MANAGEMENT OF EDUCATION: THE ROLE OF EDUCATION

OmCERS IN TURBULENT TIMESI

Akhila Nand Sharma and Meghnath Krishna

Introduction

Social life is filled with contradictions and the work of education officers (EOS) is
no exception. The origin of these contradictions lies in the shifting balance
between environmental turbulence that favours an approach which is flexible and
facilitative, and environmental stability, that makes possible planning for longterm
coherence. Turbulence refers to the organisational state where internal systems and
procedures are rapidly subjected to pressures and demands emanating from
environmental changes. Paradigm shifts in education from a social welfare
perspective to that of economic restructuring, simultaneous centralisation of policy
control function and devolution of certain management and service functions, are
recent examples of factors that have caused turbulence in educational
organisations. Conversely, stability would denote the continuance of existing
practices within the education system, uninfluenced by internal and/or external
changes and demands (Fullan 1993, Wallace and McMahon 1994). Some short-
term changes and adjustments may disturb the internal relationships and
alignments. To preserve these internal relationships and alignments, therefore,
some form of long-term coherence becomes necessary.

This paper discusses the role of EOS in the present turbulent times in Fiji and
other small island countries of the Pacific. It begins by exploring the role of EOS
relating it to the relevant international literature. It goes on to suggest some ways
in which EOS might rethink their present and future roles and responsibilities. The
main focus of this paper is on the primary functions of EOS, that is, the creation of
opportunities for the provision of quality education

1 This is a revised version of a paper presented by Dr Akhila Nand Sharma and Mr Meghnath Krishna
at the 1996 HANNS-SEIDAL Foundation Seminar for Education Officers at CATD, Nadave, Fiji, on
5 March 1996.

25
for learners - children as well as adults. Of course this function is shared by their •
colleagues at the levels above and below them. The term 'education officers' in
this paper refers to officers ranging from Chief Education Officers to District
Education Officers in Fiji's education system.

The role of education officers

As middle level managers in the education system, education officers play an

increasingly important role in executing government's education policies. In doing
so they interpret, prioritise, implement, monitor, supervise and evaluate the
respective policies, programmes and projects. They also provide feedback from
policy users to policy makers so that any shortcomings can be addressed. It can be
said, therefore, that EOS perform a 'cushioning' role between policymakers and
policy-users.

In the small island states of the Pacific in general, and Fiji in particular, the role of
the EOS has been largely 'inspectorial' and 'fault finding'. Velayutham (1988: 61)
explains inspection as:

a process by which the organisation or its external authority

monitors the organisational activities and ensures that the
minimum standards of services and facilities are provided, and
the assigned goals and objectives are achieved.

Velayutham (1988) advocates a supervisory leadership role for educational

administrators or managers and not inspection. He considers 'supervision' as a
process of improving the teaching-learning process and the conditions related to
it. The supervisory leadership role has not been sufficiently demonstrated in the
present work of EOS in Fiji and other island nations of the Pacific.

The inspectorial role of EOS has been inherited largely from the colonial era. The
education systems in these countries have continued to be academic and Western
in orientation. Emphasis on credentials and preparation of students for externally-
set examinations have continued in the post-independence period. The
inspectorial style of discourse that was brought in by the colonial administrators
has been maintained to a large extent in the present day work of EOS. This is
because most educational administrators, and parents alike, felt that this was the

26
most appropriate approach to control the teaching-learning situation in an
examination-oriented system.

In the case of Fiji, the basic role of EOS is drawn from PSC circular No. 7/83.
This document also shows the relationship among the various administrative and
professional levels of the education system. After a cursory look at the various
duty statement documents, it can be safely argued that the present work of EOS is
geared largely to seeking conformity and stability rather addressing
inconsistencies and suggesting desirable changes. For example, this is seen clearly
in the job description of senior education officers. It specifies the duties and the
percentage of time spent on each. In the present context of a dynamically complex
environment (Fullan 1993, Wallace and McMahon 1994) and an unknowable
future (Stacey 1992) in Fiji and other island nations of the Pacific, any ready-
made duty statement would be superficial. Now that these countries are
independent and are charting their own courses of national development,
education in general has a more dynamic role to play. As 'key players' in the
education system, the role of the EOS needs to be more facilitative, enabling and
creative. Their duty statements should clearly have a 'decision-making space' that
can accommodate working resolution of the tension between seeking coherence
and yet retaining flexibility. This suggestion finds support in Qovu's (1996) study.
He notes that often principals are not able to comply with their written duty
statements because of the many unanticipated demands on their time.

It must be noted that the lack of success of schooling in Fiji and other island
nations of the Pacific has led to changes directed at improvements at the school
level. Studies in this regard have stressed the need for instructional leaders at the
school level (Velayutham 1988, Sharma 1992), improved teacher (Muralidhar
1989) and administrator (Velayutham 1994, Sharma 1996) preparation, increased
teacher and parental participation in school site management (Sharma 1993) and a
host of pedagogy-related changes directed at upgrading the quality of education
(Thaman 1993).

There is insufficient similar research-based information on the effectiveness of the

contribution of EOS in Fiji as well as international literature. But do EOS in
reality have any impact on school heads, teachers, learners and parents'? This is a
critical question that needs exploration. Barr and Dreeben (1983: 3) remind us that
"education would be a strange organisation indeed, if superintendents had no

27
impact upon principals... Similarly, Pfeffer explains that leaders at the higher
organisational levels should have greater impact on the quality of education
because, being in a centralised set-up, they have more exposure to educational
innovations and have more discretion in decisions and activities.

Bhindi (1988), however, points out that the work of EOS in the Pacific is
administratively decentralised. In other words, while the decision-making power
remains with the Ministry of Education headquarters, facilities and services are
deconcentrated for administrative convenience. Bhindi (1988: 19) goes on to point
out that:

the provision of divisional education offices in Fiji, area offices

in Tonga, and district 'desks' in the Ministry of Education in
Kiribati address the questions of efficiency, improved services,
and implementation of national government policies. The
education officers serving in these offices have prescribed roles
with defined, limited authority. The offices operate as "
agencies" or "branches" of the Ministry of Education
headquarters.

This paper, therefore, argues for increased involvement of EOS at the school level
in Fiji and other Pacific countries. It is likely that such involvement will create a
more balanced system of both centralised and decentralised control of education.
With this new image of EOS and the emerging trends of school-site management
and teacher professionalism, the promotion of quality education becomes the
responsibility of everyone rather than that of school level personnel only. For this
to happen, it is necessary for those taking up the job of EOS to be successful
instructional leaders and facilitators. This is because they can be influential in the
development of goals at various levels in the education system, the selection and
supervision of school heads and teachers and the establishment of school, district
and nation-wide instruction and curriculum plans. With instructional leadership
experience, they can contribute enormously to creating many of the organisational
conditions for quality education.

The relevant international literature (see for example Abbot and Caraches 1988,
Musella and Leithwood 1988) suggests that there is little top-down 'reach' into the
classrooms. In the case of Fiji, many EOS consider establishing a good

28
relationship with school boards and teachers as more important than improving the
learning process. While the role of school principals is curriculum facilitation
(Sharma 1992), this paper argues that the most important role of EOS is the
facilitation of the teaching-learning process at the school level. Understandably all
education officers cannot reach the classroom; nevertheless, within their delegated
responsibility, the focus should be on the 'learner'.

Facilitative role

The present leadership role of EOS is clearly focused on power relationships,

generally in terms of a top-down model of power relationships, rooted in the
notions of classical bureaucracy (Abbot and Caracheo 1988). Reform literature
has, however, focused on the notions of participatory management or power from
the bottom rather than the top (Pfeffer 1981). Although educational management
in developed countries highlighted the need for such enlightened practices, no
serious attempts have been made to adopt them in the South Pacific. The few
school systems that attempted such changes did not ultimately succeed. A good
example of this is the school-based curriculum development initiative in the
United Kingdom. Moves are now being made there to return to a national
curriculum with a tight regulatory framework to monitor its delivery (Lofthouse
1994). In Fiji and most other Pacific countries, religious organisations and local
communities 'own' and/or 'manage' many schools. The origin of this pattern of
school management goes back to the colonial era when the respective
governments were unable to provide education to all their citizens. The practice
has continued in the post-independence era.

In this type of school governance, the EOS not only have to mediate national
education policies but also to facilitate the demands emanating from the local
communities. Dunlap and Goldman (1991) refer to the latter as a facilitative
management approach. According to them the concept of facilitative management
examines power in terms of a leader's activities designed to create or sustain
favourable conditions for the organisation to achieve its aims and objectives. It
allows individuals to enhance their individual and collective performance in an
organisation. The concept does not argue for either a topdown or a bottom-up
notion of power. Rather, it looks at the exercise of power by administrators in
terms of a set of assumptions about superiors, peers and subordinates.

29
Dunlap and Goldman (1991: 13-14) list the following four categories of activities
leaders engage in when they are employing a facilitative management approach:

They help arrange material resources that provide support

for educational activities.

They select and manage people who can work together

effectively, paying attention to both the skills and the
personalities that comprise the mix.

They supervise and monitor activities, not to exercise

hierarchical control, but to stress feedback and
reinforcement and to make suggestions.

They provide networks for activities, adding members to

groups, linking groups to activities elsewhere, helping
groups to "go public" with activities, and diffusing new
ideas.

As already emphasised, such a facilitative role can help in discovering some

working resolution of the tension between seeking coherence and retaining
stability. Further, this can also help build 'learning organisations' (Fullan 1995) in
which an EO can be seen as an initiator, facilitator, teacher, researcher and
learner. The new work of EOS in the Pacific should be to help build schools into
self-renewing learning organisations.

In a traditional sense, Pacific schools have been primarily the organisations for
formal learning. Writers such as Fullan (1993, 1995) and Velayutham (1996),
however, see educational institutions as learning organisations. According to them
such organisations can cultivate the desired and concerted action to learn from
their own past and present actions and experiences with new wavs of learning,
management and forging relationships. EOS have a significant role to play in this
direction. And to perform such responsibilities successfully, their leadership
qualities and their approaches will have to be transformational in character. In this
regard, EOS may find the following suggestions of Fullan (1993) beneficial: (a)
push for change but allow self-learning to unfold; (b) take work as a journey

30
rather than a destination; (c) see problems as friends and as sources of creative
resolution; (d) involve all concerned in vision building; (e) value both
individualism and collectivism; and (f) recognise every person as a useful member
of the team. Clearly the emphasis in Fullan's suggestions is on 'staff development'
and we also believe that this is the primary responsibility of EOs.

In brief, then, the new role of EOS that we are advocating has to be characterised
by strong leadership rather than following a well-written duty statement. This is
because educational reforms in post-modern society are inherently complex,
dynamic and highly political. Educational communities make contradictory and
competing demands on educational leaders (in this case EOS) and their
organisations. In this context, building learning organisations, employing a
facilitative approach, seems a correct career path for EOS. This notion finds
support in the following comments of Velayutham (1996:8):

The schools of the future will have to be learning organisations besides

serving as organisations for learning. Their leaders have to recognise
the dynamic complexities and rapidity of changes in and around their
schools.

Conclusion

All in all, three conclusions seem warranted. The first relates to the multiple roles
of EOS -as initiators, facilitators, teachers, learners and researchers. These roles
are not only 'all in one' but also different at different levels in the education
system. This is supported by Sharma's (1995) study of the Vocational Education
and Training Programme in secondary schools in Fiji. He found that EOS may be
the users of the policy at the Ministry headquarters level, but they are change
agents at the school level.

As initiators of educational innovations, EOS should be well informed of the

relevance of innovations, the readiness of people to receive them and the
resources needed to implement them. As facilitators, they must make provision
for vision-building, initiative-taking, evolutionary-planning and staff

31
development. In the teacher's role, they should provide opportunities for
individuals to release their potential and reward them for their initiative. As
researchers or learners, they take a 'critical' stance. Through action research and
self-reflection, it may be possible to address organisational issues and problems
and learn from their strengths and weaknesses.

The second conclusion relates to upgrading personal academic and professional

qualifications. This is made in light of the fact that 'education is a lifelong
process'. The South Pacific region is fortunate to have a regional university. There
are a number of programmes which the University offers through its external,
summer school and part-time modes. Its Educational Administration programme
is particularly relevant to the needs of EOS and other educational leaders. The
Governments of the Marshall and Solomon Islands, in collaboration with the
University of the South Pacific's Institute of Education (IOE), have introduced
this programme as in-country projects for their school heads and educational
leaders. Lecturers travel from the USP's Laucala Campus to these countries to
coordinate this programme. Both these governments have pointed out that the
preparation of school heads has not kept pace with the emergence of a large
number of secondary schools. A number of educational administrators in Kiribati
have benefited from the USP's Diploma in Educational Administration in-country
programme. Education officers from Fiji and other Pacific Island countries can
and should benefit from this programme as well.

The final conclusion is not new. This relates to a personal code of ethics. Ethics
here refers to 'what is right and what is wrong'. Besides the General Orders,
lessons on this can be obtained from any religious book. It is emphasised that in
the promotion of quality education, practices such as 'favouritism' and 'nepotism'
should not in any way interfere with the work of EOS.

Finally, over the years the work of EOS has become increasingly complex. The
job has never appeared more difficult as we know it through our previous
education-related experiences. The job, nonetheless, has become a more
interesting as well as a more challenging one.

32
References

Abbott, M. G. and Caracheo, F. (1988) Power, authority and bureaucracy. In N.

Boyan (Ed.) Handbook ofResearch on Educational Administration. New
York: Longman: 239-257.

Barr, R. and Dreenben, R. (1983) How Schools Work. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.

Bhindi, N. (1987) Decentralisation ofEducation in Solomon Islands and the Role

ofProvisional Education Officers. Unpublished PhD Thesis, St. Lucia,
Queensland.

Bhindi, N. (1989) Educational decentralisation movement in the Pacific. In ED

392 Issues in Educational Administration in the South Pacific Hand
Book. The University of the South Pacific Extension Services: 15-23.

Dunlap, D. M. and Goldman, P. (1991) Rethinking power in schooling.

Educational Administration Quarterly, Volume 27. l : 5-29.

Fullan, M. (1993) Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform.

London: Falmer Press.

Fullan, M. (1995) The evolution of change and the new work of the educational
leader. In Wong Kam-Cheung and Cheng Kai-Ming (eds.) Educational
Leadership and Change: An International Perspective. Hong Kong: Hong
Kong University Press.

Lofthouse, M. (1994) Managing the curriculum. In Tony Bush and John

WestBurnham (Eds.) The Principles of Educational Management. GB:
Longman : 139-155.

33
Muralidhar, S. (1989) An exploratory study of a science curriculum in action:
basic science in Fiji, Unpublished PhD. thesis, Monash University, Melbourne.

Musella, D. and Leithwood, K. (1988) The influence of chief education officers

on school effectiveness. Peabody Journal of Education, 65.4: 90-112.

Pfeffer, J. (1981) Power in Organisations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

Pfeffer, J. (1984) The ambiguity of leadership. In W, A, Rosenbach and R. L,

Taylor (eds.) Contemporary Issues in Leadership. Coulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Qovu, E. (1996) The Work Activities ofSelected Secondary School Principals in

Fiji. Unpublished MA Thesis , The University of the South Pacific.

Sharma, A. (1992) The principal as curriculum facilitator. Pacific Curriculum

Network, 1.1:18-19.

Sharma, A. (1993) The ethics of parental participation in school management.

Directions 29, 15.2:59-72.

Sharma, A. (1995) Management of Vocational Education and Training

Programmes in Fijian Secondary Schools (unpublished dissertation), The
University of Bristol.

Stacey, R. (1992) Managing the Unknowable, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Thaman, K. H. (1993) Culture and the curriculum in the South Pacific.

Comparative Education, 29.3:249-260.

34
Velayutham, T. (1988) Leadership and supervision. In ED391 Educational
Leadership and Supervision Course Book. The University of the South
Pacific Extension Services: 61-66.

Velayutham, T, (1994) Professionalism and partnership: A development dilemma

for schools. Directions 31, 16.2 :84-89.

Velayutham, T. (1996) Rediscovering the School as a Learning Organisation :

Becoming a Community ofInquiry. Keynote Address presented at
anAnservice workshop for Principals held at CATD, Nadave.

Wallace, M. and McMahon, A. (1994) Planning for Change in Turbulent Times,

GB: Cassell.

35