa ctor s. Th e ch a r a cter istics wh ich n eed to be
h igh ligh ted a r e, fi r st, th e a ppr oa ch a dopted –
wh eth er top-dow n or bottom -u p – depen ds a
lot on th e pr eva ilin g a ttitu des of th e a u th or ities con cer n ed (be th ey, for exa m ple, depa r tm en ta l officia ls or a sch ool h ea d), a n d secon d,
th a t m ixes of top-dow n a n d bottom -u p str a tegies, wh ich a r e n ot n ecessa r ily tied eith er to
cen tr a l or sch ool-ba sed a pplica tion , ca n a lso
occu r (see F igu r e 1).
Th e top-dow n str a te gy of im plem en ta tion
m ea n s th a t dir ection s dr a fted a t cen tr a l level
w ill be execu ted in ea ch sch ool a cr oss th e
distr ict. (N ote: th e wor d distr ict is h er e u sed
th r ou gh ou t to r epr esen t th e “sm a llest u n it”
in to wh ich a cou n tr y is divided. Cou n tr ies
m igh t u se differ en t ter m s su ch a s r e gion s or
w a r ds to m ea n th e sa m e th in g). Sim ila r ly, a
bottom -u p a ppr oa ch m ea n s th a t sch ool-gen er a ted decision s, u n iqu e to ea ch settin g, w ill
va r y fr om sch ool to sch ool in th e distr ict.
Mixes of both str a te gies a r e, h owever, a lso
possible. For exa m ple, a dir ector a t n a tion a l
level ca n dir ect h ea dtea ch er s in ea ch sch ool
to set goa ls, pla n a n d esta blish pr ogr a m m es,
a n d to a ssess ou tcom es. By dir ectin g fr om th e
top a pr ocess to occu r a t ea ch sch ool w ith ou t
pr escr ibin g th e con ten t of th e decision s, a
va r ia tion on th e bottom -u p a ppr oa ch
em er ges.
Th e focu s of th is pa per w ill be dir ected
tow a r ds sch ool-site m a n a gem en t (SSM). Th e
pu r pose of r efor m policies n eed to be dir ected
tow a r ds cr ea tin g th e k in ds of in stitu tion a l
a r r a n gem en ts a n d or ga n iza tion a l str u ctu r es
th a t pr om ote edu ca tion a l excellen ce. E ven tu a l su ccess or fa ilu r e of sch ool r efor m
depen d on th e de gr ee to wh ich th a t pu r pose
ca n be a ccom plish ed. Th e pa per su ggests th e
Figure 1
Imple me ntatio n strate gie s to sc ho o l ac tio n
(adapte d fro m Cuban, 1 9 8 4 , p. 1 3 9 )
Ce ntral autho ritie s
To p-do wn
Distric t wide
Sc ho o l-base d
Sc ho o l
bo tto m-up
[ 195 ]
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
n eed to r efr a m e th e fu n da m en ta l qu estion s
a bou t sch ool r efor m . Ma n y r efor m s in ten ded
to a lter th e fu n da m en ta l str u ctu r es of sch ools
h ave m et w ith little su ccess beca u se th ey fa il
to a sk th e r igh t qu estion s (F u lla n a n d
Ha r gr eaves, 1996; Ru ddock , 1991; Sa r a son ,
1990). Most sta te r efor m s often a im for qu a lity
con tr ol, seek in g to m a k e existin g system s
m or e pr odu ctive bu t a t th e sa m e tim e n ot
distu r bin g cla ssr oom r oles or th e gover n a n ce
str u ctu r es of sch ools. Th e pa per look s in to
w ays a n d m ea n s of str en gth en in g sch ools a s
or ga n iza tion s – by ch a n gin g th eir in stitu tion a l n a tu r e (e.g. Bim ber, 1994; Br en n a n ,
1989) m a in ly th r ou gh sch ool-site m a n a gem en t pr a ctices (e.g. Ca ldwell a n d Spin k s,
1989; Da r lin g-Ha m m on d a n d McLa u gh lin ,
1995; David, 1994; Du iga n , 1988; Her m a n a n d
Her m a n , 1993).
The essence of educational reform
Con cer n for th e im pr ovem en t of edu ca tion is
w idely eviden t today in pr a ctica lly a ll cou n tr ies. On e m a jor developm en t th a t ca n be
obser ved w ith in th e pr esen t tr en d is th a t
m or e em ph a sis is bein g dir ected a t sch ool
level, a t th e w ay th e sch ool fu n ction s. N a tion s
h ave w a sted billion s of pou n ds on m a n y
poor ly con ceived bu t m aybe politica lly popu la r r efor m s wh ich in th e en d fa iled to pr odu ce
a n im pa ct a t th e m ost cr itica l level, th e
sch ool, a n d m or e so, th e cla ssr oom . Too fr equ en tly, r efor m s h ave been con tr a dictor y in
n a tu r e, poor ly im plem en ted a n d h a d to be
even tu a lly a ba n don ed or else left to die a
n a tu r a l dea th (e.g. Hopk in s, 1987). An y effor t
to im pr ove th e effectiven ess of sch ools ca n n ot
be in telligen tly dir ected w ith ou t u n der sta n din g th e dyn a m ics of sch ools. In fa ct J a m es
Con a n t’s a dvice over 30 yea r s a go th a t sch ools
sh ou ld be im pr oved “sch ool by sch ool”
(Con a n t, 1989, p. 96) is bein g r e-ech oed n ow by
m a n y edu ca tion a lists (e.g. Fer gu son , 1984;
Goodla d, 1983; Miles et a l., 1987). Un der sta n din g th e dyn a m ics of sch ool en ta ils lea r n in g
a bou t th e a ction s a n d in fl u en ces of tea ch er s,
pu pils, pa r en ts, com m u n ity m em ber s a n d
com m u n ity or ga n iza tion s, a n d th e w ays in
wh ich th ese in fl u en ces oper a te (Lin dle,
1995/ 1996; Glick m a n , 1993).
Su ch a per spective str esses th e view th a t
sch ools n eed to occu py a cen tr a l position in
edu ca tion a l discou r se dir ected tow a r ds
sch ool im pr ovem en t, a n d, tea ch er em power m en t is seen a s a power fu l m ea n s a n d a cr u cia l in gr edien t if sch ools a r e to im pr ove
(F ieldin g, 1995; Sick ler, 1988; West et a l., 1995).
Let u s explor e th e ter m s “sch ool im pr ovem en t” a n d “tea ch er em power m en t” in som e
m or e deta il.
[ 196 ]
School improvement: what does it
entail?
Th e wor k in g defin ition pr oposed h er e is th a t
developed by th e In ter n a tion a l Sch ool
Im pr ovem en t P r oject (ISIP ) (Hopk in s, 1990).
ISIP defin es sch ool im pr ovem en t a s:
… a system a tic, su sta in ed effor t a im ed a t
ch a n ge in lea r n in g con dition s a n d oth er
r ela ted in ter n a l con dition s in on e or m or e
sch ools, w ith th e u ltim a te a im of a ccom plish in g edu ca tion a l goa ls m or e effectively
(Va n Velzen et a l., 1985, p. 48).
P r a ctica l a n d r esea r ch exper ien ce over th e
pa st deca de h a s su ppor ted th r ee m a in con clu sion s. F ir st, a ch ievin g ch a n ge is m u ch m or e a
m a tter of im plem en ta tion of n ew pr a ctices a t
sch ool level th a n it is of sim ply decidin g to
a dopt th em . Secon d, sch ool im pr ovem en t is a
ca r efu lly pla n n ed a n d m a n a ged pr ocess th a t
ta k es pla ce over a per iod of yea r s. It is n ot
som eth in g h a ph a za r d, or th a t ca n ta k e pla ce
over n igh t. On th e con tr a r y it r equ ir es a system a tic a n d su sta in ed effor t over tim e.
Ch a n ge is a pr ocess n ot a n even t. Th ir d,
sch ool im pr ovem en t is a m u ltilevel pr ocess.
Th a t is, it goes beyon d cla ssr oom ch a n ge,
a doptin g a “cla ssr oom exceedin g” per spective. Ch a n ge pr esu pposes a tten tion to oth er
r ela ted con dition s both w ith in a n d ou tside
th e sch ool, su ch a s th e sch ool or ga n iza tion a l
str u ctu r e, com m u n ica tion between tea ch er s,
th e sch ool eth os a n d clim a te, a n d th e type of
su ppor t ser vices th e sch ool r eceives fr om
edu ca tion a u th or ities (Hopk in s, 1990; Va n
Velzen et a l., 1985).
Su ch a defin ition ch a llen ges th e existin g
m odel wh ich sees sch ools (a n d tea ch er s) a s
pa ssive r ecipien ts to th e ch a n ge pr ocess. Th e
pr oposa l h er e is on e wh ich sees sch ools a s
both th e objects of a n d th e a r en a s for edu ca tion a l im pr ovem en t a n d ch a n ge. Sch ools a n d
th eir sta ff n eed to becom e a ctive pa r ticipa n ts
in th e pr ocess of sch ool im pr ovem en t. Th is
im plies th a t edu ca tor s a t sch ool level n eed to
be w illin g to ta k e ch a r ge. Th is lea ds u s to
explor e th e a r ea of tea ch er em power m en t.
What is empowerment?
Tea ch er em power m en t is defin ed a s th e
tr a n sfer of a u th or ity of k ey sch ool issu es to
th ose wh o a r e cen tr a lly in volved in sch ool
life. In oth er wor ds, em power m en t dea ls w ith
th e givin g of decision -m a k in g a u th or ity to
people wh o in th e pa st h a d look ed to a n
a u th or ity to m a k e decision s. Su ch a n
a ppr oa ch en cou r a ges h ea ds a n d tea ch er s to
becom e th e m a in a ctor s in decision s wh ich
a ffect sch ool life a n d sch ool developm en t in
pa r ticu la r (Her m a n a n d Her m a n , 1993;
Ma er off, 1988).
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
Accor din g to a n u m ber of a u th or s, em pow er m en t cover s th r ee m a in a r ea s: sta tu s,
k n ow ledge a n d a ccess to decision m a k in g.
Ma er off believes th a t “boostin g th e sta tu s of
tea ch er s is fu n da m en ta l” (Ma er off, 1988,
p. 474) a s th is w ill h elp th em to look on th em selves a n d th eir collea gu es w ith th e a ppr opr ia te dign ity a n d r espect. Tea ch er s ca n on ly
ga in th is th r ou gh th eir ow n in dividu a l a n d
con cer ted effor t to r ea lly ta k e ow n ersh ip of
th eir pr ofession wh ich for so lon g h a s been in
th e h a n ds of oth er s. To a ch ieve su ch sta tu s,
tea ch er s n eed to feel th a t th ey a r e im por ta n t,
a n d th a t th eir exper ien ces a n d exper tise a r e
va lu ed a n d tr u sted. On th e oth er h a n d,
k n ow ledge is in itself power a n d a n in cr ea se
in on e’s k n ow ledge ba se is a n obviou s step to
em power m en t. Tea ch er s ca n m a k e gr ea ter
dem a n ds on sch ool-site m a n a gem en t pr a ctices if th ey sh ow th e a u th or ities a n d th e
com m u n ity a t la r ge th a t th ey (i.e. tea ch er s)
k n ow wh a t th ey a r e ta lk in g a bou t. Access to
decision m a k in g im plies th a t tea ch er s’ idea s
a n d con tr ibu tion s a r e im por ta n t a n d fu n da m en ta l if th e sch ool is to m ove for w a r d.
Hen ce, h ea dtea ch er s n eed to cr ea te oppor tu n ities for tea ch er s to exer cise decision
m a k in g wh ich goes beyon d wh a t ta k es pla ce
in th e cla ssr oom .
Tea ch er s exper ien ce em power m en t wh en
th ey h ave oppor tu n ities to im pr ove th eir
in str u ction a l tech n iqu es; wh en th ey deepen
th eir k n ow ledge a n d u n der sta n din g of th e
a r ea s th ey tea ch ; wh en th ey a dopt a h olistic
per spective to sch ool life; wh en tea ch er s sta r t
in volvin g th em selves in differ en t sch ool m a tter s beyon d th eir su bject m a tter. Su ch
in volvem en t m ea n s h avin g a gr ea ter say in
decision s wh ich a ffect th eir r oles a t sch ool
both dir ectly a n d in dir ectly.
Un for tu n a tely th is is n ot ver y m u ch eviden ced in ou r sch ools. Tea ch in g is still ver y
m u ch pr a ctised in isola tion , a n d colle gia lity
is n on -existen t for m a n y tea ch er s. As a r esu lt,
th e tea ch er ’s ow n k n ow ledge a n d a ttitu de
tow a r ds pr ofession a l developm en t h a s been
a llowed to a tr oph y. Mor eover, som e r esea r ch
on tea ch er em power m en t r evea l th a t som e
tea ch er s do n ot u n der sta n d em power m en t,
oth er s do n ot w a n t to a ccept th e r espon sibility th a t a ccom pa n ies em power m en t, a n d
oth er s w a n t to avoid th e lea der sh ip a n d
power it offer s (Her m a n a n d Her m a n , 1993;
Midgley a n d Wood, 1993).
However, if we a r e optim istic th a t tea ch er s
possess lea der sh ip qu a lities, or a r e w illin g to
lea r n a n d com m it th em selves tow a r ds th e
im pr ovem en t of th e sch ool, a n d, lik e Ma er off
(1988, p. 476), feel con fiden t th a t “tea ch er s a r e
h u n gr y for stim u la tin g edu ca tion a l exper ien ces” th en we w ill do ou r u tm ost to cr ea te
oppor tu n ities wh er e tea ch er em power m en t
ca n ta k e pla ce. If we a ccept th e pr em iss th a t
th e u ltim a te power to ch a n ge is in th e “h ea ds,
h a n ds a n d h ea r t” of th e edu ca tor s wh o wor k
in sch ools (Sir otn ik a n d Cla r k , 1988, p. 660),
a n d th a t th e sch ool sta ff is th e k ey to im pr ovem en t (Clift et a l., 1989; Goodla d, 1984;
Ha r gr eaves, 1997; Hopk in s, 1987) th en fu tu r e
sch ool r efor m policies a n d pr a ctices w ill
r efl ect su ch a n or ien ta tion .
Th is, in m y opin ion , is on e of th e m a jor
ch a llen ges fa cin g edu ca tor s wor ldw ide: th a t
of sh iftin g fr om a bu r ea u cr a tic, top-dow n
m odel to on e wh ich em ph a sizes sch ool-site
m a n a gem en t, th a t is, on e in wh ich edu ca tor s
a t sch ool level a r e en cou r a ged to ta k e decision m a k in g m or e ser iou sly a n d en dor se th e
r espon sibilities th a t su ch devolu tion en ta ils
(Holly a n d Sou th wor th , 1989; West-Bu r n h a m ,
1992; West, 1995). If tea ch er em power m en t is
u tilized pr oper ly, m em ber s of sta ff w ill slow ly
be gin to feel th a t th ey a r e r espected a n d va lu ed a s in dividu a ls wh o ca n con tr ibu te in
m ea n in gfu l w ays to sch ool im pr ovem en t. It is
a slow pr ocess wh ich ca n be gr u ellin g a t
tim es, w ith its u ps a n d dow n s, h owever it is
th e r oa d wor th ta k in g.
Improving schools from within
Th e con cept of sch ool-site m a n a gem en t
(SSM) th er efor e im plies a n d in volves sign ifica n t a n d con sisten t decen tr a liza tion to th e
sch ool level, of a u th or ity to m a k e decision s
r ela ted to th e a lloca tion of r esou r ces. Hen ce
th e self-m a n a gin g sch ool con ceptu a lized by
Ca ldwell a n d Spin k s a n d oth er s is on e in
wh ich th e in dividu a l sch ool is given th e
power, r espon sibility a n d r esou r ces to set
goa ls a n d deter m in e n eeds a n d pr ior ities; to
cr ea te sch ool policies con sisten t w ith system
gu idelin es a n d pa r a m eter s; to pla n a n d im plem en t pr ogr a m m es a n d to a lloca te r esou r ces
a ccor din gly; a n d to eva lu a te th e effectiven ess
of r esou r ce a lloca tion decision s (Ca ldwell a n d
Spin k s, 1989; Wa lla ce et a l., 1996).
Th is section pr esen ts th e m a in poten tia l
ch a r a cter istics of SSM, develops a r a tion a le
ba sed on sch ool effectiven ess, pr esen ts a
fr a m ewor k for pr ofession a l developm en t a n d
th e m a in ch a r a cter istics beh in d a sch ool
developm en t pr ocess. For sever a l yea r s n ow I
h ave been r eview in g th e liter a tu r e on SSM,
discu ssin g, a n a lysin g, tr yin g ou t possibilities
w ith collea gu es in differ en t con texts a n d in
differ en t cou n tr ies, a n d u n der ta k in g m y ow n
em pir ica l r esea r ch . F r om th is I h ave dr aw n a
n u m ber of con clu sion s a s to wh a t SSM
en ta ils:
• SSM is a bou t ow n er sh ip.
• SSM is a bou t em power m en t of k ey sta k eh older s in edu ca tion a l decision m a k in g.
[ 197 ]
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
• SSM offer s poten tia l for en h a n ced or ga n iza tion a l effectiven ess a n d im pr oved stu den t
ou tcom es.
• SSM is ba sed on on e m a jor belief: th e sch ool
a s a cen tr e of cr itica l in qu ir y n ot a s a ta r get
of ch a n ge.
• SSM in volves sta ff developm en t, n etwor k in g a n d pr oblem -cen tr ed a ctivities.
• SSM en ta ils a colla bor a tive a ppr oa ch to
developm en t.
• SSM is n ot a bou t m on ey.
• SSM focu ses dir ectly on th e lea r n er (i.e.
pu pil or edu ca tor ) a n d h is/ h er n eeds.
A framework for professional development
For SSM to su cceed a n d be effective, sch ools,
a n d m or e so cen tr a l a u th or ities, n eed to
develop a fr a m ewor k for su ch pr ofession a l
developm en t to ta k e pla ce. Th e con ceptu a l
fr a m ewor k illu str ated in F igu r e 2 pr ovides a
str u ctu r a l sta r tin g poin t for pla n n in g a n d
or ga n izin g th e design of th e va r iou s a ctivities
th a t con stitu te th e “self-in n ova tive” sch ool. Its
pu r pose is to a ssist sch ool a dm in istr a tor s to
r ecogn ize th e elem en ts con tr ibu tin g to a n
in tegr a ted pr ogr a m m e th a t a ck n ow ledges th e
im por ta n ce of a va r iety of con cepts a n d fea tu r es wh ich , wh en br ou gh t togeth er, con tr ibu te to a descr iption of sta ff developm en t
Figure 2
A pro fe ssio nal de ve lo pme nt pro gramme frame wo rk
Strate gic planning and de ve lo pme nt
Instruc tio nal le ade rship
Sc ho o l
de ve lo pme nt
Curric ulum
de ve lo pme nt
Performanc e
appraisal
pro c e ss
Manage me nt
de ve lo pme nt
Pe rso nal
de ve lo pme nt
th a t is h olistic, ba la n ced a n d devised to ben efit
th e sch ool a n d in dividu a l pr a ctition er s in it.
Strategic planning and development
Wh eth er you a r e a h ea d or lea der of a sm a ller
sch ool tea m , you h ave a pa r t to play in th e
pla n n ed oper a tion a n d a ch ievem en ts of th e
sch ool. Hen ce th is fr a m ewor k for
pr ofession a l developm en t sta r ts w ith a focu s
on str a te gic pla n n in g a n d developm en t,
issu es wh ich m a n a ger s a t a ll levels in a
sch ool sh ou ld be n ot on ly fa m ilia r w ith bu t
a ctively in volved in – in a colla bor a tive sen se
(Davies a n d E llison , 1996; Robbin s a n d Alvy,
1995; Ru ss, 1995; Wa lla ce et a l., 1996).
Instructional leadership
In str u ction a l lea der sh ip is a con cept th a t
goes by m a n y n a m es. In th e liter a tu r e on th is
topic it is va r iou sly r efer r ed to a s cu r r icu lu m
lea der sh ip, edu ca tive, pr ofession a l or even
a ca dem ic lea der sh ip. It is lea der sh ip th a t
or ien ts itself on in str u ction fi r st a n d for em ost. It is lea der sh ip th a t con cer n s itself w ith
wh a t goes on in cla ssr oom s a n d m a k es edu ca tion a l m a tter s th e pr ior ity. Its position in g in
th is fr a m ewor k is deliber a te a n d sign ifies its
sta tu s a s th e u n der lyin g solid ba se su ppor tin g th e m ix of elem en ts th a t con stitu te a ba la n ced sta ff developm en t pr ogr a m m e.
Th e cor e ta sk s of in str u ction a l lea der sh ip
a r e r ela ted to pla n n in g for in str u ction (pr ogr a m m e developm en t, sta ff deploym en t a n d
r esou r ce pr ovision ); m a n a gin g th e oper a tion
of in str u ction (or ga n iza tion , sta ff or ien ta tion , pr ogr a m m e su per vision , a ssessm en t
a n d tea ch in g su per vision ); a n d developm en t
(a ppr a isin g sta ff, a r r a n gin g sta ff developm en t a n d eva lu a tin g pr ogr a m m es). In spite of
com petin g dem a n ds on th e pr ior ities of
sch ool lea der s today, th is r ole is a ck n ow ledged by m ost h ea ds a s cr u cia l to su ccessfu l
sch ool m a n a gem en t a n d, in r ea lity, th e su ccess of in str u ction a l lea der sh ip en deavou r s
w ill depen d on th e exten t to wh ich a dm in istr a tor s a n d tea ch er s a r e em power ed to con tr ibu te to th e ta sk (Be zzin a , 1995; Poplin , 1992;
West-Bu r n h a m , 1992).
Performance appraisal process
At th e h ea r t of a n y sch ool developm en t pr ogr a m m e is th e m ea n s by wh ich we get to k n ow
wh a t n eeds to be im pr oved a n d wh y, befor e we
set a bou t th e ta sk of decidin g h ow we w ill do
th is. In sh or t, a ppr a isa l is a bou t two th in gs:
a ccou n ta bility a n d eva lu a tion . I pa r ticu la r ly
lik e th e w ay Kelly sta tes th e fa cts:
Accou n ta bility, a s w a s well a ppr ecia ted by
th e a n cien t Gr eek s, is a n essen tia l elem en t of
dem ocr a cy – a n elem en t wh ich is too little
eviden t in pr esen t-day ver sion s of dem ocr a cy. An d som e for m of eva lu a tion or
[ 198 ]
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
a ppr a isa l of per for m a n ce is clea r ly its ba se...
With ou t som e k in d of eva lu a tion it is difficu lt to see wh a t ba sis m igh t exist for a n y r ea l
developm en t eith er of th e cu r r icu lu m or of
th e tea ch er s th em selves. For a pr er equ isite
of im pr ovem en t m u st be som e eva lu a tion of
pr eviou s per for m a n ce. (Kelly, 1987, p. 215)
Wh ile we ca n be con fiden t th a t tea ch er s h ave
a lw ays en ga ged in con sta n t, in for m a l
a ppr a isa l of th eir wor k , or in th e pa st h ave
h a d th is fu n ction per for m ed by a n ou tside
a gen cy, we m u st n ot be com pla cen t a bou t th e
n eed to for m a lize a n d im plem en t visible
a ppr a isa l pr ocesses wh ich a r e in th e n a tu r e
of pr ofession a l developm en t r a th er th a n per iodic deten tion ! An idea l pr ocess wou ld be
effective in a ch ievin g fou r th in gs:
1 iden tifyin g developm en t n eeds;
2 pr ovidin g h on est a n d objective feedba ck ;
3 m a k in g dia logu e a bou t im pr ovem en t possible; a n d
4 br in gin g a bou t a gr eed a n d desir ed ch a n ge.
At th is poin t I m u st sta te m y position in th e
on goin g deba te on th e con ten tiou s topic of
a ppr a isa l. I believe it is n ot on ly essen tia l for
pr ofession people to gr a sp th e n ettle bu t a lso
vita l th a t th ey h a n dle it well. In or der to ju dge
th e wor k of th ose we a r e r espon sible for, we
m u st be a ble to obta in a n d give qu a lity feedba ck a bou t per for m a n ce. It is th er efor e cr itica l th a t we h ave m a n a gem en t a n d in ter per son a l sk ills th a t m a k e ta lk in g a n d listen in g
possible in th is con text.
Elements of a staff development
programme
A sta ff developm en t pr ogr a m m e fou n ded on a
cor e elem en t of a ppr a isa l is su ppor ted by
sou n d gu idin g pr in ciples r ela ted to sch ool
pla n s a n d qu a lity in str u ction a l lea der sh ip.
On ce a sch ool’s str a te gic pla n is esta blish ed
a n d lea der s a t a ll levels a gr ee th a t in str u ction
is th e pr ior ity to focu s on , a n d th e or ga n iza tion is a ble to iden tify a n d com m u n ica te
str en gth s a n d wea k n esses, th en lea der s a r e in
a position to pla n for sta ff developm en t in a
w ay th a t a ck n ow ledges per son a l ta r gets,
tea m ta r gets a n d wh ole-sch ool pla n s for in stitu tion a l ch a n ge. A sta ff developm en t pr ogr a m m e ca lls for fou r gen er a l in gr edien ts to
obta in th e r igh t m ix. Th ese a r e:
1 cu r r icu lu m developm en t;
2 per son a l developm en t;
3 m a n a gem en t developm en t;
4 sch ool developm en t.
All of th ese m u st be pr esen t to som e de gr ee in
or der to cr ea te a sou n d pr ogr a m m e.
Curric ulum de ve lo pme nt
In th e fir st qu a dr a n t is cu r r icu lu m developm en t. Th is ter m ca n a pply eith er to a set of
lesson s or to a n a tion a l cu r r icu lu m pr oject
a n d ever yth in g in between ! Sever a l cla ssica l
th eor ists in th is field h ave devised pr ocesses
for cu r r icu lu m developm en t wh ich , a lth ou gh
th ey da te ba ck to th e m iddle of th is cen tu r y,
a r e still in u se today. On e su ch m odel, w ith
wh ich you a r e pr oba bly fa m ilia r, is Tyler ’s
m odel th a t r equ ir es con sider a tion of fou r
a spects of a cu r r icu lu m : objectives, con ten t,
or ga n iza tion a n d eva lu a tion . For a m or e
com plex m odel on e ca n tu r n to th e wor k of
Reid et a l. (1987) wh o r ecom m en ded a loopin g
a ppr oa ch , on th e a ssu m ption th a t steps m ay
be r evisited a lon g th e w ay.
Th ey pr opose a seven -step cu r r icu lu m
developm en t m odel:
1 iden tification of a pu r pose for developm en t;
2 for m u la tion of th e design a n d objectives;
3 tea ch in g str a te gy decision s a n d tr a in in g;
4 pr odu ction of m a ter ia ls a n d r esou r ces;
5 cla ssr oom r esea r ch a n d tr ia llin g;
6 im plem en tin g th e n ew cu r r icu lu m ;
7 eva lu a tin g th e n ew cu r r icu lu m .
An y a ttem pt to develop a cu r r icu lu m sh ou ld
of cou r se en com pa ss a ll th ese a ctivities,
wh eth er or ga n ized on a n a tion a l, r e gion a l or
loca l sca le. Th e types of qu estion s we m u st
a sk ou r selves a t sch ool level a r e:
• How m u ch developm en t ca n a sch ool
su sta in ?
• Wh a t w ill th is m ea n for th e tr a in in g a n d
developm en t of th ose wh o w ill be in volved?
• How is th e cu r r icu lu m pr ogr a m m e to be
m on itor ed a n d r eviewed?
• How often ca n or sh ou ld we ch a n ge th e
cu r r icu la ?
• Wh o is to be in volved in su ch wor k ?
• How w ill th is a ffect pr a ctice?
I a m su r e th a t th e r ea der ca n a dd h is/ h er ow n
qu estion s to th is list.
Pe rso nal de ve lo pme nt
In th e secon d qu a dr a n t is per son a l developm en t. In to th e a r ea of per son a l developm en t
fa lls a wh ole r a n ge of socia l, politica l a n d
cu ltu r a l sk ills th a t a ffect ou r r ela tion sh ips
w ith oth er s. Socia l a bility to com m u n ica te
effectively or to be a sser tive in or der to be
effective; politica l com peten ce in bein g a ble
to n e gotia te a good dea l for on e’s tea m ; cu ltu r a l sen sitivity, u n der sta n din g a n d con fiden ce, a r e som e of th ese essen tia l sk ills. A
cr u cia l com pon en t in th is a r ea is self-developm en t: th e w illin gn ess to r eflect on ou r ow n
th eor ies a n d a ction s a n d ta k e steps to
im pr ove. An d, a s we h ave sta ted ea r lier, if
a ppr a isa l system s a r e to be n ot on ly design ed,
bu t a lso im plem en ted, th en pr a ctition er s wh o
m a n a ge oth er people w ill n eed tr a in in g in
sk ills th a t h elp to cope w ith difficu lt situ a tion s a n d in ter per son a l pr oblem solvin g;
[ 199 ]
sk ills th a t en a ble th em to r ecogn ize th e com plexity of th e tea ch in g ta sk a n d dea l w ith
con testa ble issu es, a n d do th is in a w ay th a t
r espects th e dign ity a n d pr ofession a lism of
collea gu es. Th er e is still a lot of lea r n in g to be
don e in th is a r ea a n d we n eed to develop dia gn ostic a n d r efl ective a ppr oa ch es wh ich a llow
on e to con fr on t pr ofession a l con cer n s open ly
a n d n e gotia te pla n s for tr a in in g a n d developm en t a lon g th e w ay.
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
Manage me nt de ve lo pme nt
In th e th ir d qu a dr a n t is m a n a gem en t developm en t. Th is r ela tes to th e body of in for m a tion ,
th eor y a n d sk ills wh ich en a bles sch ool
a dm in istr a tor s to wor k effectively w ith a n d
th r ou gh oth er s to a ccom plish or ga n iza tion a l
goa ls. A com pr eh en sive view of m a n a gem en t
developm en t is pr esen ted by McMa h on a n d
Bola m (1990) wh o ca te gor ize m a n a gem en t
developm en t in th r ee w ays:
1 M a n a gem en t su ppor t: wh ich r efer s to
sch ool a r r a n gem en ts a n d pr ocedu r es for
pr ofession a l gr ow th , su ch a s job r ota tion
a n d en h a n cem en t, pr om otion , per for m a n ce a ppr a isa l, equ a l em ploym en t
oppor tu n ities, ca r eer developm en t, a n d
th e pr a ctica l issu e of r esou r cin g sta ff
en ga gem en t in in itia tives th a t em power
th em to develop.
2 M a n a gem en t tra in in g: wh ich r efer s to in ser vice cou r ses, wor k sh ops, con fer en ces
a n d tr a in in g oppor tu n ities wh ich th e
sch ool or ga n izes in ter n a lly, or sen ds pr a ctition er s to, w ith th e in ten tion of ga in in g
pr a ctica l in for m a tion a n d lea r n in g sk ills
to sh a r e w ith collea gu es.
3 M a n a gem en t ed u ca tion : wh ich r efer s to
exter n a l stu dy pr ogr a m m es th a t em ph a size th eor y a n d r esea r ch ba sed k n ow ledge,
lea d to qu a lifica tion s a n d in cr ea sin gly
in cor por a te exper ien tia l lea r n in g m eth ods
th a t en cou r a ge pr a ctition er s to a pply
lea r n in g to pr a ctice.
Lea der s a n d poten tia l lea der s wh o h ave
r espon sibility for m a n a gin g sch ools or a r ea s
Figure 3
Sc ho o l de ve lo pme nt c yc le
Audit
‘ Whe re are we no w? ’
‘ Where do we want
to go ? ’
Evaluatio n
‘ Ho w are
we do ing? ’
Targe ts
Imple me ntatio n
pro c e ss
[ 200 ]
Aims
‘How do we get there? ’
of cu r r icu lu m a n d ser vices sh ou ld h ave
a ccess to developm en t oppor tu n ities in a ll
th r ee of th ese m a n a gem en t developm en t
ca te gor ies.
Sc ho o l de ve lo pme nt
In th e fou r th qu a dr a n t is sch ool developm en t.
Th is con cept h a s been well defin ed by P r ebble
a n d Stew a r t:
Sch ool developm en t is a pla n n ed, con tin u in g
effor t to a ddr ess h ow th e in stitu tion dia gn oses a n d m a k es decision s w ith in its sph er e
of in flu en ce. It r ela tes ch a n ge w ith pu r pose,
m a k es over t th e pr eva ilin g beliefs, va lu es,
n or m s of its popu la tion , a n d begin s w ith th e
a ssista n ce of a con su lta n t wh o h a s th e con fiden ce of th e en tir e gr ou p. Im plicit w ith in
th is defin ition is th e n otion th a t su ch a str a tegy m u st be a colla bor a tive r ela tion sh ip
dea lin g w ith both r ea l a n d per ceived pr oblem s (P r ebble a n d Stew a r t, 1984, p. 156).
Th is in volves th e system a tic r eview of sch oolw ide a ctivities in a pr oblem -solvin g cycle of
explor a tion , feedba ck , a n d tr ia llin g of in itia tives lea din g to con sider ed a n d well-pla n n ed
ch a n ge, wh ich is th en eva lu a ted. Sch ool
developm en t is ba sed on th e ch a r a cter istics
sh ow n in F igu r e 3.
Concluding remarks
For sch ools wh ich w ish to m a k e th e best u se
of lim ited r esou r ces, m eet obliga tion s to
im pr ove th e ca pa bilities of sta ff (a n d th u s
im pr ove th e edu ca tion a l exper ien ces of stu den ts), a n d devise sta ff developm en t
pr ogr a m m es wh ich a r e r eleva n t, m ea n in gfu l
a n d effective, a com m itm en t to pla n n in g a n d
a for m of n eeds a n a lysis is essen tia l.
Alth ou gh few sch ools a gr ee th a t th ey do th is
ta sk well, th er e a r e sever a l exa m ples of sm a ll
a n d good be gin n in gs on wh ich to bu ild.
Th e m essa ge bein g pu t for w a r d is a sim ple
on e. In or der to design a n d im plem en t a SSM
pr ogr a m m e wh ich cou ld im pa ct positively on
sch ool pr a ctices, on e m u st sta r t by eva lu a tin g
th e exten t to wh ich in str u ction a l lea der sh ip
a n d pla n n in g pr a ctices a r e pr ovidin g a sou n d
fou n da tion for pr ogr a m m e developm en t. Th e
Old Testa m en t tells u s th a t “people w ith ou t a
vision sh a ll per ish ”. With ou t a vision sch ool
people w ill con tin u e to favou r wh a tever
a ction pr om ises to extin gu ish a fi r e m ost
qu ick ly – so th a t th ey ca n m ove to th e n ext
fir e. A sch ool w ith ou t a vision m ay n ot per ish , it m ay even be fr ee of fir es, bu t it w ill n ot
develop ver y m u ch .
P a ssion a te com m itm en t, su ch a s a n y SSM
pr ogr a m m e n eeds to be ba sed on , com es w ith
th e em a n cipa tion of ou r m in ds a n d ou r
a tta ch m en t, r ea tta ch m en t for som e, to
pu r poses wor th wor k in g for. Restr ictive
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
en vir on m en ts con fin e a n d sm oth er cr ea tivity
a n d pu r pose. A pr ofession a lly a ddr essed a n d
r u n sch ool-site m a n a gem en t pr ogr a m m e ca n
liber a te pr ofession a ls a n d en a ble th em to
r edesign sch oolin g. Th is is th e ch a llen ge
wh ich aw a its Ma ltese sch ools, on e wh ich is
w ith in ou r gr a sp.
References
Adelm a n , N.E . a n d Wa lk in g-E a gle, K.P. (1997),
“Tea ch er s, tim e, a n d sch ool r efor m ”, in
Ha r gr eaves, A. (E d.), R eth in k in g Ed u ca tion a l
Ch a n ge w ith Hea r t a n d M in d, ASCD,
Alexa n dr ia , VA, pp. 92-110.
Be zzin a , C. (1991), “Im pr ovin g th e qu a lity of
sch oolin g in Ma lta ”, T h e In ter n a tion a l
J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t, Vol. 5
N o. 4, pp. 14-18.
Be zzin a , C. (1995), “Th e Ma ltese pr im a r y sch ool
pr in cipa lsh ip: per ception s, r oles a n d
r espon sibilities”, u n pu blish ed P h D Th esis,
Br u n el Un iver sity.
Be zzin a , C. (1996), “Sch ool-ba sed developm en t”,
in Ven tu r a , F. (E d.), S econ d a r y Ed u ca tion in
M a lta : Ch a llen ges a n d Oppor tu n ities, MUT
P u blica tion s Ltd, Ma lta , pp. 28-46.
Be zzin a , C. a n d West, N. (1997), “Tea ch er
em power m en t: th e w ay a h ea d for qu a lity
im pr ovem en t”, M a n a gem en t in Ed u ca tion ,
Vol. 11 N o. 2, pp. 31-2.
Bim ber, B. (1994), Decen traliz ation M ira ge:
Com parin g Decision M ak in g A rran gem en ts in
Fou r High S ch ools, In stitu te on Edu cation a n d
Tr a in in g, Ra n d Cor por ation , Sa n ta Mon ica ,
CA.
Bor g, M.G. a n d F a lzon , J .Z. (1989), “Str ess a n d job
sa tisfa ction a m on g pr im a r y sch ool tea ch er s
in Ma lta ”, Ed u ca tion a l R eview , Vol. 41 N o. 3,
pp. 271-9.
Br a dley, H., Con n er, C. a n d Sou th wor th , G. (E ds)
(1994), Dev elopin g T ea ch ers Dev elopin g
S ch ools, David F u lton , Lon don .
Br en n a n , J . (1989), “A tim e to ch a n ge?”, T h e
In ter n a tion a l J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l
M a n a gem en t, Vol. 3 N o. 3, pp. 7-9.
Ca ldwell, B.J . a n d Spin k s, J .M. (1989), T h e S elfM a n a gin g S ch ool, Th e F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
Ca r n e gie Ta sk For ce (1986), A N a tion Prepa red :
T ea ch ers for th e 21st Cen tu r y, Ca r n e gie For u m
on E du ca tion a n d th e E con om y, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ch a pm a n , J . (1993), “Lea der sh ip, sch ool-ba sed
decision m a k in g a n d sch ool effectiven ess”,
in Dim m ock , C. (E d.), S ch ool-B a sed M a n a gem en t a n d S ch ool Effectiv en ess, Rou tledge,
Lon don , pp. 201-18.
Clift, P.S., N u tta ll, D.L. a n d McCor m ick , R. (E ds)
(1989), S tu d ies in S ch ool S elf-Eva lu a tion , Th e
F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
Con a n t, J .B. (1989), “Th e Am er ica n h igh sch ool
today: a fi r st r epor t to in ter ested citizen s”,
in Or lich , “E du ca tion r efor m : m ista k es,
m iscon ception s, m isu ses”, Ph i Delta Ka ppa n ,
Vol. 70 N o. 7, p. 513.
Con sta ble, H. (1995), “Developin g tea ch er s a s
exten ded pr ofession a ls”, in Bu sh er, H. a n d
Sa r a n , R. (E ds), M a n a gin g T ea ch ers a s
Profession a ls in S ch ools, Koga n P a ge, Lon don ,
pp. 151-66.
Cu ba n , L. (1984), “Tr a n sfor m in g th e fr og in to a
pr in ce: effective sch ools r esea r ch , policy a n d
pr a ctice a t th e distr ict level”, Ha r va rd
Ed u ca tion a l R eview , Vol. 54 N o. 2, pp. 129-51.
Da r lin g-Ha m m on d, L. a n d McLa u gh lin , M.W.
(1995), “Policies th a t su ppor t pr ofession a l
developm en t in a n er a of r efor m ”, Ph i Delta
Ka ppa n , Vol. 76 N o. 8, pp. 597-604.
David, J .L. (1994), “Sch ool-ba sed decision m a k in g:
Ken tu ck y’s test of decen tr a liza tion ”, Ph i Delta
Ka ppa n , Vol. 75 N o. 9, pp. 706-12.
David, J .L. (1995/ 6), “Th e wh o, wh a t, a n d wh y of
site-ba sed m a n a gem en t”, Ed u ca tion a l L ea d er sh ip, Vol. 53 N o. 4, Decem ber -J a n u a r y, pp. 4-9.
Davies, B. a n d E llison , L. (1996), “Bu ildin g a
fu tu r es a n d a str a te gic per spective in sch ool
developm en t pla n n in g”, pa per pr esen ted a t
th e BE MAS Resea r ch Con fer en ce: P a r tn er s in
Ch a n ge: Sh a pin g th e F u tu r e, 25-27 Ma r ch ,
Robin son Colle ge, Ca m br idge.
Du ign a n , P.A. (1988), “Refl ective m a n a gem en t: th e
k ey to qu a lity lea der sh ip”, T h e In ter n a tion a l
J ou r n a l of Ed u ca tion a l M a n a gem en t, Vol. 2
N o. 2, pp. 3-12.
F a r r u gia , C.J . (1985), “Th e sta tu s of sch ool tea ch er s in Ma lta ”, u n pu blish ed P h D Th esis,
Un iver sity of Lon don .
F a r r u gia , C.J . (1986), “Ca r eer ch oice a n d sou r ces
of occu pa tion a l sa tisfa ction a n d fr u str a tion
a m on g tea ch er s in Ma lta ”, Com pa ra tiv e
Ed u ca tion , Vol. 22 N o. 3, pp. 221-31.
F a r r u gia , C.J . (E d.) (1994), A N ew V ision For
Pr im a r y S ch ools, MUT P u blica tion s, Ma lta .
Fen ech , J . (1992), “P r im a r y sch oolin g in Ma lta :
a n h istor ica l a n d eth n ogr a ph ic stu dy”,
u n pu blish ed P h D Th esis, Un iver sity of
Lon don .
Fer gu son , M. (1984), T h e A qu a r ia n Con spira cy,
P a la din , Lon don .
F ieldin g, M. (1995), “Ma ppin g th e pr ogr ess of
ch a n ge”, pa per pr esen ted a t th e E u r opea n
Con fer en ce on E du ca tion a l Resea r ch ,
Un iver sity of Ba th , 14-17 Septem ber.
F u lla n , M. (1995), Ch a n ge Forces: Prob in g th e
Depth s of Ed u ca tion a l R efor m , Th e F a lm er
P r ess, Lon don .
F u lla n , M. a n d Ha r gr eaves, A. (1996), W h a t’s
Wor th Figh tin g for in You r S ch ool, 2n d ed.,
Tea ch er s Colle ge P r ess, N ew Yor k , N Y.
Ga bor, C. a n d Meu n ier, G. (1993), “P u ttin g th e
power in to em power m en t”, J ou r n a l for Qu a lity a n d Pa r ticipa tion , Vol. 16 N o. 1, pp. 98-101.
Glick m a n , C.D. (1993), R en ew in g A m er ica ’s
S ch ools: A Gu id e for S ch ool-B a sed A ction ,
J ossey-Ba ss, Sa n F r a n cisco, CA.
Goodla d, J .I. (1983), “A stu dy of sch oolin g: som e
fi n din gs a n d h ypoth esis”, Ph i Delta Ka ppa n ,
Vol. 64 N o. 7, pp. 465-70.
Goodla d, J .I. (1984), A Pla ce ca lled S ch ool:
Prospects for th e Fu tu re, McGr aw -Hill,
N ew Yor k , N Y.
Goodla d, J .I. (1994), W h a t S ch ools A re For,
Ph i Delta Ka ppa, In dia n a .
[ 201 ]
Christo phe r Be zzina
Re struc turing sc ho o ls in
Malta: the ro ad to
impro ve me nt
Inte rnatio nal Jo urnal o f
Educ atio nal Manage me nt
1 1 / 5 [1 9 9 7 ] 1 9 4 –2 0 2
[ 202 ]
Ha lla ck , J . (1990), In v estin g in th e Fu tu re: S ettin g
Ed u ca tion a l Pr ior ities in th e Dev elopin g
World, UN E SCO: IIE P, P a r is.
Ha r gr eaves, A. (E d.) (1997), R eth in k in g
Ed u ca tion a l Ch a n ge w ith Hea r t a n d M in d,
Associa tion for Su per vision a n d Cu r r icu lu m
Developm en t, Alexa n dr ia , VA.
Ha r gr eaves, A., E a r l, L. a n d Rya n , J . (1996),
S ch oolin g for Ch a n ge, Th e F a lm er P r ess,
Lon don .
Ha r gr eaves, D.H. a n d Hopk in s, D. (1991), T h e
Em pow ered S ch ool, Ca ssell, Lon don .
Her m a n , J .J . a n d Her m a n , J .L. (1993), S ch oolb a sed M a n a gem en t: Cu r ren t T h in k in g a n d
Pra ctice, Th om a s C P u blish er s, Illin ois.
Holly, P. a n d Sou th wor th , G. (1989), T h e Dev elopin g S ch ool, F a lm er P r ess, Lon don .
Hopk in s, D. (1987), Im provin g th e Qu a lity of
S ch ools, Acco, Leu ven , Belgiu m .
Hopk in s, D. (1990), “Th e In ter n a tion a l Sch ool
Im pr ovem en t P r oject (ISIP ) a n d effective
sch oolin g: tow a r ds a syn th esis”, S ch ool
Orga n isa tion , Vol. 10 N os 2 a n d 3, pp. 179-94.
Hopk in s, D. a n d Sebba , J . (1995), “Im pr ovin g
sch ools: a n over view of im pr ovin g th e qu a lity
of edu ca tion for a ll pr ojects”, pa per pr esen ted
a t th e E u r opea n Con fer en ce on E du ca tion a l
Resea r ch , Un iver sity of Ba th , 14-17 Septem ber.
Kelly, A.V. (1987), Kn ow led ge a n d Cu r r icu lu m
Pla n n in g, Ha r per & Row, Lon don .
Kin g, E .J . (1983), “Ch a n gin g edu ca tion for a
ch a n gin g society”, Ed u ca tion a n d S ociety,
Vol. 1 N o. 1, pp. 5-12.
La m ber t, L. (1988), “Sta ff developm en t
r edesign ed”, Ph i Delta Ka ppa n , Vol. 69 N o. 9,
pp. 665-8.
Lin dle, J .C. (1995/ 6), “Lesson s fr om Ken tu ck y
a bou t sch ool-ba sed de