Cpdt aer 2010

Abstract
The effectiveness of educational reform initiatives depends on the quality of teachers.
Professional development (PD) of teachers has therefore become a major focal point of
school improvement initiatives. The National Policy Framework for Teacher Education
and Development (2007) attempts to address the need for suitably qualified teachers
in South Africa. The study discussed in this article was qualitative within purposefully
selected schools. Its aim was to explain educators’ perceptions of continuing profes-sional
development in the light of the national policy. The following major findings
emerged from the data analysis: (1) overall view of PD in the education system, (2)
experience of types of PD programmes, and (3) impact of PD programmes on schools.
Keywords: professional development for teachers, continuing professional develop-ment,
343
Educators’ Perceptions of Continuing
Professional Development for Teachers
in South Africa: A Qualitative Study
Steyn
(Author’s details to be provided)
ISSN1814-6627 (print) 1753-5921 (online)
DOI:
University of South Africa Press
Africa Education Review 6 (2)
pp. 343 – 365
National Policy Framework for Teacher Education and Development
Introduction
The continuous growth of professionals’ knowledge and skills is an essential part of
improvement in all professions, and teaching is no exception (Boyle, Lamprianou
& Boyle 2005:1). In education it focuses particularly on the teacher as the key
to improving learner performance (Desimone Smith & Ueno 2006:178; Knight
& Wiseman 2005:387). King and Newman (2001:86) believe that as “teachers
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 343 2010/04/15 10:34:12 AM

Steyn
have the most direct, sustained contact with students, as well as considerable
control over what is taught and the climate of learning, it is reasonably assumed
that improving teachers’ knowledge, skills and dispositions is one of the most
critical steps to improving student achievement”. It is therefore necessary to find
appropriate professional development (PD) approaches to ensure that all teachers,
even experienced teachers, are equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills
for improving learner performance (Anonymous 2001/2002:17; Hirsh 2005:38;
Shaw 2003:39).
The professional development of teachers has changed during the past two decades
from a “one size fits all” model to more continuing, content- and pedagogically-focused
344
programmes (Brandt 2003:13; Desimone et al 2006:183; Mundry 2005:9).
Increasingly, the importance of teachers’ experience and knowledge with regard
to student learning has been realised (Knight & Wiseman 2005:9). Unfortunately
many PD programmes concentrate either on the content or on teaching methods
(Van Eekelen Vermunt & Boshuizen, 2006:408).
Research indicates that many PD programmes for teachers are unsatisfactory and
have not met intended goals (Boyle et al 2005:4; Mewborn & Huberty 2004:4).
Burke (1997:299) blames ineffective PD programmes on research, since many
programmes are based on faulty assumptions of such research or even no research
at all.
To transform education in South Africa it is necessary for teachers to be ap-propriately
equipped to meet its evolving challenges and needs (Department of
Education 2007:4). The President’s Education Initiative research project reports
that the “most critical challenge for teacher education in South Africa was the
limited conceptual knowledge of many teachers” (Department of Education
2007:4). The Report of the Ministerial Committee on Rural Education (2005) also
identified teachers’ limited access to PD (Department of Education 2007:5). The
National Policy Framework for Teacher Education and Development is an attempt
to address the need for suitably qualified teachers in South Africa (Department
of Education 2007:5). This policy focuses on two complementary sub-systems:
Initial Professional Education of Teachers and Continuing Professional Teacher
Development (CPTD) (Department of Education 2007:2). The emphasis of this
article is on CPTD, which focuses on improving the conceptual knowledge and
skills of teachers through PD programmes. The National Policy Framework has
the potential to change the quality of teaching in South Africa, but its success
cannot be guaranteed without the support of educators in schools.
Valuable contributions have been made to our understanding of teachers’ PD. Yet
there remains much in this field of study that is unclear and incomplete. In the
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 344 2010/04/15 10:34:12 AM

Educators’ Perceptions of Continuing Professional Development for Teachers
light of the above, the following research question is posed: What are principals’
and teachers’ perceptions of PD in the light of the National Policy Framework for
Teacher Education and Development in South Africa? According to Van Veen
and Sleegers (2006:89), educators “tend to have very personal and strong views
on how they think they should work”.
CPTD in the National Policy Framework attempts to appropriately equip teach-ers
to meet the challenges and demands of a democratic South Africa in the 21st
century (Department of Education 2007:1). It is underpinned by the principle
that “teachers are the essential drivers of education” (Department of Education
2007:3). Its ultimate aim is to enable learners to “learn well and equip themselves
for further learning and for satisfying lives as productive citizens, for the benefit
of their families, their communities and our nation” (Department of Education
2007:25). CPTD is most successful when teachers are actively involved and reflect
on their own teaching practice; when CPTD is contextualised and school-based;
when developmental activities are well coordinated and when sustained leadership
and support are present (Department of Education 2007:25). The CPTD system
essentially strives to contribute to the improvement of teachers’ teaching skills
by equipping them to effectively execute their essential and demanding tasks, to
continually improve their professional competence and performance, to enable
and empower them by improving their professional confidence, learning area/
subject knowledge and skills and classroom management, to improve their profes-sional
status, and to assist them in identifying suitable PD programmes that may
contribute towards their professional growth (Department of Education 2007:1).
The South African Council for Educators (SACE), the statutory body for
professional teachers, has an overall responsibility for the quality assurance,
implementation and management of the CPTD (Department of Education
2007:19). All teachers registered by SACE have to earn PD points by select-ing
approved PD activities that meet their development needs (Department
of Education 2007:20).
The National Policy Framework identifies four types of CPTD activities:
school-driven activities, employer-driven activities, qualification-driven activi-ties
and others offered by approved organisations (Department of Education
2007:17). A distinction is also made between compulsory and self-selected
PD programmes. The former are paid for by the education authority involved,
while teachers may receive bursaries for selfselected PD programmes (Depart-ment
345
of Education 2007:3).
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 345 2010/04/15 10:34:12 AM

Steyn
Theoretical framework
Two literatures inform this study: social constructivism and literature on PD.
According to social constructivism, individuals (teachers and principals)
search for an understanding of the lifeworld in which they live and work
(Creswell 2007:20). Individuals develop subjective meanings of their experi-ences
346
which are multiple and varied (Creswell 2007:20). The aim of such a
study is therefore to rely predominantly on participants’ views of a particular
phenomenon, in this case CPTD. According to social constructivist learning
theories, learning is viewed as constructive and learners build and construct
new conceptualisations and understandings by using what they already know
(Chalmers & Keown 2006; Mahoney 2003).
In the light of the above, CPTD can be operationalised by means of the social
constructivist approach, which recognises the following (Chalmers & Keown
2006; Darling-Hammond & Richardson 2009:47; Paavola Lipponen & Hakka-rainen
2004; Wenger 2007; Hodkinson & Hodkinson 2005):
• The constructed meaning of knowledge and beliefs. This is a process
whereby individuals discover new knowledge, skills and approaches and
then personally interpret their significance and meaning.
• The situated nature of cognition. This aspect recognises the fact that
CPTD has to be strongly linked to the actual contexts and situations of
individual schools. This is also in line with Engestrom’s model of expan-sive
learning, which postulates that human beings do not live in a vacuum,
but are embedded in their sociocultural context (Paavola et al 2004). As
such their behaviour cannot be understood independently of this context.
• The importance of ample time. New developments and change take time
to be implemented.
In order to understand any PD initiative, such as CPTD, it is necessary to have
a clear understanding of PD.
An overview of professional development for teachers
Publications on PD in the last decade have shed light on effective PD pro-grammes
that develop teachers’ knowledge and skills; improve teaching prac-tice
and raise learners’ performance (Desimone et al 2006:182; Wanzare &
Ward 2000:2). In support of this, Hirsh’s study on effective PD reveals three
important characteristics of PD learning (Hirsh 2005:43): (1) a deep under-standing
of specific subject content is a core component of effective PD; (2)
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 346 2010/04/15 10:34:12 AM

the individual beliefs of teachers play an important role in the development
process; and (3) a detailed plan for introducing new content and practices and
facilitation of follow-up action is required.
The traditional approaches to PD included workshops, seminars and confer-ences
that adopted a technical and simplistic view of teaching and believed
that teachers’ knowledge and skills could be improved by using experts from
outside the school system (Boyle et al 2005:4; Lee 2005:40). They proved
not to be very effective because they did not sufficiently change teachers’
subject knowledge or pedagogical skills (Mewborn & Huberty 2004:4), which
explains why Mundry (2005:14) and Desimone et al (2006:209) suggest that
the provision and sponsoring of ineffective PD programmes that do not lead
to the improvement of teaching and learning should be discontinued.
More recently, longer-term PD programmes have been designed to assist
teachers though direct practical experience to improve student learning (Lee
2005:39; Boyle et al 2005:22). PD is most effective when it is a constant,
continual process that includes properly planned development and individual
follow-up through supportive observation and feedback, educator dialogue and
peer coaching (Bernauer 2002:89; Bolam 2003:103; Moore 2000:14). As such,
effective PD programmes include longer contact time, activities sustained over
long periods of time, participation of teachers from the same grade, school or
subject, active learning opportunities and a focus on subject content (Boyle
et al 2005:22; Desimone et al 2006:182; Lee 2005:40). Since the definition
of PD includes a focus on the continuous development of teachers, it may be
equated with the concept of CPTD in the National Policy Framework (Depart-ment
347
of Education 2007).
The literature reveals a number of aspects that may play a crucial role in the
effective implementation of PD. The following major aspects can be identified:
1 A focus on teachers’ needs and their learning: PD programmes should
be differentiated to meet teachers’ individual needs (Lee 2005:46; Robin-son
& Carrington 2002:240), since their professional growth occurs when
PD programmes acknowledge their needs (Lee 2005:40). A needs-based
model for mathematics’ teachers on site was successfully implemented in
Mewborn and Huberty’s study (2004). Their experiences identified three
main criteria for effective PD: (1) PD programmes should be designed
for teachers who teach particular grades; (2) PD has to be sustained, con-textualised
and relevant to teachers’ classroom practice; and (3) PD pro-grammes
should be “site-based so that the educators developers understand
their students, their curriculum, and their school structures” (Mewborn &
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 347 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

Steyn
Huberty 2004:2). Needs-based PD is also supported by others who believe
that principals could monitor and evaluate teachers and decide what kinds
of PD programmes they need, and then guide them in aligning programmes
that fit their needs (Desimone et al 2006:206). Desimone et al (2006:205)
suggest “scaffolding” PD opportunities by offering programmes targeted
at teachers with varying levels of content knowledge and skills. Moreover,
teachers prefer programmes that are more practical in nature and aim to
meet their specific needs (Robinson & Carrington 2002:239; Somers &
Sikorova 2002:108; Tyrell 2000: 15). Desimone et al’s study (2006:205)
reveals that teachers with more expert content knowledge have more con-fidence
348
and motivation to further develop their knowledge and skills than
teachers with less content knowledge.
2 The commitment of teachers: A commitment to learning refers to the psycho-logical
state in which teachers desire to learn and experiment (Van Eekelen
et al 2006:410). Teachers’ commitment and positive attitude towards PD
are very important for the success of their professional growth (Blackmore
2000:3; Ho-Ming & Ping-Yan 1999:38; Pehkonen & Törner 1999:262). The
study by Lam and Pang (2003:90) also illustrates that teachers are more
committed to their professional learning if they are more selfconfident in
terms of their teaching abilities. Furthermore, when teachers do not have
ownership of the selection of PD it may not be very effective because of this
top-down approach (Bernauer 2002:91; Desimone et al 2006:207; Somers &
Sikorova 2002:104; Lee 2005:41). Fortunately CPTD also expects teachers
“to take charge of their selfdevelopment by identifying the areas in which
they need to grow professionally” (Department of Education 2007:3).
3 Quality leadership: Quality leadership means that school managers are in-volved
in the learning process and collect evidence that the PD of teachers
has taken place (Dymoke & Harrison 2006:80; Heaney 2004:42; Mewborn
& Huberty 2004:6). This leadership style also involves a commitment to
identifying the needs of teachers and appropriate training to meet these needs
(Heaney 2004:43; Lee 2005:46). Principals also play a major role in chang-ing
the norms, values, beliefs and assumptions of teachers (Lam & Pang
2003:84). Through an encouraging, supportive leadership style, principals
can provide individualised support and concern about teachers’ feelings
and professional needs (Heaney 2004:42; Lee 2005:46; Sparks 2003:43).
4 The school context: Teachers’ learning is affected by variables in the school
context that may either enhance or obstruct the professional learning of teachers
(King & Newman 2001:87; Heaney 2004:44; Hirsh 2005:43; Lee 2005:45; Van
Eekelen et al 2006:409). The Canadian study by Yu, Leithwood and Jantzi (2000)
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 348 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

included mediating variables such as school culture, teacher collaboration and
the school environment which may affect teacher commitment to development
and therefore also impact on PD effectiveness. Collaborating teachers utilise
strengths and complement each other’s knowledge and skills, thereby stimulating
reflection and broadening their perspective (Bezzina 2002:77; Brandt 2003:10;
Dymoke & Harrison 2006:78; Lee 2005:45). A collegial culture creates more ef-fective
teaching and ownership of teachers’ own professional learning (Dymoke
& Harrison 2006:80; Boyle et al 2005:4). Furthermore, professional learning is
most likely to happen when teachers have opportunities to work with profes-sionals
both inside and outside their schools, and have access to the expertise
of researchers (Robinson & Carrington 2002:240).
5 Feedback on teachers’ development: In the ongoing approach to PD the impor-tance
of feedback to teachers on their development and the impact on learners’
performance is widely supported (Lam & Pang 2003:87; Birman Desimone
Porter & Garet 2000:29; King & Newman 2001:87). Teachers need to know
whether they are making progress. Unfortunately most PD programmes are
brief workshops, conferences or courses that do not allow for follow-up sessions
(King & Newman 2001:87; Richardson 2003:401).
Research design
In order to achieve the best-informed findings from the study, a qualitative
(Creswell 2007; Meadows 2003) explorative and descriptive approach was
employed to explore an in-depth understanding of educators’ views of the
new CPTD system, as well as the quality of existing PD to which they are ex-posed.
For change to be meaningful in schools, it is necessary for the proposed
CPTD system to contain the promise of improving the previous PD system.
A phenomenological approach was used in order to understand participants’
personal meanings which were constructed from their “lived experiences”
(Johnson & Christenson 2000:315; Rudestam & Newton 2001:38). Apart
from being a description, phenomenology is also regarded as an interpretative
process where the researcher makes an interpretation of the lived experiences
of participants (Creswell 2007:59).
A purposive sample of four schools with maximum variance (McMillan &
Schumacher 2006:319) was selected: a primary school (School A, a Quintile
4 school); another primary school (School B, a Quintile 5 school); a combined
school (School C, a Quintile 1 school); and a high school (School D, a Quintile
5 school). Quintiles are used to rank South African schools according to their
socio-economic status. Quintile 1 and 2 schools are regarded as the poorest
schools; Quintile 4 and 5 schools are viewed as “rich” schools (Rademeyer
349
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 349 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

Steyn
2007:5) (see Table 1). The selection was based on accessibility, previous re-search
350
projects in these schools which added to a trust relationship between the
researcher and participants, and these schools’ focus on school development.
From each of the four selected schools, participants were purposively selected
by principals to ensure that information-rich participants were included in the
study (Marshall 1998: 60).
Focus group interviews were used to facilitate the collection of data simul-taneously
and to increase the quality and richness of the data (Daymon &
Holloway 2002: 186). The focus groups consisted of post level one teachers,
heads of departments (HOD) and deputy heads. Each focus group session
lasted approximately one hour. A follow-up focus group interview for the
sake of clarity was held with School A.
Personal interviews were conducted with three principals (Schools A, B and D).
The principal of School C preferred the presence of the deputy head and one
HOD at her interview. The researcher questioned the dynamics of participants in
such an interview, but respected the principal’s preference that only the school
management team who were all enrolled for the Matthew Goniwe project should
participate in the interview. The principal valued the teaching time of other teach-ers
during school hours; teachers were also not available after school hours. All
interviews were held at the schools that participated in the study.
Table 1: Types of schools
The participants were briefed about the focus of the study before the interview.
They granted permission to take field notes and to tape-record the interviews
(Johnson 2002:111; Warren 2002:91). As a verifying measure, all notes were
expanded by the researcher immediately after each interview was conducted.
The following main question was put to the participants: What is your view on
continuing professional development of teachers in National Policy Framework
for Teacher Education and Development in South Africa?
A natural flow of conversation then followed. After the central question had
been asked (Creswell 2002:107), the researcher encouraged the participants to
continue talking by using facilitative communication techniques such as prob-ing,
paraphrasing, minimal verbal response and summarising (Burns & Grove
2005). Recorded focus groups and individual interviews were tape-recorded
and transcribed verbatim to ensure an accurate reflection of the participants’
views and by cross-verifying data provided by participants from different
post levels. The field notes made after each interview were also checked to
verify the interview data.
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 350 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

The researcher read the interview transcriptions and field notes in order to
identify “significant statements” which provided an understanding of the way
in which participants experienced CPTD (Creswell 2007:61). Significant
statements were then used to write a textual description of the participants’
experience of CPTD. From the textual description it was possible to identify
the essence (Creswell 2007:62) of the CPTD phenomenon.
Guba’s model for trustworthiness was used to ensure the validity and reliability
of the research (Lincoln & Guba 1985; Lincoln & Guba 1999). The four strat-egies
to ensure trustworthiness are credibility, transferability, dependability
and confirmability. Credibility was ascertained by triangulation, prolonged
engagement, a literature control, member checking and clear boundaries around
the study (De Vos 2005:346). A dense description of purposive sampling and a
complete description of methodology, including literature control and verbatim
quotes from interviews, ensured transferability. In line with the views of Patton
(2002:582) and De Vos (2005:346) social pheneomena, such as CDTD in this
study, are too context-bound and variable to permit empirical generalisations.
In this regard De Vos (2005:346) states that “the applicability of one set of
findings to another context rests more with the investigator who would make
the transfer than with the original investigator”. This is supported by Lincoln
and Guba (1999:404) who maintain that “transferability inferences cannot be
made by the investigator who only knows the sending context”. To counter
the challenge of generalisation, the researcher referred back to the theoreti-cal
framework to indicate how data collection and data analysis were guided
by it (De Vos 2005:346). Dependability was maintained through code-recode
procedures and a description of the research methodology. Confirmability was
established through triangulation and reflectivity.
Findings and discussion of findings
Educators’ lived experiences of CPTD are described in a narrative way. A
literature control was used to recontextualise context-specific views and
where necessary more theoretical clarity was provided. The essence of the
findings indicates that certain aspects of CPTD may fuel professional develop-ment,
while others may restrict or inhibit it. The following major themes and
sub-themes emerged from the data analysis: the influence of leadership and
teachers’ attitudes on professional growth; appropriate training – the answer
to effective CPTD (the accumulation of PD points, experience of types of
PD programmes [official CPTD programmes; private CPTD programmes]);
and the impact of CPTD programmes. The findings, presented in Figure 1,
are described with reference to the central story line, themes and sub-themes.
351
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 351 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

Steyn
Figure 1: An overview of the central story line, themes and sub-themes described by
principals and educators of the lived experience of CPTD
Central story line: On the one hand the findings reveal approaches and practices
that may fuel the CPTD of educators and on the other hand they reveal approaches
and practices that may reduce or inhibit the CPTD of educators. Recommendations
for improved CPTD practices signify a way to harmonise the approaches and
practices that may fuel the continuing professional development and not restrict
or inhibit CPTD.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 Nurture and develop a positive attitude and commitment to CPTD.
2 Ensure collaboration between leadership and educators: identify educators’
developmental needs and identify suitable PD programmes.
3 Recognise teachers’ development with PD points (even if cascading is done at
schools), and salary increases in the case of qualifications.
4 Provide effective CPTD: reconsider accumulation of PD points to change attitudes
of educators; provide quality, hands-on, practical training; identify expert
presenters knowledgeable about teaching practice; identify suitable times for
CPTD; provide feedback and support after CPTD; ensure that district (and other)
officials are knowledgeable about CPTD; ascertain effective collaboration and
support between district officials and schools for CPTD.
352
Similar stories with context-specific nuances
APPROACHES AND PRACTICES THAT RESTRICT/
INHIBIT CPTD
Leadership and educators have a negative
attitude towards teaching/CPTD: No
collaboration between principals and their
educators; ignoring and not responding to
educators’ needs; ignorance of suitable PD
programmes; devaluing teachers’ development
Inappropriate training: The accumulation of
PD points could lead to some experienced
teachers’ resignation, as few teachers who attend
private accredited PD programmes receive PD
points. Official programmes: critique of content,
repetition of content, no practical application,
inexperienced, ill-informed presenters, poor
collaboration between schools and officials,
inappropriate time for training, no respect for the
delegates’ time (no punctuality). Private CPTD
programmes: PD programmes that do not meet
the needs of schools.
No impact of CPTD programmes on schools: No
feedback, support after CPTD, individual learning,
quick fixes a waste of money, district managers
ill-informed about CPTD programmes.
APPROACHES AND PRACTICES THAT FUEL CPTD
Leadership and educators require an enthusiasm
and commitment towards teaching/CPTD:
Collaboration between principals and their
educators; identification of educators’ needs;
identification of suitable PD programmes; recognition
of teachers’ development
Appropriate training – the answer to effective PD:
The accumulation of PD points is not as important
as an attitude change, although beginner
teachers may be motivated by PD points. Official
programmes:quality PD, hands-on training (like
Matthew Goniwe project), practical application,
inexperienced, expert presenters, collaboration
between schools and officials , appropriate time for
training, respect for time of delegates, punctuality.
Private CPTD programmes: effective, practical and of
a high quality for more affluent schools.
Impact of CPTD programmes on schools: Feedback,
support after CPTD, cascading of programmes
to school, longer duration, development model
(Matthew Goniwe) leads to change in school
culture, educators working collaboratively, district
managers well-informed and supportive of CPTD
programmes
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 352 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

The central story line of educators experiences regarding CPTD
The central story line (Visagie 2009:114) gives an account of the lived experi-ences
of educators regarding continuing professional development. The find-ings
of the study reveal, on one hand, approaches and practices that may fuel
the continuing professional development of educators, and on the other hand
approaches and practices that may reduce or inhibit the CPTD of educators.
Recommendations for improved CPTD practices signify a way to harmonise
the approaches and practices that may enhance the continuing professional
development of educators.
The influence of leadership and teachers’ attitude on professional growth
All participants agreed that both leaders and teachers require enthusiasm and
commitment towards PD. As regards leadership, the principal of School B
had an interesting view of the principal’s role: “If a leader is a four out of ten
(4/10), you can do whatever you want, your whole organisation will only be
a 4/10 …. This is the secret for educators to develop. The enthusiasm is just
so much greater if the leader is excited …. If the principal is not excited, the
school will not grow.” This is in line with the view of the principal of School
C, who adds that if principals are motivated “it rubs off on the people.”
Apart from principals’ enthusiasm for CPTD, participants also felt that prin-cipals
have certain responsibilities regarding teachers’ CPTD. The principal
of School D stressed the importance of collaboration between principals and
their educators: “If there is no collaboration, there is no sinc [no common
goal], the school becomes out of sinc.” In essence this implies that principals
should be in touch with teachers, recognise their shortcomings and see where
they can “plant and plough in them [teachers]” (HOD School A). The principal
of School D succinctly explains leaders’ responsibility as regards PD and the
identification of needs: “A principal can never distance himself of development
…. It [development] should be done according to a professional development plan
… you have to identify teachers’ needs … but they [the teachers] should inform
the principal of their needs .... The teacher must speak up … I need this or I need
that… and we should work together.” A beginner teacher in School A said that
principals should be aware of existing PD programmes that may support teach-ers.
Teachers at School D went even further, because they expected their senior
management team to inform them whether workshops were worthwhile to ensure
that teachers did not waste their time.
A few participants stressed the necessity of teachers’ positive attitude towards PD.
School B’s principal said: “It is all about attitude …. If the teachers can have a
353
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 353 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

Steyn
positive attitude and can become excited with what they are doing, then things can
change and have the correct impact.” This principal views a positive attitude as
the main principle: “to ignite something, to set a fire within people”. The deputy
head of School D added that PD should enable educators to become excited about
teaching. The effect of a teacher’s negative attitude is explained by one teacher
of School A: “If I am not motivated, I’ll do nothing.”
Many participants concurred that recognition for PD is important. One teacher in
School A said “If there is not recognition, I’ll do nothing”. The principal of School
D recommended that PD programmes that lead to “accredited qualifications”…. “I
don’t mind if it is a two-year programme, because after the two years I’ll have a
qualification. That qualification should also have some kind of a monetary reward.”
The findings are in line with social constructivism and the literature survey. They
support the constructed meaning of knowledge and beliefs, whereby participants
discover new knowledge and skills, and also suggest appropriate approaches to-wards
354
PD (Chalmers & Keown 2006; Darling-Hammond & Richardson 2009:47;
Paavola et al 2004; Wenger 2007; Hodkinson & Hodkinson 2005). Participants
were also able to personally interpret the significance and meaning of PD. Fur-thermore,
the literature confirms that effective leadership means that principals are
actively involved in PD, which involves an enthusiasm for PD and a responsibility
for identifying both the needs of teachers and appropriate training to meet these
needs (Dymoke & Harrison 2006; Heaney 2004; Lee 2005; Mewborn & Huberty
2004). Futhermore, sincere commitment by teachers to identifying and address-ing
their PD needs is essential for the effectiveness of PD (Blackmore 2000:3;
Desimone et al 2006:179). A top-down approach may hinder the effectiveness of
PD because it does not acknowledge teachers’ professionalism (Desimone et al
2006; Lee 2005:41). This implies that teachers have to be “partners of the whole
process” (Lee 2005:46). Implicit in the appropriate attitude towards PD is the
necessity of PD programmes to “lead to a paradigm shift in people” (Deputy
head, School D).
Appropriate training – the answer to effective CPTD
There was agreement among participants that PD is “extremely important”,
“vital”, “crucial” and “necessary” for teachers to develop in the teaching
profession. The principal of School C believed that “teachers have to be
life-long learners”. In line with this, the principal of School D said: “They
[teachers] can never say they have enough training. They must keep on doing
their own research, own reading, read about education, talk about it, attend
workshops because it is essential to stay abreast.” This view was supported by
an HOD at School B who stated: “People cannot afford to stagnate, otherwise
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 354 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

the learners may pass you and you cannot be left behind”. The principal of
School B shared the secret of why the educators at a particular school always
received promotion posts when they applied for them: “Only one thing and
that is training of teachers.” For the principal of School D “training should be
before implementation. The Department of Education made a huge mistake to
first implement OBE [Outcomes-Based Education] and then train teachers”.
Many researchers support the vital importance of PD for the sake of teachers’
professional growth (Boyle et al 2005:1; Van Eekelen et al 2006:408; Desim-one
et al 2006:183). Enhancing teachers’ knowledge, skills and attitudes is
considered to be a critical step in improving learner performance (Anonymous
2001/2002:1; King & Newman 2001:87). While the necessity of PD was sup-ported
in the study, participants had explicit views on attending accredited
programmes to continue their registration as professionals in education.
The accumulation of PD points
There were different views on the accumulation of PD points. All participants
in School A were negative about the proposed system. The deputy head and
another HOD in this school were adamant that they would resign if the system
was implemented. Many participants were not certain how the policy would
be implemented, and also shared their doubts about the CPTD system. The
principal of School D, for example, questioned the criteria of the system. Other
participants referred to the unnecessary costs of implementing the proposed
CPTD system and its administration. For the principal of School B, the accu-mulation
of points was not important and “will have no benefit and serve any
purpose if the attitude of educators is not changed during such programmes.”
On the other hand, the principal of School C preferred formal training because
teachers should receive qualifications and “not only certificates of attendance
for training”, which should eventually lead to salary increases that may en-courage
355
teachers to develop professionally.
The participants in School B were concerned about the PD programmes their
school would offer in future. Since these school budgets for private PD pro-grammes
are costly, not all educators can attend such programmes. The HOD
explained: “If only one or two educator members attend a particular course
and they receive [PD] points, the rest of the educators will not be interested
in the training offered at the school” if they do not also receive PD points.
He added that educators in his school often consulted colleagues from other
schools or experts for assistance, which “will not deserve any points” although
it can be regarded as development and it is important for training in the school.
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 355 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

Steyn
Only a few participants expressed positive perceptions of the accumulation of
points. The HOD of School D said he understood the reason for this policy,
because it will compel educators to attend official workshops. The HOD in
School B felt that younger teachers in her school are often not willing to at-tend
356
programmes. She believed that if they were forced to accumulate points
“it may motivate them to attend such programmes …. However, if they are
not positive about such courses, it will be meaningless.”
The accumulation of PD points required by the National Policy Framework,
which is in line with international trends (Desimone et al 2006:205), has merits,
but earning PD points should not be the main focus. The main emphasis should
essentially be on improving the quality of teachers’ learning for the sake of
improved learner performance (Boyle et al 2005:22; Lee 2005:39). Besides
the accumulation of PD points, many participants also described their experi-ences
of the current PD programmes offered to them. Although PD is crucial,
the specific type of PD has a definite influence on the effectiveness of PD.
Experiences of different types of programmes
Participants referred to two types of programmes they attended: official pro-grammes
offered by the Department of Education/district offices and private
PD programmes.
Official CPTD programmes
In all the interviews, participants were dissatisfied with the majority of official
PD programmes offered by their provincial Department of Education. Both the
scope and content of such programmes were areas of concern. Furthermore,
such programmes are without any application to particular learning areas and
have to be extensively adapted to suit teachers’ own needs. A teacher at School
B was quite adamant that she was not willing to attend official programmes any
longer because these “programmes are not up to standard.” Many participants
also criticised the theoretical nature of programmes. The HOD from School C
regarded the programmes as “very fundamental” with “little practical value”.
Officials were blamed for the poor PD quality of programmes, because they
did not understand what is going on at “ground level”.
Many participants also considered official programmes a waste of time and
money. Such programmes are often a mere repetition of what teachers al-ready
do and know, “just different sound tracks with the same content.” The
deputy head of School B called such programmes “warra-warra” (slang for
“meaningless talk”). The participants blamed the repetition of programmes
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 356 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

on the poor collaboration between district managers. However, the HOD of
School D believed that repetition was necessary, because the poor attendance
at workshops compels the department to repeat workshops to ensure that all
teachers are trained.
In particular, participants criticised the presenters of official programmes who
lack the necessary expertise and skills. This lack explains why many presenters
appear to rely predominantly on theory and often become defensive when the
audience asks questions. Participants prefer “knowledgeable” and “competent”
presenters who are “top achievers”, “experts”, “subject specialists”, “well
cognisant with my world” and proficient in English or the language of the PD
programme. The principal of School B succinctly expressed it as follows: “It
won’t help if you choose any Tom, Dick or Harry to study the programme for
which they have no passion or in which they have not had success before.”
The HOD of School C expressed his experience in this regard: “You’ll find
that it is Johannes teaching another Johannes” (an uninformed facilitator try-ing
357
to teach equally uninformed delegates).
The appropriate time for workshops was another area of concern; the differ-ent
schools did not agree on the best time to conduct PD programmes. Some
prefer PD at the beginning or the end of the year in order to plan effectively
for its implementation. Others favour weekdays after school, which was un-acceptable
for others who feel tired after a school day. Schools complained
about programmes offered during school hours that affected teaching time,
although the deputy head of School C suggested “take people for a whole
week and teach them from morning till afternoon … like the Mathew Goniwe
programme”. The principal of School C was in favour of PD during holidays
if that could lead to a formal qualification with adjusted remuneration. Unfor-tunately
holidays were “out” or “impossible” for other participants.
The issue of appropriate time raised another concern. Participants in School
B referred to the presenters’ lack of punctuality. One deputy head said: “The
session should begin at one o’clock and they only arrive at three o’clock.
Some don’t even come”. Moreover, presenters may even go so far as to tell
the participants that they had completed the session but that “it is now only
quarter past three and you need to stay till four .... Really, we are not children.”
The educators of School C compared the usual official programmes with those
offered by the Matthew Goniwe School of Leadership and Governance, which
is a non-profit section 21 company primarily funded by the Gauteng Depart-ment
of Education. The deputy head said: “It [Matthew Goniwe training] is
more like a hands-on training …. They do follow-ups and assessments and
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 357 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

Steyn
evaluations at the schools …. It should not be a top-down thing where they
come and lecture.”
The principal of School B expressed the hope that officials would change the
quality and style of their PD programmes: “It will be far better if the depart-ment
358
presents only one such a session than 200 workshops.” He referred to one
excellent, very costly official workshop he attended. It was the only official
programme where he ever felt confident to say: “Yes, I am in teaching.” The
others made him “morbid to be in education”.
Although participants in general were very negative about the majority of
official programmes, one deputy head of School B expressed her satisfaction
with an official programme on bullying. Apart from official programmes,
participants also expressed their views of private development programmes.
Private CPTD programmes
The participants of three schools felt that non-official PD programmes were
more effective, more practical and of a higher quality than official programmes.
The principal of School B referred to a list of private training programmes
his school uses for teachers. The school is also a member of the KDA (Kids
Development Academy) that organises workshops. “They are very expensive,
but are just magnificent courses, approximately R6 000 per person.” He re-garded
the presenters as specialists in a particular practice. It is the respon-sibility
of educators to share their knowledge and skills after attending such
programmes, so that more people can benefit from the training. However,
participants from School D who are also members of KDA did not share the
same positive experience of KDA programmes. They complained that their
educational needs were not met by these programmes.
Boyle et al (2005; 4), Mewborn and Huberty (2004:4), Lee (2005:4) and Van
Eekelen et al (2006:406) found that many PD programmes have, for various
reasons, not succeeded in developing teachers. Very often a “one size fits
all” approach is followed, which does not take into account the developmen-tal
needs of educators or the contextual factors of different schools (Brandt
2003:13; Desimone et al 2006:183; Mundry 2005:9). This is also supported by
the situated nature of cognition, which acknowledges the fact that CPTD has
to be strongly linked to actual contexts and situations of individual schools.
Since individuals are embedded in their sociocultural context (Paavola et al
2004), their behaviour cannot be understood independently of this context.
Contradictory to the findings in this study, research indicates that experts
from outside schools may not necessarily be effective (Boyle et al 2005:4;
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 358 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

Lee 2005:40). It again confirms that a technical and simplistic view of PD
may be ineffective if programmes are not properly planned to suit the needs
of individual schools (Desimone et al 2006:182). Thus the most fundamental
question should be whether PD programmes have had an impact on schools.
Impact of CPTD programmes on schools
In general, participants felt that many PD programmes and official programmes
in particular had little or no impact on their schools. The deputy head of School
C succinctly summed up the opinions: “Short courses are a waste of money ….
They do not have any impact. Quick fixes have never worked.”
It appeared that many participants agreed that private development programmes have
a better potential to impact on schools. For example, the development model used
by Matthew Goniwe ensures that their programme has an impact on the school. The
deputy head of School C explained: “If all of us are practising what they [Matthew
Goniwe] have taught us, obviously the culture of the school is going to change.”
The principal elaborated that “we [educators] do the training in smaller groups
and they [Matthew Goniwe] do follow-ups and assessments and evaluations at the
schools to see the impact of the programme …. In some instances where you find
an individual learning alone, there is no collaboration” in the school.
Educators who work together as teams were also mentioned as an important
factor in ensuring a positive change in schools. School D mentioned the success
of cluster meetings in their district and their experience of professional growth
during such meetings. One teacher said: “We have brilliant clusters and we work
through problems in our cluster.” Participants in School A disagreed, because they
felt that cluster leaders merely shared their own experiences during PD sessions,
and “you’re on your own” when teachers return to their schools. To aggravate
this, district leaders who should assist schools when implementing changes do
not know how to address problems.
Teachers in School A concurred that the “cascading system”, where an experienced
teacher attends a programme and returns to school to train colleagues, would be
more effective than compelling all teachers to attend programmes. This was also
supported by the principal of School D, who believed that ideally the principal or
deputy head should be trained and “then come back and train the educators ….
We had our own workshops on OBE where we came together and discussed the
material with great success.”
Determining the impact of PD is a critical and integral part of PD (Vincent &
Ross 2001:37). In essence, it needs to focus on the impact of a PD programme
in relation to teacher and learner outcomes (Knight & Wiseman 2005:403). As
359
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 359 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

Steyn
mentioned, improving learner performance through PD requires collaboration
between educator members (Lee 2005:45; Dymoke & Harrison 2006:78). A col-legial
360
culture also creates more effective teaching and ownership of teachers’
own professional learning (Boyle et al 2005:4; Dymoke & Harrison 2006:80; Lee
2005:40). Moreover, it contributes to developing a positive school culture that is
committed to creating better learning opportunities for all learners (Robinson &
Carrington 2002:240; Rhodes and Houghton-Hill 2000:431).
Conclusion
Ongoing PD for teachers is essential if quality education for learners is to be pro-vided.
PD should therefore remain a priority, since the outcomes of such efforts
will ensure that the enhancement of teaching and learning can be accomplished
(Heaney 2004:45).
This study explored the views held by educators on PD and in particular CPTD.
Participants in the study were unanimous in their views of CPTD, irrespective of
the school’s socio-economic status. Although they were supportive of the impor-tance
of PD, their perceptions also illuminated the myriad challenges associated
with implementing effective CPTD in practice. One of the great challenges is to
motivate teachers to become committed to their own development and learning.
The punitive measure that “teachers who do not achieve a minimum number of
PD points over two successive cycles of three years will be accountable to SACE
for such failure” (Department of Education 2007:20) may not have much effect on
poorly performing teachers. Another challenge is thus to encourage a collabora-tive
culture in schools under the supportive leadership of school managers. The
necessity of accumulating PD points in the National Policy Framework emphasises
the development of individual teachers, but neglects to show the importance of
teacher collaboration and a more collegial culture in schools.
The following recommendations are made for the effective implementation of
CPTD:
• Nurture and develop a positive attitude and commitment to CPTD. A
positive attitude towards teaching and CPTD is vital for the successful
implementation of programmes.
• Ensure collaboration between leadership and educators. To ensure effec-tive
CPTD it is necessary for educators and leadership to collaboratively
identify such needs, as well as appropriate CPTD programmes to meet
those needs.
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 360 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

• Officially recognise teachers’ development. This can be done with PD
points as stipulated by the National Policy Framework, but also when
cascading is done at schools by educator members who attend the CPTD
programmes or with salary increases in the case of qualifications.
• Provide effective CPTD. Reconsider accumulation of PD points to change
the attitudes of educators; provide quality, hands-on, practical training;
identify expert presenters who are knowledgeable about teaching prac-tice;
identify suitable times for CPTD; provide feedback and support after
CPTD; ensure that district officials (and other officials) are knowledgeable
about CPTD; ascertain effective collaboration and support between district
officials and schools for CPTD.
The findings of the study should be regarded as tentative. They highlight edu-cators’
perceptions of PD in general and CPTD in particular, their experience
of types of PD programmes, and the impact of such programmes on schools.
It is clear that more extensive research is required, over a longer period of
time and in a wider range of settings in South Africa, to test the findings of
this study. Nevertheless, the study shows that new CPTD strategies may be
required to equip teachers for a constantly changing context in South Africa.
References
Anonymous. 2001/2002. New Educators’ Development Standards Issued.
Reading Today, 19(3):17-18.
Bernauer, J. 2002. Five Keys to Unlock Continuous Improvement. Kappa
Delta Pi Record, 38(2):89-92.
Bezzina, C. 2002. Preparing a Model of Professional Development Schools
in Malta. Curriculum and Teaching, 17(2):73-84.
Birman, B.F., Desimone, L, Porter, A.C. & Garet, M.S. 2000. Designing
Professional Development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8):28-33.
Blackmore, J. 2000. Developing Conditions to Teacher Professional Renewal.
Teacher Learning Network, 7(1):3-5.
Bolam, R. 2003. Professional development and professionalism. In T. Bell
& L Bell (eds). The principles and practice of educational management.
London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Boyle, B., Lamprianou, I. & Boyle, T. 2005. A Longitudinal Study of Teacher
Change: What makes Professional Development Effective? Report of the
Second Year of the Study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
16(1):1-27.
Brandt, R. 2003. Is this School a Learning Organisation? 10 Ways to Tell.
Journal of Educators Development, 24(1):10-17.
361
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 361 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

Steyn
Burns, N. & Grove S.K. 2005. The practice of nursing research. 5th edition.
Missouri: Elsevier Saunders.
Burke, K. 1997. Responding to Participants’ Learning Styles during Educators’
Development. Clearing-House, 70(6):299-301.
Chalmers, L. & Keown, P. 2006. Communities of Practice and Professional
Development. International Journal of Lifelong Learning, 25(2):139-156.
Creswell, J.W. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among
five approaches. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Richardson, N. 2009. Teacher Learning. Educational
Leadership, 66(5):46-53.
Daymon, C. & Holloway, I. 2002. Qualitative research in public relations and
marketing communications. London: Routledge.
Department of Education. 2007. National Education Policy Act, 1996 (Act No.
27 of 1996). Volume 502, Number 29832. Government Gazette 26 April
2007. Pretoria: Government Printer.
Desimone, L.M., Smith, T.M. & Ueno, K. 2006. Are Teachers who Sustained,
Content-focused Professional Development getting it? An Administrator’s
Dilemma. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2):179-215.
Dymoke, S. & Harrison, J.K. 2006. Professional Development and the
Beginning Teacher: Issues of Teacher Autonomy and Institutional
Conformity in the Performance Review Process. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 32(1):71-92.
De Vos, A.S. 2005. Qualitative data analysis and interpretation. In A.S. de Vos
(ed). Research at grass roots: A primer for the caring professions. Pretoria:
JL van Schaik.
Heaney, L. 2004. Leading Professional Development: A Case Study. The
International Journal of Educational Management, 18(1):37-48.
Hirsh, S. 2005. Professional Development and Closing the Achievement Gap.
Theory into Practice, 44(1):38-44.
Hodkinson, H. & Hodkinson, P. 2005. Improving School Teachers’ Workplace
Learning. Research Papers in Education, 20(2):109-131.
Ho-Ming, N.G. & Ping-Yan, C. 1999. School-based Teacher Development in
Guangzhou, China. International Studies in Educational Administration,
27(2):32-42.
Johnson, J.M. 2002. In-depth interviewing. In J.F. Gubrium & J.A. Holstein
(eds). Handbook of interview research: context and method. Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Johnson, B. & Christenson, L. 2000. Educational research. Quantitative and
qualitative approaches. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
362
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 362 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

King, M.B. & Newman, F.M. 2001. Building School Capacity through
Professional Development: Conceptual and Empirical Considerations. The
International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2):86-94.
Knight, S.L. & Wiseman, D.L. 2005. Professional Development for Teachers
of Diverse Students: A Summary of the Research. Journal of Education
for Students placed at Risk, 10(4):387-405.
Lam, Y.L.J. & Pang, S.N. 2003. The Relative Effects of Environmental, Internal
and Contextual Factors on Organisational Learning: The Case of Hong
Kong Schools under Reforms. The Learning Organisation, 10(2):83-97.
Lee, H.L. 2005. Developing a Professional Development Programme Model
Based on Teachers’ Needs. The Professional Educator, XXVII(1 & 2):39-49.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. London: Sage.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. 1999. Establishing trustworthiness. In A. Bryman
& R.G. Burgess (eds). Qualitative research. London: Sage.
Mahoney, M.J. 2003. Constructivism growing. Copy of handout distributed
at the 8th International Congress of Constructivism, Bari, Italy, June 2003.
http://www.homerweb.com/cache.html?a=cachedContent&id=315960&a2=
web (accessed on 25 June 2009).
Marshall, P. 1998. Research methods: how to design a successful project.
Oxford: How To Books.
McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher, S. 2006. Research in Education. Evidence-based
363
inquiry. 6th edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Meadows, K.A. 2003. So You Want to do Research? 1: An Overview of the
Research Process. British Journal of Community Nursing, 8(8):369-375.
Mewborn, D.S. & Huberty, P.D. 2004. A Site-based Model for Professional
Development at the Elementary School Level. Pythagoras, June, 2-7.
Moore, K.B. 2000. Successful and Effective Professional Development.
Scholastic Early Childhood Today, 15(3):14-16.
Mundry, S. 2005. Changing Perspectives in Professional Development. Science
Educator, 14(1): 9-15.
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L. & Hakkarainen, K. 2004. Models of Innovative
Knowledge Communities and Three Metaphors of Learning. Review of
Educational Research, 74(4):557-576.
Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd edition.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Pehkonen, E. & Törner, G. 1999. Teachers’ Professional Development: What
are the Key Change Factors for Mathematics Teachers? European Journal
of Teacher Education, 22(2-3):259-275.
Rademeyer, A. 2007. Pandor wys die armste skoolgroepe. Beeld, 27
September: 5.
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 363 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

Steyn
Robinson, R. & Carrington, S. 2002. Professional Development for Inclusive
Schooling. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(5):239-
247.
Richardson, V. 2003. The Dilemmas of Professional Development. Phi Delta
Kappan, 84(5):401-406.
Rhodes, C. & Houghton-Hill, S. 2000. The Linkage of Continuing Professional
Development and the Classroom Experience of Pupils: Barriers Perceived
by Senior Managers in some Secondary Schools. Journal of In-Service
Education, 26(3):423-435.
Rudestam, K.E. & Newton, R.R. 2001. Surviving your dissertation. A
comprehensive guide to content and process. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications.
Shaw, T. 2003. Professional Development Potluck: Successful Programmes offer
a dish for every Taste. Multimedia Schools, 0(2):39-41.
Somers, J. & Sikorova, E. 2002. The Effectiveness of In-service Education on
Teachers’ Course for Influencing Teachers’ Practice. Journal of In-Service
Education, 28(1):95-114.
Sparks, D. 2003. Change Agent. Journal of Educators’ Development, 24(1):55-59.
Tyrell, K. 2000. Professional Development in Education: More Questions than
Answers. Education Review, 14(1):14-17.
Van Eekelen, I.M, Vermunt, J.D. & Boshuizen, H.P.A. 2006. Exploring Teachers’
will to Learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22:408-423.
Van Veen, K. & Sleegers, P. (2006). How Does it Feel? Teachers’ Emotions in
Context of Change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(1):85-111.
Visagie, R.G. 2009. Appreciative merger and acquisition team coaching to facilitate
managers’ mental health in a cross-cultural context. DCur thesis, University
of Johannesburg.
Vincent, A. & Ross, D. 2001. Personalize Training: Determine Learning
Styles, Personality types and Multiple Intelligence Online. The Learning
Organisation, 8(1):36-43.
Wanzare, Z. & Ward, K.L. 2000. Rethinking Educators’ Development in
Kenya: Agenda for the Twenty-first Century. The International Journal of
Educational Management, 14(6):1-14.
Warren, C.A.B. 2002. Qualitative interviewing. In J.F. Gubrium & J.A.
Holstein (eds). Handbook of interview research: context and method.
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Wenger, E. 2007. Communities of practice. Third annual National Qualifications
Framework Colloqium. 5 June 2007. Velmore Conference Estate
Yu, H, Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. 2000. The Effects of Ttransformational
Leadership on Teachers’ Commitment to Change in Hong Kong. Journal
of Educational Administration, 40(4):368-389.
364
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 364 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

365
Table 1: Types of school
Type of school Location of the school Socio-economic status of
the school
School A: a parallel-medium
primary
school with 627 learners
(previously a Model C
school)
Urban, within a middle-class
community
52% of learners
from previously
disadvantaged groups
A Quintile 4 school
where many learners are
exempted from school
fees
School B: an Afrikaans-medium
primary school
with approximately 1 400
learners (previously a
Model C school)
Urban, within a more
affluent community that
includes both affluent
and middle-class families
A Quintile 5 school where
only 8% of learners are
fees
School C: a combined
school (Grade R to 12)
with 1 635 learners
Located in a peri-urban
informal settlement
The majority of parents
are unemployed
A Quintile 1 school
where all learners are
fees
School D: an English-medium
high school with
670 learners (previously a
Model C school)
Rural school that
includes middle-class to
affluent families
A Quintile 5 school
Only 8% of families are
fees
AER 6-2-9 Steyn.indd 365 2010/04/15 10:34:13 AM

Cpdt aer 2010

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Similar to Cpdt aer 2010

Similar to Cpdt aer 2010 (20)

More from steyngm1

More from steyngm1 (15)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Cpdt aer 2010