ISC Paper Template in A4 (V1)


Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

119 

 

 
Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning is licensed under  

A Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License. 

 

MIDDLE MANAGEMENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP: THE CASE OF 

NATURAL SCIENCES’ HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS IN SOUTH AFRICA 

Cynthia B Malinga1),  Loyiso C Jita2), Abiodun A Bada3) 

1) University of the Free State, South Africa 
 E-mail: cynthia.malinga@sasol.com  

2) University of the Free State, South Africa 
E-mail: JitaLC@ufs.ac.za  

3) University of the Free State, South Africa 
E-mail: Bada.AA@ufs.ac.za  

 

 

Abstract. Natural sciences heads of departments often find themselves in the middle, shuttling between one role as part 

of the school management team, and another as an ordinary classroom teacher whose role as subject and instructional 

leaders is made even more complex because of the several duties incorporated in the subject which brings together other 

science disciplines, with each having its own disciplinary culture and expectations. The crucial role played by this group 

of teachers in the area of management and instructional leadership can go a long way in determining effective output in 

teaching and learning. This study reports on a mixed methods approach to explore the practices of natural sciences heads 

of department, as they provide instructional leadership to the teachers in a multidisciplinary context of their subject. This 

research involved 30 participants who responded to the questionnaire and 6 purposively selected subject heads of 

department interviewed and observed from four districts in the Gauteng Province of South Africa. The data collected 

through questionnaire, semi-structured interview and observations were analysed using descriptive statistics and content 

analysis. The results from this investigation revealed that natural science heads of departments devise creative ways to 

mitigate the challenge of differently qualified natural science teachers. These study concludes that the effectiveness of 

heads of departments as instructional leaders is influenced by the immense pressure from the dual roles of managing 

from the middle, which also appear to affect the optimal implementation of the natural science curriculum 

Keywords: Head of department; Instructional leadership; Middle management; Natural sciences 

 

 

I. INTRODUCTION 

There is a growing scholarship in South Africa on the 

importance of instructional leadership in improving learning 

outcome in schools. Much of the research in this area 

focuses on the role of the school principal in instructional 

improvement (Bush, Glover, Bischoff, Moloi, Heystek & 

Joubert, 2006; Hoadley, Christie & Ward, 2009, Mestry, 

2017). One of the gaps in the research has been on the role 

of the heads of departments (HODs) as a key member of the 

school management team (SMT) responsible for 

instructional improvement in the school. Due to lack of 

attention given to HODs in both research and policy, there is 

confusion about the exact placement of the HODs position 

on the organogram in schools (Barnett, Shoho & Olewszeski, 

2012; Wanzare, 2013).  

The position of HODs is a formal position with 

concurrent powers and responsibilities. As middle managers, 

HODs operate somewhere between the SMT and only a 

professional level higher than teachers, but because of their 

teaching duties (which make up 85% of their time in South 

Africa), they often find themselves at the same level as 

teachers (DoE, 1999). Teaching takes most of their time and 

they have limited time for providing leadership (Glickman, 

Gordon & Ross-Gordon, 2011). Historically, HODs mostly 

served as a communication link between teachers and the 

management, without any evaluative power (Ng, Nguyen, 

Wong & Choy, 2015). Their role has evolved over the years 

to include being both leaders and followers (Spillane, 

Halverson & Diamond, 2004). In a typical South African 

public school, a science HOD would lead a team of science 

teachers but could also be teaching English and would have 

to comply with the demands and expectations from the 

English HOD, thus assuming the role of the follower. 

Science HODs have a more complex task of leading in a 

multidisciplinary context, where the offerings are less 

specialised. Natural Sciences (NS) is a multidisciplinary 

subject comprising four science disciplines viz., chemistry, 

earth sciences, life and physical sciences. It is a junior 

secondary subject that belongs to a group of science subjects 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
mailto:cynthia.malinga@sasol.com
mailto:JitaLC@ufs.ac.za
mailto:Bada.AA@ufs.ac.za


Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

120 

 

(Ng et al., 2015) constituting the science department in 

secondary schools. Spillane and Hopkins (2013) call this 

structural arrangement of departments in schools- ‘a system 

and organisational infrastructure’ (p2). This arrangement in 

secondary schools brings together a group of subjects like 

mathematics, mathematical literacy, agricultural, life, natural 

and physical sciences in South Africa. In this context NS 

lays the foundation for at least four high school subjects, viz., 

physical sciences (PS), life sciences (LS), geography and 

agricultural sciences. On the other hand, being a junior 

secondary school subject, NS tends to compete with subjects 

like mathematics and physical sciences for time and 

resources, which might have a higher status within the 

structural arrangement of science departments in schools. It 

is not likely that the NS teachers would be specialist in all 

the subjects listed above, nor would the science HODs who 

lead the subject departments. If no one is monitoring and 

providing guidance and support in NS instructional practices 

of these teachers, it will lead to poor learner performance in 

the subject (Spillane et al., 2003). 

One of the key science HOD tasks is to monitor NS 

instruction. In order to do this, the sciences HODs are 

expected by policy and practitioners to have knowledge of 

the subject and expertise in teaching it. As instructional 

leaders, they are expected to have subject competence in the 

classroom and sufficient subject teaching experience 

(Angelle & DeHart, 2011; Ghamrawi, 2010). The subject 

expertise and skills in leadership displayed by the HOD as a 

specialist (Ghamrawi, 2010) builds the confidence that the 

teachers have in her/him and enhances her/his professional 

credibility. Teachers need to be convinced of the leadership 

capacity of those who lead. The HOD should also show self-

esteem and have confidence in her/his own expertise 

(Wanzare, 2013).  

The position therefore demands that the HODs have the 

ability to influence members of their own department 

through influential relationships and desired behaviours 

(Spillane, Hallett & Diamond, 2003; Mestry, 2017). All 

these competencies and attributes of the HOD are essential 

to effectively fulfil the role of an instructional leader in the 

school. Literature reviewed to date shows that little or no 

research has been undertaken to understand the crucial role 

that these middle managers play in the teaching and learning 

processes of the school, and to identify the areas where 

support and development can further enhance this role. This 

study and its findings aim to make a contribution to the 

scholarship and practice of instructional leadership in 

schools.  

There is limited research on instructional leadership in 

South Africa. A number of studies focus on the effect of the 

quality of leadership of principals on teacher effectiveness 

and learner performance (Naicker, Chikoko & Mthiyane, 

2013) and on management of schools, but few studies focus 

on curriculum and instructional leadership in schools (Bush, 

Joubert, Kiggundu, & Van-Rooyen, 2010). Where leadership 

in schools is addressed, the studies tend to focus on 

principals as leaders in the schools, including being 

instructional leaders. There is limited, if any, focus on 

middle management in schools (Barnett et al., 2012; Koh, 

Gurr, Drysdale & Ang, 2011; OECD, 2011) globally and in 

South Africa. 

 A comprehensive study by Hoadley et al. (2009) 

investigated the management of curriculum at different 

secondary schools. This study focused on high schools and 

the principal as the instructional leader, and it was not 

subject specific. However, research suggests that principals 

are not in a position to influence classroom teaching directly, 

because they spend less time with teachers than HODs 

(Highfield, 2010; Lai & Cheung, 2013) who in contrast, 

spend more time with teachers and are therefore in a better 

position to influence their instructional practices. This makes 

the role of the HOD as part of the instructional leadership 

team essential to influencing the teaching processes and 

learning outcomes. 

Middle management is described differently in the 

literature. Several scholars describe middle management in 

schools such as lead teachers or teacher leaders (Stephenson, 

2010), senior teachers, department chairs (Skinner, 2007), 

master teachers and HODs (Brown, Rutherford & Boyle, 

2000; Turner, 2003). HODs are expected to be change 

agents for all the school reform initiatives on one hand, yet 

on another to foster effective teaching and learning in the 

classrooms (Angelle & DeHart, 2011). There is therefore a 

shift to label HODs as middle leadership, which involves 

managing people, resources and processes. Working with 

people would include influencing their behaviours and 

attitudes about instructional practice. 

HOD Roles and Responsibilities as Middle Managers 

Angelle and DeHart (2011), Spillane and Hopkins (2013) 

and Wanzare (2013) all agree that the legitimisation of the 

HOD role emanates from the acceptance by members of the 

subject department that the HOD is generally knowledgeable 

about the subject, possesses cross-grade level curricular 

knowledge and can develop teaching and learning materials 

like SBATS. Furthermore, HODs are expected to conduct 

classroom visits, demonstrate lessons, provide guidelines 

and provide teachers with helpful feedback to improve their 

teaching (Wanzare, 2013). They are also expected to set 

academic goals, standards for achievement, monitor 

achievement levels, evaluate practices and learning, 

maximise the effort of instructional organisation, appraisal 

and staff recruitment (Ng et al., 2015). However, the role of 

an HOD is complex, influenced by contextual factors and 

assumes different forms of leadership (Hallinger & Heck, 

2011). It is compounded by conflicting expectations from 

principals, teachers and HODs themselves. Very little is 

known about how HODs go about doing their work and their 

perspectives on what the role should entail (Stephenson, 

2010).  

In South Africa the Department of Basic Education (DBE) 

has realised that school leadership needs to be adequately 

prepared and developed (Bush, 2013) by introducing a 

certificate programme in school management and leadership 

for school principals (DoE, 2002). Numerous programmes 

have been instituted to achieve this goal; however, the focus 

has still been mostly on management and administration of 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

121 

 

schools and not on instructional leadership (Bush, Joubert, 

Kiggundu & van Rooyen, 2010). Furthermore, the focus is 

mostly on principals and not the school middle management. 

Even though principals may be specialists in some subject 

areas their role is whole school curriculum management 

rather than subject specific management. Curriculum in 

secondary schools is specialised and specialists like HODs 

contribute better in the development of subject instruction 

and improvement of subject performance.  

What seems to be missing is the development of school 

instructional leaders and even more important, the 

recognition of HODs as middle leaders that can be entrusted 

with the role of leading teaching and learning in the schools. 

In our experience as a teacher and a subject advisor, in the 

majority of South African junior and senior secondary 

schools, HODs are appointed into formal positions. Teacher 

leaders, other than HODs, in South Africa are not formal and 

they are sometimes chosen by teachers themselves as 

opposed to HODs or departments chairs (Guthrie & 

Schuermann, 2010; Skinner, 2007) where the candidate 

him/herself would contest for the position. In other countries 

like New Zealand and Hong Kong teacher leaders are 

nominated by teachers based on their expertise (Lai & 

Cheung, 2013; Stephenson, 2010). Literature also reports 

that teacher leaders are sometimes brought in by a project in 

the school or district and when the project closes or exits the 

positions also cease (Stephenson, 2010). Teacher leaders 

tend to focus on the classroom, the teacher and learning. 

Some teacher leaders do not teach because they focus on 

assisting different teachers in the implementation of 

curriculum in the classrooms and not on managerial and 

administrative duties like HODs. 

 

Subject-specific Instructional Leadership 

Middle management in schools comprises managers who 

are experts in their fields, usually a subject. Although a large 

amount of research has been done on curriculum 

implementation in South Africa (Kriek & Basson, 2008), 

little has been done on instructional leadership in NS and 

how it shapes the teachers’ instructional practices. 

Instructional leadership research is an emerging area that is 

currently poorly understood. The enhancement of this 

limited instructional leadership research in South Africa 

calls for subject-specific instructional leadership research to 

accommodate all the nuances of the subject, its philosophies, 

cultures, principles and beliefs, held by teachers, learners 

and parents about the subject.  

Instructional leadership is a set of leadership practices 

involving planning, evaluation, coordination and 

improvement of teaching and learning (Robinson, 2010). It 

involves sharing a vision with followers, monitoring the 

instruction and assessment standards, allocating resources 

and reflecting on the outcome of the instruction (Lai & 

Cheung, 2013). Skinner (2007) describes it as an ongoing 

process of providing professional support for other teachers 

and facilitating the movement towards a more collaborative 

and effective teaching of learners for the purpose of overall 

improvement of schooling. All these descriptions vary in 

their focus and as researchers, we find instructional 

leadership to be about having a vision that influences the 

quality of instructional practices and teaching choices that 

teachers make which lead to improved learning achievement 

by learners and teachers themselves. Although subject-

specific leadership would concern itself with one particular 

subject, ensuring that the subject instruction is advanced and 

the performance of learners in the subject is improved, the 

aggregate effect if all subjects improved would result in the 

whole school improvement. 

 

The Subject- Natural Sciences 

Unlike their senior secondary school counterparts, the 

primary and junior secondary science HODs have a more 

complex task of having to lead in a multidisciplinary context 

of NS, which often includes physics, chemistry, life, earth, 

environmental and agricultural science disciplines for 

example. Though a foundational subject, NS is usually 

taught by teachers who are either generalists or specialists in 

only one or occasionally two of the five NS domains. 

Specialists are likely to occasionally leave out the sections 

they are not specialists in (Ng et al., 2015) while generalists 

seem not to adequately provide the depth of the different 

discipline. This shallow exposure to the subject results in 

learners who are poorly prepared to engage with the science 

content meaningfully. 

The grouping of subject-disciplines under NS is likely to 

pose challenges to the HODs, who may be expected to 

provide leadership in areas some of which they have no 

expertise in, or where followers’ (teachers) may have more 

expertise than the HODs. NS or integrated science is not 

unique to South Africa though, but is offered in other 

countries such as in USA (California and Colorado), 

BOLESWA (Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland) countries, 

Nigeria and Malaysia. In Malaysia for example the 

prominent challenges of integrated science involved 

delivering and managing science instruction, and 

administering science instructional facilities and equipment.  

 Teachers of various educational backgrounds teaching 

science subjects were common in most schools. This 

resulted in teachers with various subject majors’ background 

often required to teach science subjects which they were not 

trained for (Osman, Halim & Meerah, 2006). For South 

African schools the challenge is how the local department of 

education equips the schools to meet this demand for better 

qualified teachers and subject leaders.  

 

Conceptual Framework 

The role of subject leadership is context dependent and 

there is no one hymn sheet for leading the same department 

in different schools (Hallinger & Heck 2011). The actions of 

the HODs often depend on the leader him/herself, the task 

that needs to be performed, the departmental staff or 

followers and the situation (Timperley, 2005). To understand 

the work of the HODs fully, this paper proposes a 

conceptual framework that marries Turner and Bolam’s 

provisional model (Turner & Bolam, 1998) with the teacher 

leadership framework proposed by York-Barr and Duke 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

122 

 

(2004). We introduce the component of reflection into the 

extent of the influence of the leadership on the teaching and 

the learning outcomes. The framework is based on the 

research into the effects of the roles and characteristics of 

HODs as instructional leaders. Six major components of 

instructional leadership by HODs have been identified in the 

literature and are discussed here under. 

The first three components could be viewed as inputs into 

the subject leadership system. The first component focuses 

on the personal profile of the HOD like subject proficiency, 

experience in the subject (Smith, Mestry, & Bambie, 2013), 

professional credibility, trustworthiness, the agency of the 

HOD in resourcing the subject department. The second 

component is the role expectations which include vision 

setting, building relationships, collegiality, developing 

teachers and how leadership is distributed among members 

of the department (Koh et al., 2011). The third component is 

contextual (social, political, economic and cultural) factors 

and school conditions which the HOD negotiates his/her 

influence through (Robinson, 2010; Bendikson, Robinson & 

Hattie, 2012).  

The fourth component is the process of influencing 

teaching choices through aligning instruction with 

assessment, planning instruction, developing reflective 

practice using interpersonal skills to establish trusting and 

collaborative relationships not only formally but also 

through informal collegial activities (Barnett & Aagaard, 

2007). The fifth component of administration and 

management involves the overarching role of managing 

people and resources (see figure 1). This component 

contributes to how the other components interact to achieve 

the goals of the department and the school. 

 
Fig. 1 Abridged version of the conceptual framework for leading instruction. 

(Adapted from Turner & Bolam, 1998; York-Barr & Duke, 2004) 

 

The sixth and last component introduces the feedback and 

evaluation of the effectiveness aspect of leadership. It 

involves critical reflection by individuals, teams, and the 

organisation, mentorship and dialogues about effectiveness 

of instructional practices and learners’ work (Lashway, 

2002). The HOD consistently monitors the alignment of 

curriculum, instruction and assessment standards using data 

and technology to ensure accountability for performance in 

the classroom (Nguyen & Ng, 2014). This component 

provides the feedback to other components of the framework 

(Bendikson et al., 2012).  

The findings from the evaluation form the basis on which 

the other components are modified and enhanced to achieve 

the set goals. The main outcome of schooling and focus of 

the framework is to achieve effective teaching practices and 

improved learning outcomes within the department and 

school. This outcome is affected by all six components and 

has feedback effects to all the other components. Using the 

conceptual framework developed in Fig. 1, we then ask the 

key questions of our study: What are the experiences of 

science HODs as they lead natural sciences instruction? How 

can the capacity of science HODs be enhanced to provide 

effective instructional leadership? 

 

II. METHODS 

This investigation adopted the mixed methods approach. 

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to explore, 

from HODs’ perspectives, how they provided instructional 

leadership for NS using self-reported data from two 

sequential strands (Cresswell & Plano-Clark, 2011). We 

employed a quantitative questionnaire strand, which was 

followed by a qualitative strand comprising individual semi-

structured interviews, meeting observations and 

documentary analysis in order to attain a better 

understanding of the research topic while ensuring that meta-

inferences that would be made were valid and justified. The 

mixed method approach enabled probing for trends that 

emerged from responses to the questionnaires and these were 

validated using purposefully selected HODs’ interviews, the 

analysis of artefacts and meeting observations. The 

qualitative and quantitative findings were integrated at the 

final stages to create meta-inferences that provided more 

insightful and complete answers to research questions.  

 

Mixed Methods Sampling 

Questionnaires were sent to 243 schools and in total 112 

schools from four Gauteng Provincial Districts participated 

in the quantitative study. A subset of this sample (Teddlie & 

Yu, 2007) was selected for in-depth semi-structured 

interviews, participant observations of department/subject 

meetings and document analysis. The first phase collected 

data from science HODs and NS teachers from four districts 

using questionnaires. The second phase involved 

interviewing a purposive, stratified sample of science HODs 

and NS teachers, although this paper will only discuss the 

interviews with the HODs. Subject meetings observations 

were conducted and document analysis of meeting minutes, 

HODs and teacher files were also examined. 

 

Data Collection 

We used a mixed methods study of six schools from four 

districts in the Gauteng Province, to examine how HODs 

perceived their role as NS instructional leaders in their 

schools. We specifically examined what subjects HODs 

taught and whether they had release time to carry out their 

HOD duties; what practices they enacted in order to meet NS 

teachers’ expectations of their role; what administrative and 

compliance activities they carried out; and the kinds of 

support that they received from the schools and the local 

district offices. In this study, we identified different means 

of influencing teaching and learning and explored ways in 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

123 

 

which HODs mitigate the challenges that they encountered 

to support instruction. This is because learners’ achievement 

is affected by core leadership practices such as setting 

directions, developing staff, developing the organisation 

culture and managing the instructional program (Mestry, 

2017).  

The is clearly supported by Hallinger and Heck (2011) 

who confirms that leadership is enacted within the practical 

constraints of a local context.We recorded responses of all 

science HODs in the sampled schools and focused on the 

biographical data of NS teachers in order to understand the 

profile of the teachers that science HODs had to lead. 

Secondly, we focused on the role demands on HODs’ time. 

These included instructional, administrative, management 

and leadership activities (Brown, Rutherford & Boyle, 2000; 

Koh, Gurr, Drysdale & Ang, 2011) that science HODs spent 

most of their time in and got allocated to do. We also 

explored the decisions they made as middle managers 

regarding managing some of the departmental routines 

(Spillane & Hopkins, 2013). We explored these activities to 

understand how their impact would be felt by the calibre of 

the NS teachers as displayed by the biographical data. The 

third focus is on the support and professional development 

that HODs themselves needed in order to be able to carry out 

their leadership duties effectively and whether principals and 

subject advisors provided any support. 

 

Mixed Methods Analysis 

Mixed methods data analysis involved analysis techniques 

from the quantitative and the qualitative approach, as well as 

a mixture of the two forms of data sequentially in this study. 

We received questionnaire responses from 30 HODs out of a 

total of 112 schools that participated in the study from four 

districts in the Gauteng Province. The HODs’ instructional 

leadership activities were rated on the basis of how 

frequently they did them (1 indicated ‘never’ while 5 

indicated ‘always’). Some descriptive statistical analysis was 

done on the quantitative data and these results could not be 

generalized outside this study setting. The semi-structured 

interviews with six HODs were audio-taped and transcribed 

and field notes of the meeting discussions were taken. We 

conducted content analysis of interview data, field notes, 

department files and educator files, learners’ activity books 

and discourse analysis of minutes of department meetings. 

Several patterns were identified in Phase 1 (quantitative 

strand) which became the basis for Phase 2 (qualitative 

strand) data collection. In Phase 2, interview transcripts were 

coded for HODs’ perspectives on leading and managing NS 

instruction using an open coding strategy (Strauss & Corbin, 

1990). We then analysed coded data and identified patterns 

and checked their prevalence across schools. In order to 

ensure anonymity and confidentiality of the participants, we 

adopted the use of codes for the six participants that were 

interviewed, such as (PT1, PT2… PT6). 

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

The results from this study show some trends of practices 

that HODs engaged in to support NS teachers. The findings 

provide actual experiences of HODs and how they got 

around some of the challenges they meet in providing NS 

instructional leadership. We look first at the profiles of 

HODs in the study and the sizes of science departments. 

 

Profile of HODs 

We followed up six HODs from two districts. Table I 

shows the profile of the HODs followed up while Table II 

shows the demographic distribution of all the HODs who 

participated in this study. 

 
TABLE I 

PROFILE OF HODS THAT WE FOLLOWED UP 
Name School/school 

type 

Age 

range 

Gen

der 

Institution of 

professional 

qualification 

Special

isation  

Subject

s in the 

depart

ment 

PT1 Alpha/ semirural 40-49 M Teachers’ College Maths NS, 

Maths, 

Math 

Lite. 

PT2 Fhutura/township 30-39 M University NS Tech, 

PS, LS, 

NS 

PT3 Knowledge/ 

township 

50-59 F Teachers’ College LS NS 

PT4 Mooredale/urban 40-49 F University maths Maths, 

PS, LS, 

NS & 

Math 

Lite. 

PT5 Promise/ 

township 

30-39 M Teachers’ College  PS NS, LS 

and PS 

PT6 Sheba/ township 40-49 M University PS NS, 

PS,LS 

Maths-mathematics; Math Lite-mathematical literacy, LS- 

life sciences, NS-natural sciences, PS –physical sciences, 

Tech-technology 

 

These HODs were part of the bigger study of 30 HODs 

who had returned their questionnaires. There were more 

females in the study compared to males, with 17 (56.67%) of 

the participants being women compared to only 13 (43.33%) 

men. Most of the HODs were in the 40-49 and 50-59 age 

groups which accounted for 13 teachers (43.33%) 

respectively. Only four HODs (13.34%) were in the 30-39 

age group. 

Most of the HODs (11) had the Secondary Teachers 

Diploma (STD) as their highest educational qualification and 

they formed 36.67% of the whole study sample. Only 4 

(13.33%) of the participants held a degree, whilst 5 (16.67%) 

held a post graduate diploma and the same frequency, 5 

(16.67%), held Honours Degrees. The majority of the HODs, 

10 HODs (33%) had majored either in life sciences or 

physical sciences. Only 7 HODs (23.34%) specialised in NS 

and the remaining 3 HODs (10%) had other specialisations. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

124 

 

TABLE II 

DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF HODS 

Variable Level Frequency Total (n)  

Overall  N(%) 30 

Sex Male  

Female 

13 (43.33) 

17 (56.67) 

 

30 

Age 30-39 

40-49 

50-59 

4(13.34) 

13 (43.33) 

13 (43.33) 

 

30 

Subject of 

Specialisation 

Life or Biological 

Sciences 

Physical Sciences 

Natural Sciences 

Other 

10 (33.33) 

10 (33.33) 

7 (23.34) 

3(10.0) 

 

 

 

30 

Type of Institution 

where qualification 

was obtained 

Teachers’ college 

University 

20 (66.67) 

10 (33.33) 

 

30 

Highest Qualification PTD/PTC 

STD 

ACE 

Bachelor’s Degree 

Post Graduate 

Diploma 

Honours Degree 

Other 

1(3.33) 

11(36.67) 

3 (10.0) 

4 (13.33) 

5 (16.67) 

5 (16.67) 

1(3.33) 

 

 

 

 

30 

Position held in 

school 

HOD 

Master/Lead 

Teacher 

26 (86.67) 

4 (13.33) 

 

30 

PTD/PTC- primary teacher diploma/certificate; STD- 

secondary teacher’s diploma; ACE- advanced certificate in 

educational management 

 

In order to understand the extent of the task that HODs 

were faced with we also distributed questionnaires to NS 

teachers. This questionnaire would assist to reveal the 

profiles of the NS teachers that these science HODs were 

expected to lead (Table III and Table IV). The majority of 

the NS teachers in the study were female (56.30%). A few 

teachers (12.50%) indicated that they were senior teachers in 

their schools. Although most teachers were qualified either 

with a secondary education diploma or degree, there was 

7.14% teachers who were not qualified to teach at the 

secondary school level at all. 

 

TABLE III 
QUALIFICATIONS OF TEACHERS 

Qualification Number 

Matric 3 

PTC/D 5 

STD 17 

ACE 20 

B DEG 24 

Postgrad 32 

Unqualified 2 

No response 9 
 

 

TABLE IV 
QUALIFICATIONS OF TEACHERS 

Position Number Gender number % 

Senior teacher 14 Male 41 36.60 

Teacher 90 Female 63 56.30 

No response 8 No response 8 7.10 

Total 112  112  

 

Even those (28.57%) that had post graduate qualifications, 

12.5% of them had qualifications which were not related to 

science teaching. Table 5 displays the age and institution 

where teachers had qualified. 

 
TABLE V 

INSTITUTION OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION AND AGE 

RANGE OF TEACHERS 

Institution 
 <25 

yrs. 

25-29 

yrs. 

30-39 

yrs. 

40-

49yrs. 

50-

59yrs. 

60 

+yrs. 

College 0 0 8 31 8 1 

University 8 4 18 14 4 0 

Unqualified 0 0 0 1 0 1 

Total (14 none 
response) 8 4 26 46 12 2 

 

A majority of the teachers, 53.57%, were 40 years and 

older while 42.86% of them had qualified from Colleges of 

Education and not from the universities. This meant that they 

had a 3-year qualification as opposed to those who qualified 

at universities with a 4-year qualification. About 10.71% of 

the teachers were younger than 30 years and they had all 

qualified from universities.  

 

Table 6 shows that over a third of the teachers had less 

than five years of experience teaching grade 8 (38.40%) and 

9 (33.93%) NS respectively. Over a third of the teachers 

(42.00%) taught PS grade 10, over a quarter (26.79%) taught 

grade 11 and less than a quarter (16.07%) taught grade 12 PS. 

 
TABLE VI 

TEACHING EXPERIENCE OF TEACHERS. NS- NATURAL SCIENCES; 

PS –PHYSICAL SCIENCES 

Years of 

experience 

 insubject 

Grade 

8 NS 

Grade 

9 NS 

Grade 

10 PS 

Grade 

11 PS 

Grade 

12 PS 

1-2 23 18 15 9 5 

3-5 20 20 14 10 5 

6-10 22 22 6 4 4 

>10 17 17 12 7 4 

 

 

The Size of the Departments 

The science departments in various schools would differ 

in size and member subjects.The size of the department 

would indicate the magnitude of the management and 

support that the HOD needed to provide. Most schools of 

HODs who responded had science departments with less 

than ten teachers. The minimum number of teachers in the 

department was three in an independent school and the 

maximum number was 24 in a former model C school. There 

were a few schools (10%) that had more than ten teachers in 

the department. 

 Just over half of the teachers in the study had specialised 

in life sciences which covers a quarter of the NS syllabus 

(Fig. 2). About 45.5 % of the teachers had specialised in 

physical sciences which covers half the syllabus. There were 

16.9% of the teachers who were not qualified to teach any of 

the sciences. Almost two thirds of the teachers were 

comfortable to teach all the NS disciplines. 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

125 

 

 

 
Fig. 2 Teacher specialisation 

 

Specialisation Limitations 

NS is a multidisciplinary subject comprising five science 

sub-disciplines. NS teachers were expected to have relevant 

specialisation to teach all NS sub-disciplines competently. 

This, however, was most unlikely because teachers could 

only specialise in one or two of the science disciplines. The 

partial specialisation or lack of science specialisation by NS 

teachers implied that the science HOD, as subject leader, had 

to develop that expertise. The data from the sampled schools 

showed that NS teachers in the schools had only specialised 

in some of the science disciplines and not all. The Sheba 

school HOD said, “The other one is qualified in life science 

that is her major subject”. The Promise school HOD related 

his situation saying, “So it means that for physical science 

we are only two with physical science, the rest they are life 

sciences”. He continued, “…because first terms is more of 

life sciences so they don’t have a problem with that part but 

second and third term is physics and chemistry so that’s 

where they have a little bit of a problem”. 

 

In Fhutura it was a similar case. 

The other one is teaching NS and she specialised in life 

science and mathematics. That is why she is struggling when 

it comes to physics and chemistry (HOD). 

In some cases schools did not carefully consider who they 

allocated to teach NS. In this school an Afrikaans teacher 

was allocated NS. 

The other one when Afrikaans was disbanded then he 

went into life sciences and now NS (HOD, Sheba).  

In Mooredale School a Life Orientation teacher had 

volunteered to teach NS. 

Okay one volunteered to try something different this year 

[teach NS] and she has enjoyed it – that was the LO teacher 

(HOD, Mooredale). 

In Knowledge School the teacher was not even qualified 

to teach at a secondary school. The HOD confirmed saying; 

“The one who is teaching grade 8 has PTC [Primary 

Teachers Certificate] but she is going for upgrading”.  

 

HODs are aware of this challenge and have devised ways 

of mitigating the challenge posed by the specialisation of 

teachers in NS teaching. In Promise School the HOD 

delegates support to one of the teachers. 

The other physical science qualified is working with the 

grade 8 teachers, supports them in terms of the physical 

science and I am dealing with grade 9s (HOD, Promise). 

In the Sheba School for some time, before the new 

curriculum they allowed the teacher to teach what she/he 

specialised on. That meant that the learners would not cover 

the whole syllabus in that particular year. 

This one teaching grade 8, he is more life sciences, so if 

he can like give these learners a good base on life sciences, 

then in grade 9 we don’t give him so much of the classes; we 

give somebody who is part of physics and chemistry. That 

did work for some time but now this year they took away the 

lady who was more physical sciences, who could teach 

grade 9 now (HOD, Sheba). 

Whereas schools could get away with is arrangement with 

the old syllabus, as described by Sheba School HOD, the 

HOD from Promise School also realised that not covering 

the whole syllabus to accommodate teachers’ specialisation 

as in Sheba School would not work anymore with the new 

curriculum which specifies content for each term. 

I thought that maybe this time the people who are good in 

life sciences they deal with the life science part and those 

who are good in physics deal with the physics part but it’s 

not going to be very possible (HOD, Promise). 

 

Due to the shortage of well-rounded NS teachers (in terms 

of specialisation) or the availability of teachers to share the 

teaching of the subject, this practice meant that learners in 

these schools were only taught life and living (25%) for the 

whole year in grade 8 and would be taught matter and 

materials; energy and change (50%) for the whole year in 

grade 9 depending on the availability of the PS teacher.If the 

PS teacher was moved this meant that the grade 8 group 

would not do PS in two years and only met it in grade 10. As 

described by the Sheba School HOD, HODs did not allocate 

teachers in their departments and that frustrated their plans. 

The challenge with specialisation was not about teachers 

alone. HODs themselves had specialisation challenges. 

Figure 3 shows the specialisation of the 30 HODs that 

participated in the study. Figure 3 shows that almost half the 

number of HODs (12) either did not have a physical or life 

science specialisation and almost a third had a mathematics 

specialisation. Those without a life sciences specialisation 

would not be comfortable to teach 25% of the NS syllabus 

and those without the physical sciences specialisation would 

not be confident to teach 50% of the syllabus. At the same 

time HODs could not be specialists in all 5 or 6 science 

disciplines themselves. They were likely to support teachers 

only in the areas of their expertise. 

 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

126 

 

 
Fig. 3 Subject specialisation of HODs; LS-life sciences; NS- natural 

sciences; PS –physical sciences 

 

HODs that had not specialised in the sciences could 

request the senior teachers in the subject to assist them with 

monitoring the said subject. This provides an opportunity for 

shared or distributed leadership as advocated by Spillane et 

al. (2004) and Ng et al. (2015). This also supports the 

submission of Mestry (2017) who opined that instructional 

leaders should forge partnerships with other teachers as 

colleagues by spending more time in classrooms and 

engaging teachers in conversations about teaching and 

learning. 

 

HODs as a Teacher 

HODs are both subject teachers and leaders. Subject 

teaching takes priority and the department policy specifies 

that they spend 85% of the time teaching. This leaves only 

15% of the time to do other work. The HOD duties demand 

more time than can be allocated. Figure 4 shows information 

on the extent to which HODs spend their time teaching and 

its effect on the NS instructional leadership. 

Eighteen HODs (60%) were actually teaching the subject 

(Fig. 4). These HODs would understand the subject 

challenges, prove to have the needed subject expertise and 

be in a position to work with the teachers in the subject 

instead of working for them. The HODs did not only teach 

NS but they also either taught physical or life sciences or 

mathematics. The number of HODs who taught physical 

sciences (12) was almost equal to the number of those who 

taught life sciences (13).  

 

 
Fig. 4 Subjects taught by HODs 

 

Mooredale School HOD did not even teach any of the 

science disciplines and she said; “My specialisation is Maths. 

I don’t actually teach NS”. 

 

 The Sheba School HOD reported that he taught the 

subject on a relief basis and said: “No, I taught it up to I 

think the end of the first term. Not this term. I taught it on 

and off sometimes, depending with the staffing.”  

The HOD from another school used to teach the subject 

and was more conversant with the subject. This, however, 

was before the new curriculum. 

 I used to teach NS, so I knew where the problem was, the 

Bloom’s taxonomy wasn’t followed, so I knew. So most of the 

time what I do is we will do a management plan (HOD, 

Knowledge).  

During data collection she was only teaching LS which is 

only one science discipline. Even, then, she was only 

teaching the senior secondary learners.  

No, I am not teaching NS. I am teaching grade 10, 11 and 

12 life sciences (HOD, Knowledge).  

The Fhutura School HOD confirmed not teaching grades 

8 and 9 and said; “I am teaching 10, 11, and 12 only”.  

These HODs had a sizeable workload of teaching and 

some of them had release time to do their HOD work. We 

discuss other HOD responsibilities later in this paper. 

If you look at those periods, it is three classes. PL 1 

teacher might have 6, so it gives me some free time to look at 

this admin work that you do. And sometimes you can have 

those four or five classes also, if the manpower is not 

balanced in the department, then you must find time after 

hours, leave this place around 4 or 5, so that you push your 

work (HOD, Sheba). 

The Promise School HOD was confident that he had some 

release time to do HOD work and said; “I do have time to do 

my duty”.  

 

HODs as a Manager and Administrator 

HODs are expected to monitor subject instruction and 

quality against assessment standards and provide report to 

the school leadership (Wanzare, 2013). There were various 

ways that individuals at different levels adopted to monitor 

instruction. To do this the HOD needed to be aware of and 

up to date with subject curriculum developments. Sheba 

School HOD reported weekly monitoring of learner books. 

You monitor on a weekly basis, where you send through 

the learners work and the educator completes a template to 

say they have done 1-2-3 for that week. So you compare 

what they say they have done with what is in the learner’s 

book.  

Promise School HOD mentioned that they did monthly 

learner’s workbook moderation. 

 Let’s say once a month I moderate learners work. I sign 

and then sometimes I stamp them just to check and then look 

at the quality of the work, the number of activities they’ve 

been given.  

The Sheba School HOD also emphasised the stamping of 

learner books saying; “You have to sign and stamp them to 

acknowledge that you have gone through their book and 

then make the relevant comments in the teacher’s report to 

say’ is the work okay, do you need support?”.  

  



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

127 

 

The Knowledge School HOD mentioned more areas that 

she monitored other than learners’ books. 

So from there I will write the monitoring tools, files must 

be in order, learners books must be in order, from there even 

the work schedule must be finished. 

Mooredale School HOD used subject meetings to monitor 

and said; “Alright so basically what we do is have a meeting 

once every two weeks just to check that everybody is in the 

right place”.  

Glickman et al. (2011) emphasise the possession of 

interpersonal and technical skills and knowledge in order to 

be sensitive to teachers who are supervised. 

 

Subject Meetings 

Subject meetings were one of the organisational routines 

that schools used for teachers teaching the same subject to 

have instructional interaction. However, the attendance, 

frequency, content, management and outcome of these 

meetings vary from schools to school and are dependent on 

the organisational infrastructures of the school. Below we 

present findings on how subject meetings are managed in the 

sample schools. Although not all HODs mentioned meetings 

as means of monitoring all schools held subject meetings 

even as compliance activities. Sheba School HOD termed 

them (subject meetings) mandatory saying; “Mandatory we 

must have a meeting every term or every month”. These 

meetings were planned for the year at Promise School. 

My plan is to have a departmental meeting at least once a 

term and then at least one subject meeting per subject which 

means it’s going to be 3 subject meetings (HOD, Promise). 

However, other priorities competed with the subject 

meetings. 

No, this term we haven’t had the meeting yet. We were 

busy doing all the submission and other stuff so that was the 

biggest problem; I don’t have a meeting this term yet (HOD, 

Promise). 

 

Content of Meetings 

We asked the HODs what they discussed in the 

department meetings.The questionnaire results from 30 

school showed that the most frequent item discussed at 

meetings were assessment issues and content coverage 

(Table VII). This was confirmed by the semi structured 

interview data we collected from the six HODs. The Promise 

School HOD mentioned that his meeting aim was the 

curriculum report. 

The main thing that I need is report in terms of syllabus 

covering, the number of SBAs per term and then I also give 

them a report on the quality of work that they give learners.  

The Sheba and the Mooredale School HODs had a similar 

meeting agenda. 

Firstly is curriculum delivery, secondly is any 

interventions we need to put in place, and thirdly upcoming 

events, we are going towards exams or just beginning the 

term, what we expect on that term or that year. We also 

discussed circulars from the district, are we in line with that 

circular? (Sheba). 

…what we do is have a meeting once every two weeks just 

to check that everybody is in the right place (Mooredale).  
TABLE VII 

FREQUENCY OF ITEMS DISCUSSED IN SUBJECT/DEPARTMENT 

MEETINGS 

Discussion frequency at 

meetings 

Mean S.D Rank 

1) Policy reviews 3.267 1.596 13 
2) Clarification of the 

department’s direction  

3.8 1.127 11 

3) Textbook and course-
material reviews 

3.967 1.098 7 

4) School improvement plan 3.9 1.242 9 
5) Instructional evaluation 3.833 1.117 10 
6) Professional development 2.833 1.599 14 
7) Curriculum and learner 

outcomes 

4.233 1.006 4 

8) Learner-assessment issues
  

4.533 0.860 2 

9) Question-paper monitoring 4.633 0.718 1 
10) Analysis of learner scores 

to inform instruction 

3.533 1.456 12 

11) Start- and end-of-term 
issues 

4.167 0.913 5 

12) Budget 2.6 1.379 16 
13) Development and sharing of 

lesson plans 

2.667 1.539 15 

14) Account of the term’s work 
or content coverage 

4.4 0.969 3 

15) Distribution of leadership 
activities 

3.933 0.944 8 

16) Plan of next remedial or 
enrichment steps 

4.033 0.809 6 

 

The teacher from Alpha School reported a different story. 

Her HOD was a mathematics specialist. She said, “When we 

meet as a department it is not only NS teachers. We meet 

with maths teachers and we only discuss administrative 

issues, learner discipline and the files and records that we 

should keep (Teacher 1, Alpha). 

Sometimes meetings tended to focus on assessment 

requirements and deadlines. 

Initially, at the beginning they were not up to standard, 

but after we had designed the tool for setting the question 

paper, they are coming alright. We look at the results, check 

problem areas, how do we do intervention programs, 

diagnostic analysis, and feedback from the subject advisor 

(HOD, Knowledge). 

The Mooredale School HOD concurred saying, “we 

normally just follow up to see if there is assessment coming 

up that everybody knows what it is on.”  

 

Schedule and Duration of Meetings 

Almost all schools that we followed up with semi 

structured interviews held their meetings during the lunch 

hour. The meetings were very short as teachers took time to 

gather from the respective classrooms. 

 

 We try to meet about twice a term. The meetings are 

during lunch time or after school. There is a departmental 

office where we meet (HOD, Sheba). 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

128 

 

The Mooredale School HOD also preferred lunch break 

meetings saying; “I found that break was the most effective 

way to get them all at the same time”.  

However, one school indicated that it had its department 

meeting during the sports period instead of during the lunch 

hour.  

  The meetings are usually on Wednesday during the 

sports period (Teacher 1, Alpha). 

The HOD from Fhutura School also indicated that the 

lunch time was usually too short to discuss any detail and 

they sometimes used time after school hours to complete the 

meetings. He said, “Nowadays we normally hold meetings 

during lunch time. If maybe you find that during lunch time 

we couldn’t exhaust the agenda we normally adjourn to half 

past two, after school”.  

 

Frequency of the Meetings 

Almost all schools held their department meetings once a 

term, although they tried to have them more frequently. 

My plan is to have a departmental meeting at least once a 

term (HOD, Promise). 

The HOD from another school confirmed saying: 

“Mandatory we must have a meeting every term” (HOD, 

Sheba). They sometimes did not even meet at all due to other 

pressing issues. The Knowledge School HOD mentioned 

that meetings were flexible. 

Subject meetings we do as often as possible, maybe if Mr 

Lato comes with some issues that need to be discussed, then 

we do diagnostic analysis of the question paper, just to see. 

The Fhutura School HOD concurred, “Subject or 

department meetings do not always materialise as planned. 

Because we have GET [General Education and Training] 

and FET [Further Education and Training] teachers mixed 

when we discuss GET matters FET teachers tend to get 

bored (HOD, Fhutura). The teacher from Alpha secondary 

school also emphasised the flexibility of the year plan as far 

as department meetings were concerned saying, “There is a 

year plan but things just occur but they are flexible. The plan 

is changed for emergency issues”. 

 Mooredale School HOD clearly distinguished 

between subject and departmental meetings 

We normally have a department meeting once a term, the 

whole lot together, I just found that it is sometimes if you are 

only working with the NS then it is a bit much to sit through 

everybody else’s issues, and certainly at the beginning of the 

year we have a big one, everybody altogether…Alright so 

basically what we do is have a meeting once every two 

weeks just to check that everybody is in the right place.  

 

Classroom Observation 

Classroom observations are powerful tools to gain 

understanding of what goes on during the interaction 

between the teacher and the learners about the subject. They 

can be time consuming because of the size of departments in 

schools. If not properly planned and their purpose is not well 

understood they could be deceiving because the teachers 

could mask their inadequacies during the observations. 

When working well they could be used to identify areas of 

strength or development. Not all sample schools did 

classroom observations and they were not uniformly 

welcome in all schools. 

All schools indicated that they did classroom observations. 

The follow-up interviews revealed that these were done for 

Integrated Quality Measurement Systems (IQMS) purposes.  

We do classroom observations, sometimes primarily for 

purposes of IQMS (HOD, Sheba). 

The Promise School HOD confirmed saying, “Normally 

the only class visits that we do is for IQMS because that one 

is basically a must”. Fhutura School HOD concurred, “I 

normally do that in the name of IQMS”.Mooredale School 

used time as an excuse for only doing IQMs class visits 

saying, “Normally we do them when we do the IQMS. It is 

difficult to fit that [other class observations] at the same 

time. Yes, because there are about 12 of them so to get 

through everybody takes a long time”. Alpha HOD also 

concurred, “I do classroom observations under IQMS in the 

2nd and 3rd quarter and provide feedback”. 

The Promise School HOD also reported that some 

teachers were not comfortable to be observed, saying: “No I 

haven’t done the plan for class visits. I wanted to put it in my 

management plan but I decided to remove it because most 

teachers they don’t want to be visited in class. We had 

another meeting where we discussed that, so I cannot visit 

the teachers who do not want to be visited”. The HOD from 

Sheba School concurred saying, “If classroom observation is 

unplanned union issues come to play”. 

Smith et al. (2013) warn that teachers might see 

observation as a demonstration of lack of trust in them which 

is replaced by surveillance (p S170). The responses from all 

teachers in the study showed that HODs did classroom 

observations and provided feedback even though it was 

ranked 6th (Table VIII) and the HODs occasionally allowed 

observations in their own classrooms (ranked 10th).  

 
TABLE VIII 

FREQUENCY OF INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES 

Frequency of IL practices 

N=112 

 Mean S.D. Rank 

1) Discusses teaching of a 
particular concept with the staff 

2.293 1.209 12 

2) Works with my department to 
prepare teaching material 

2.317 1.193 11 

3) Visits other teachers’ 
classrooms to observe their 

teaching 

2.415 1.203 9 

4) Allows informal observations 
in his/her own classroom  

2.366 1.337 10 

5) Does classroom observations 2.683 1.171 6 
6) Provides regular and useful 

feedback/suggestions on my 

teaching 

2.976 0.987 3 

7) Monitors and controls learners’ 
activity and assessment books 

3.219 0.962 1 

8) Monitors subject content 
coverage 

2.707 1.229 5 

9) Carefully tracks learners’ 
academic progress 

3 1.096 2 

10) Knows what is going on in 2.61 0.946 7 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

129 

 

science classrooms 

11) Actively monitors quality of 
science instruction 

2.83 1.202 4 

12) Works directly with teachers 
who are struggling to improve 

instruction 

2.61 1.263 7 

13) Leads professional 
development sessions in which 
you participate in 

2.195 1.345 13 

Response scale:0=Never, 1=seldom, 2=occasionally, 3= 

frequently, 4= always 

 

However, classroom observations were diagnostic and 

developmental in some schools. The HOD below described 

how she identified a need during classroom observation and 

then arranged help for the teacher that was observed. 

It was an experiment about the acids and bases so I found 

the other teacher for Grade 8 was not that well equipped 

with the knowledge, so I said this other one must go and help 

her (HOD, Knowledge). 

 

Other HOD Duties 

HODs got allocated other management and administrative 

duties to perform over and above their teaching and 

monitoring the subject instruction. They found that IQMS 

was time consuming and did not justify the amount of time 

involved.  

They belonged to a myriad of committees ranging from 

social, fundraising, sport, LTSM, timetable to being cluster 

leaders for the subject. The Sheba School HOD listed school 

committees he belonged to and other administrative work 

that he had to do over and above being a HOD. 

You become part of the exam committee, the LTSM 

committee which procures the books and the materials, etc. 

You can also be the teacher component of the SGB, where I 

am the secretary of the SGB. And then I am also responsible 

for taking the school stats, from day 1 up to day Z of the year, 

you take your registers, (and tally attendance). 

The Mooredale School HOD explained the whole school 

leadership approach adopted by her school and said:“I am 

head of grade 10 so I deal with grade 10 behavioural issues, 

phoning parents. I do extramural activities; I have got 

athletics, hockey and award ceremonies”. 

  

Institutional Support for HODs 

HODs performed a lot of duties within and outside their 

specialisation. We investigated if they had received any 

leadership training on the work that they were doing. They 

responded that they had not received any formal training or 

professional development. The Sheba School HOD 

responded, “Here I haven’t received training but we do go 

for the HOD workshop, and we are taught these are the 

instruments that you use”. The Knowledge School HOD 

from a different district confirmed that they had a common 

workbook but they had not received any training. 

We have got at the moment a common work book for them, 

so the work is kind of set out, and if somebody does an extra 

thing then they will share it with the others. 

HODs had not been trained to lead or manage 

departments except being trained as teachers. They reported 

that balancing available time with administrative work was 

difficult. They found that personnel issues, finding time for 

action research and dealing with school management and 

administration were the most difficult issues to handles. 

Managing subject finances was voted the least difficult and 

was never discussed in subject meetings either (Table IX). 

 
TABLE IX 

ISSUES IDENTIFIED AS DIFFICULT TO HANDLE 

Difficult issues to manage Mean S.D Rank 

1) Staffing issues 3.2 1.540 1 
2) Bureaucracy/ Dealing with 

school management and 
administration  

2.833 1.440 3 

3) Managing subject finances 2.3 1.236 7 
4) Finding time for action 

research 

2.967 1.519 2 

5) Analysing learners’ scores 2.4 1.453 6 
6) Managing with inadequate 

resources 

2.7 1.489 5 

7) Time management 3.767 1.407 4 

 

Subject Advisor Support 

Subject advisors are stationed in the local district offices 

to provide specialist subject instructional support to a group 

of schools. Their services are available to schools but they 

are not mandatory. Figure 5 shows the responses from 

sampled schools on the support they received from subject 

advisors. We wanted to know where their source of support 

was. The principal was voted the most helpful person (40%). 

The deputy principal and the subject advisor were also 

equally voted as the next helpful persons.About a third of the 

HODs were modest about the helpfulness of the subject 

advisor though. 

 

 
Fig. 5 The most helpful person to the HOD 

 

There was an association between the extent of 

helpfulness of the district subject advisor and the level of 

support that was received from the subject advisor (p=0.001). 

Subject advisors supported schools in many different ways. 

The local district subject advisor supported the schools by 

providing some common teaching and assessment material 

(Table X). 

 

 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

130 

 

TABLE X 

HELPFULNESS OF THE DISTRICT CURRICULUM SPECIALIST AND 

FULL SUPPORT FROM SUBJECT ADVISOR 

Variables I have the full support of my 

subject advisor 

P-value 

of 

associati

on 

Extent of 

helpfulness of 
the district 

curriculum 

specialist 

Dis 

agree 

Neutral Strong

ly 
Agree 

Agree  

Least helpful 0 0 1 1  

Less helpful 1 1 1 0  

Averagely 
helpful 

1 4 2 2  

More helpful 1 0 1 2  

Most Helpful 0 0 0 11  

Total 3 5 5 16 0.001 

 

This, the Promise School HOD acknowledged and said: 

“Yeah, control tests normally come from the district”.  

Another way in which subject advisors supported the 

schools was with different kinds of workshops varying from 

content knowledge to action research. Sheba School HOD 

confirmed and said:“She does visit us; we do hold 

workshops with her. The other HOD also concurred. 

Yes there are workshops wherein they (district) will be 

giving us feedback on the learner’s performance and then 

they will be teaching those topics that we need attention 

(HOD, Knowledge). 

Content knowledge was also attended to at the district 

cluster meetings with subject advisors. 

So they do that on a topic because when they visit they 

will ask ‘do you need any help?’ And if there are many 

people who need it then they will do it (HOD, Knowledge). 

The other means of support were reported by the Sheba 

School HOD when he said: “Support from subject advisor is 

wonderful, I think we can communicate with them every 

minute that we want. We have a science WhatsApp group 

that takes care of our life sciences, PS, NS”. 

 

The Promise School HOD, though, revealed that the 

subject advisors only paid attention to FET subjects saying, 

“…they did come to visit but only for FET, they didn’t come 

for NS”.He went on to mention that even the meetings that 

subject advisorsarranged were only for FET teachers and he 

said, “ the cluster meetings for teachers we had one 

yesterday but it was for FET only”.The Mooredale School 

HOD confirmed saying, “No, they don’t do it for NS, the 

FET has. We had a cluster meeting but it was for the FET 

section, not the NS, they do neglect the middle. At the 

beginning they are beating everybody into shape, but the 

middle doesn’t matter.”The Alpha School HOD concurred 

and said, “We do get material from the subject advisor but 

only on the FET side, not GET”. 

It was evident that subject advisors were somewhat 

supportive but more to the teachers (the teaching of the 

subject) than the HODs (the curriculum management). We 

then explored the extent to which HODs engaged with the 

HODs. The Sheba School HOD reported that he attended the 

workshops organised by subject advisors even though he did 

not teach NS at that time. 

Even though I am not teaching the subject, I have to 

attend. I remember spending a day in NS, where we were 

doing the experiments, and by then I was not teaching.  

The Mooredale School HOD had a different view point 

about her engagement with the subject advisor. 

Ja, I think so, I don’t have as much contact with them 

because I don’t attend those cluster meetings. But certainly 

if teachers wanted to know something they could get hold of 

him (subject advisor). 

The Alpha School HOD also reported that he did not 

attend workshops planned for NS teachers and said, “I do 

not attend NS workshops, I request the subject teachers to 

attend”. 

 

Principal’s Support 

The HODs were also asked to rate the extent of the 

support that they received from the principal. The support 

was categorised into specific areas like provision of space, 

time and resources to do instructional work, buffering the 

school from outside influences and different forms of 

encouragement.Principals were rated helpful on average by 

HODs from all types of schools. However, some HODs 

found them to be either less helpful (10%) or were neutral 

(6.7%) about the kind of support that they received from the 

principal. When the HODs were interviewed the Mooredale 

School HOD said, “She is very supportive. If you need to 

discuss something with her you can go and talk to her”. 

Table XI shows the specific areas where HODs found 

principals to be supportive or not. 

 
TABLE XI 

HELPFULNESS OF THE PRINCIPAL AND THE ABILITY TO DEAL 

EFFECTIVELY WITH PRESSURE FROM OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL 

THAT MIGHT INTERFERE WITH TEACHING 

Variables The principal deals effectively with 

pressure from outside the school that 

might interfere with teaching 

P-value 

of 

associat

ion 

Extent of 

helpfulness 

of the 

principal 

Strongly 

Disagree 

Disagree Neutral Strongly 

Agree 

Agree  

Least 

helpful 

1 1 0 0 0  

Less 

helpful 

0 1 1 0 1  

Averagely 
helpful 

1 0 0 1 0  

More 

helpful 

0 1 0 8 1  

Most 
Helpful 

2 1 0 2 7  

Total 4 4 1 11 9 0.002 

 

There was an association between the extent of 

helpfulness of the school principal and his/her ability to deal 

effectively with pressure from outside the school that might 

interfere with teaching (p=0.002).However, schools strongly 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

131 

 

disagreed that they received support from principals in terms 

of space and time to carry out their duties. This was evident 

in the HODs using their lunchtime for meetings. 

There was an association between the extent of 

helpfulness of the school principal and the provision of 

space and time for departmental activities (p=0.033).All 

township and informal settlement schools that we followed 

up, except the former model C school, Mooredale, held their 

meetings in the HOD’s offices. These were not proper 

offices but usually store rooms behind the laboratories. The 

HODs indicated that the principal could have been more 

helpful to provide space for the HODs to conduct their 

meetings (Table XII) instead of using the cramped offices or 

classrooms. The Mooredale School team held their meeting 

in one of the classrooms.  
 

TABLE XII 

EXTENT OF HELPFULNESS OF THE PRINCIPAL AND PROVISION 

OF SPACE AND TIME 

Variables The principal provides space and time for departmental 

activities 

P-value of 

association 

Extent of helpfulness of 

the principal 

Strongly 

Disagree 

Disagree Neutral Strongly 

Agree 

Agree  

Least helpful 0 1 0 1 0  

Less helpful 0 1 2 0 0  
Averagely helpful 0 0 1 1 0  

More helpful 1 1 2 4 2  

Most Helpful 0 2 0 2 8  

Total 1 5 5 9 10 0.033 

 

Arrangement of Subject Departments 

One of the ways principals could support HODs was by 

arranging and resourcing the departments optimally to 

support instruction. The Knowledge HOD explained how the 

NS department was created in her school.  

No, he wasn’t giving us that full attention because he was 

not life sciences or NS. When it comes to problems for NS or 

PS you must go to other schools .So most of the time we 

didn’t get answers direct from him, we will get admin 

answers, but curriculum related questions were not fully 

answered so I think that was the reason it was divided into 

two departments. 

Regarding resourcing the departments for optimal NS 

instruction the Fhutura School HOD said, “Yes. I have an NS 

educator. She didn’t specialise in Physical Science. She 

didn’t specialise in any science subjects like Life or Physical 

Sciences. She was teaching Physical Science in Grade 12, 

hence the results were 9%. She qualified in Geography and 

she is teaching NS Grade 9. She is also teaching 

mathematics. He continued saying: “The other one is 

teaching NS and she specialised in Life Science and 

mathematics. That is why she is struggling when it comes to 

physics and chemistry”.  

 

 

Sometimes the proper handover from one HOD to the 

next did not happen in the schools. This is supposed to be 

facilitated by the principal and his deputy. The 

Promiseschool HOD reported this challenge saying, “I did 

prepare one and then the person who was acting said that 

most of the things are his there and then I had to start from 

scratch for senior phase there was nothing ….I didn’t even 

have a mark sheet, I didn’t have a work schedule”. 

From the data it is evident that science HODs looked to 

the principal for support especially with the school 

conditions and contextual factors in order for them to 

provide effective instructional leadership. 

 

Apparatus and Laboratory Facilities 

Facilities and science equipment are some of the most 

important resources for science instruction. The principals as 

school leaders had the duty to provide these as a 

demonstration of the capacity of the school to support 

learning. The challenge is that these facilities are expensive 

to purchase and maintain. Most sampled schools did not 

have laboratories and where they had they were poorly 

equipped and HODs had to borrow from other schools. 

Our school is a little bit poor in terms of the apparatus 

required for practical investigation, sometimes we go out. I 

go out and borrow some practical from the neighbouring 

school and then from there I bring them here, demonstrate 

them how to perform them in front of learners before they go 

to class (HOD, Promise). 

The Sheba School HOD concurred saying, “Like now 

when you phoned I was supposed to go to one school there 

and just borrow a few burettes for our practicals for the 

grade 12s”.  

The HODs reported that although it was important to take 

and control stock especially in science classrooms and 

laboratories, they found it extremely difficult to manage the 

department with inadequate resources, both financial, 

physical and human resources (Table XIII). 

 
TABLE XIII 

IMPORTANCE OF TAKING AND CONTROLLING STOCK AND 

DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY OF MANAGING WITH INADEQUATE 

RESOURCES 

Variables Degree of difficulty of managing with 

inadequate resources 

P-value 

of 

associat

ion 

Importanc

e of taking 

and 

controlling 
stock 

Least 

difficult 

Less 

difficult 

Averagel

y difficult 

More 

difficult 

Most 

difficult 
 

Least 
important 

 5(62.5) 2 (25) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (12.5)  

Less 

important 

0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (66.7) 0 (0) 1 (33.3)  

Important 1 (12.5) 1 (12.5) 1 (12.5) 4 (50) 1 (12.5)  

More 

important 

1 (50) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (50)  

Most 
Important 

1 (14.3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (14.3) 5 (71.4)  

Total 8 3 3 5 9 0.01 

Science HODs perform a number of duties as expected by 

their school leadership ranging from compliance activities 

where they just tick the box to going out of their way to 

borrowing laboratory equipment from other schools. They 

had never been trained professionally or developed to 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

132 

 

perform their management duties. In some districts, their 

teachers receive support from subject advisors but there is no 

support for them. Some principals support the HODs while 

some principals do not even consider how they staffed the 

departments for optimal NS instruction. 

 

Minimal influence over teaching and learning  

Both the literature and education policy in South Africa 

view the HOD as a person who has strong professional, 

pedagogical, and subject matter knowledge that is 

underpinned by experience in teaching the subject (Smith et 

al., 2013). Experience in the subject is gained by teaching it 

and understanding areas where learners are likely to meet 

challenges. With the changes in the curriculum, teaching the 

subject becomes crucial, as one gets to understand the areas 

of difficulty in the subject. In this study, just under half of 

the HODs actually taught NS or knew what was going on in 

the subject. The findings show that they are not familiar with 

the subject matter and do not understand the grade 

expectations. These HODs are mostly teachers of senior 

secondary subjects like PS, LS and mathematics. They have 

expertise in these subjects and would therefore dedicate most 

of their time to it. This presents the conundrum of managing 

in the middle (Koh et al., 2011). While they have expertise 

in the subjects that they teach, they could not meet the NS 

teachers’ subject specific needs or expectations of support 

because they themselves are not sure of the subject demands. 

The findings suggest that in general, the HODs’ influence 

over instructional practice is very weak, even when the 

various contexts were taken into consideration.  

 

The focus on compliance to meet role expectations 

The conundrum of managing in the middle is further 

revealed in how the HODs understood and managed their 

roles. In order to meet role expectations as prescribed by 

policy, the HODs focused on compliance activities when 

monitoring the subject instruction. Compliance activities 

centred around the administrative work (Bush, 2013) related 

to their subjects and included conducting regular subject 

meetings; monitoring the coverage of syllabi; checking 

teachers’ files; and moderating learner workbooks and test 

papers. There was very little evidence of how all these 

activities related to analysing and improving learner 

performance; and improving teaching practice. In other 

words, the work of the HODs in many instances involved 

‘ticking the boxes’ to show completion of their tasks rather 

than any meaningful and substantive engagement with the 

core teaching and learning processes at the schools, and how 

these could be improved.  

The HODs could not provide effective support and 

leadership as described by Lashway (2002) in the form of 

professional development, classroom observation, mentoring 

and coaching. Considering the profile of the teachers in their 

departments and the changes in the curriculum, the teachers 

needed very visible and available leadership. They required 

continuous professional development and support even in 

the classroom. It was revealed that classroom observations 

are only done for IQMS purposes, and the HODs do not 

diagnose other challenges or identify examples of best 

practice. The findings reveal that teachers needed support 

particularly on the development of SBATs. This support 

involved not only developing the tasks, but tasks that were 

customised according to 1) the availability of apparatus in 

the school; 2) the ability of teachers to perform the various 

experiments; and 3) the ability to assess the tasks 

meaningfully. 

The findings suggest that the focus on compliance was 

related to a number of factors:1) Lack of release time 

(Brown et al., 2000); 2) pressure from the top leadership to 

submit reports (Glickman et al., 2011); and 3) their own 

teaching in the FET band. The HODs were fulltime teachers 

and did not get release time to focus on their instructional 

leadership duties. Yet, in order to fulfil their roles as HODs, 

they have to show evidence regarding their activities, which 

in most cases takes the form of reports to the school 

principal. The compliance focus also raises interesting 

questions about how far the schools have progressed in 

moving from a bureaucratic style of management to focusing 

on instruction as the core activity of the school. The findings 

of this study suggest a predominance of the bureaucratic 

impulse for compliance, and highlight some of the 

organizational, contextual, personal, and professional 

constraints to more effectively managing and leading the 

teaching and learning processes in the school. 

 

Curriculum coverage 

Another factor that has made managing in the middle a 

challenging task is the qualifications of HODs. Some science 

HODs did not have a science qualification or specialisation. 

This meant that besides lacking content and pedagogic 

knowledge, they could also not provide effective 

instructional guidance in specific science subjects. To save 

themselves from embarrassment they would allow teachers 

to do what they could and would not query any discrepancies 

in the syllabus coverage (Wanzare, 2013).From our research, 

it could be inferred that this is also the reason why they 1) 

did not do classroom observation (because they might find a 

teacher who knows more than them in that subject); and 2) 

did not do professional development, mentoring and 

coaching (because they did not have the necessary subject 

expertise). In at least two out of the six schools that we 

interviewed, the science departments were led by 

mathematics specialists.  

Furthermore, in the old syllabus, teachers would be 

allowed to only teach what they specialised in. They could 

get away with it because the grade 8 and 9 instruction is not 

monitored and there is no standardised assessment. If, say 

the grade 8 teacher is a LS specialist, learners would be 

taught only the “life and living” strand in grade 8 with the 

hope that they will get a PS specialist in grade 9. This was 

not a guarantee in the schools as the grade 9 teacher could be 

the same teacher or another teacher with only LS 

specialisation (as in Sheba School). This is partly because 

there is a shortage of PS teachers in the schools (Kriek & 

Basson, 2008). Curriculum coverage is thus a major 

challenge in certain science subjects. These learning gaps 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

133 

 

accumulate over time, leading to difficulties in the subjects 

in the higher grades, and could be one of the contributing 

factors to the high drop-out rate in grade 10. 

 

Restrictive Organizational Arrangements in Schools 

Subject departments in most South African schools are for 

a group of subjects and not one subject. The arrangement of 

subject departments is often determined by the social 

contexts of schools and the availability of resources 

(Spillane & Hopkins, 2013). Schools with better finances 

would have more HODs or even senior teachers to assist 

with instructional support. However, the arrangement in 

most of South Africa’s public schools is such that subjects 

like mathematics, mathematical literacy, technology 

education, natural, physical, life and agricultural sciences 

(where applicable), all belong to one department. It is highly 

impossible for one HOD, who also teaches, to be a specialist 

in all these subjects, have separate subject specific meetings, 

and address subject specific issues. The meetings as reported 

by the HODs were short (about an hour at most) and in some 

cases it happened during the lunch break. The HODs 

responded to these restrictive conditions by only discussing 

administrative issues and sharing information that was 

needed to produce the departmental report.  

The organizational arrangements in schools thus appear to 

neglect the NS as a key foundational subject and the NS 

teachers as important in laying a good foundation for the 

four senior secondary school subjects. The school structures 

do not enhance the school’s capacity to support learning or 

provide an enabling environment in which science teaching 

can be strengthened through effective instructional 

leadership that is exercised by the HOD.  

 

Lack of School and District Support for the HOD 

The findings reveal that the principals do not support the 

HODs or make an effort to make their jobs easier (Klar, 

2012). This is evident in the way they structure and resource 

the (subject) departments. Firstly poorly qualified teachers 

are allocated to teach NS. In Fhutura school we saw a 

geography teacher who was a failure in grade 12 PS 

(producing only 9% pass rate) being ‘demoted’ to teach NS. 

This suggests that the school leadership do not care about the 

foundation that this teacher would lay for the Grades 8 and 9 

learners. This is not only the case in one school and seems to 

occur in other schools in the study. A reason for the 

allocation of poorly qualified could be because there has 

been no monitoring of the grade 8 and 9 curriculum and 

alignment of instruction with assessment standards. 

Secondly, the principal’s support is not evident in the 

appointment of HODs, especially those expected to lead NS. 

If the principals were mindful of the specialisation of the 

HOD and the teachers, they could have strengthened the 

senior teacher structure in the schools. The senior teacher 

would ensure subject specific support for the teachers in 

each subject strand (science discipline). The HOD would 

support the teachers in other areas that did not need subject 

expertise. As it is the case, the principals leave the HODs to 

swim or sink with whatever resources they have and they 

have to make a success of it.  

Thirdly, the senior school leadership team in the study 

does not prioritise subject or department meetings and seem 

not to attach much importance to these meetings (Klar, 

2012). Our interview data supported these findings. The 

HODs described cases where other activities in the school 

took priority and they could not find time to meet. This 

shows a lack of focus on the instructional mandate of the 

school. Subject meetings are not formalised and prioritised 

by the senior school leadership team, and are considered less 

important than extramural activities which at least are 

allocated time. Teachers have to sacrifice their own lunch 

time to attend these meetings. This is also evident in the 

number of times that these meetings were postponed in some 

schools during the data collection cycle. 

Fourthly, the findings show that although the principals 

are supposedly supportive, they do not assist in the providing 

of safe and adequate space where the HODs can do their 

work (Naicker et al., 2013). We witnessed the shortage of 

space for HODs in terms of meetings, professional 

development activities, storage and filing space. We 

conducted interviews in very crammed spaces which were 

originally laboratory store rooms. These rooms were packed 

with textbooks, some laboratory equipment, learners’ books, 

and teacher files etc. In other schools we conducted 

interviews in the deputy principal’s offices because the 

HODs did not have any space different from his/her 

classroom to hold such meetings. The only spaces to do any 

work with teachers were the classrooms, which they used 

with the learners.  

The NS teachers also compete for laboratory space with 

the physical and life sciences teachers. The FET subjects are 

prioritised to use the laboratory (which is a scarce resource 

in the schools).The grades 8 and 9 classes are very big and to 

schedule their use of the laboratory is very cumbersome. 

This challenge is complicated by 1) the lack of apparatus to 

accommodate all learners (especially with regard to 

consumables); 2) the allocation of poorly qualified NS 

teachers who struggle to perform experiments to teach NS; 

and 3) non-specialist HODs who could not therefore support 

these teachers in subject specific matters.  

A number of HODs mentioned that they had to go to other 

schools to borrow equipment. There is no evidence that the 

principals were actively supporting the HODs to ensure that 

there are adequate resources for teaching. These findings 

point to the lack of an instructional orientation in the schools, 

especially from the senior leadership team. It once again 

highlights the difficulties of shifting the paradigm of the 

school as an essentially bureaucratic institution to one that 

has a singular focus on teaching and learning and in which 

the organizational arrangements and resources are directed at 

supporting these two core activities.  

 

Subject advisors are very rich resources that the 

department of education has to support subject instruction. 

The findings reveal that mostly FET subject advisors visited 

schools. This finding attests to the focus on FET subjects 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

134 

 

because of the pressure exerted by the need to improve 

performance in the grade 12 exit examination. Although 

some subject advisors did come to schools, they would 

monitor the implementation of SBATs, which was a 

compliance activity.When subject advisors come to the 

schools they require subject files and learner books from the 

HOD where they check the records of the SBATs. That is 

about the only interaction that subject advisors had with the 

HODs. 

Subject advisors also tend to work directly with teachers 

and not the HODs (unless the HOD was also a teacher of 

that particular subject). They invite teachers to workshops 

and cluster meetings but there is no evidence of the HOD 

specific workshop organised by the subject advisors. In this 

arrangement, the district system misses the very important 

link to subject instructional improvement - the HOD 

(Melville, Wallace & Bartley, 2007). Subject advisors are 

responsible for a group of at least 20 schools and it is not 

possible to be available every time the teachers need them. 

HODs are better placed to support the teachers because they 

spend more time with them (Highfield, 2010). Hence there is 

potential for building the instructional capacity of the HODs 

in order for them to effectively support and guide the work 

of many more teachers. By ignoring the professional 

development needs of the HODs, the district has missed out 

on an opportunity to expand and deepen the instructional 

focus in schools.  

From the issues raised in the discussion above, we get a 

sense of the difficulties associated with the role of the NS 

HODs in schools. Very often these leaders find themselves 

caught between their roles as teachers and that of 

instructional leaders in the school that leads to tensions, 

conflict and frustration (Naicker et al., 2013). The potential 

for science HODs to more effectively adopt an instructional 

mandate remains largely unfulfilled due to the organizational 

arrangements in the school; their lack of qualifications and 

expertise in certain subject areas; and the inadequate support 

provided by the senior school leadership team and the 

district office. All of these issues contribute to the 

conundrum of managing in the middle – where the HOD has 

to find a balance between teaching and leading, and where 

the latter is often made more difficult by the issues discussed 

above. The result of all of this is that the opportunity for the 

HOD to play a more effective role as instructional leader on 

the school’s SMT and contribute to improving learning 

outcomes is lost. Given the current crisis of quality in our 

education system, the focus on supporting and strengthening 

the instructional role of the HOD in South Africa’s public 

schools will require urgent attention. 

 

IV. CONCLUSIONS 

This study is located within the emerging field of research 

on instructional leadership in South African schools. The 

focus on instruction has been made more prominent by the 

call from policy makers, academics, and the public in 

general to improve educational outcomes in the country. 

This study aims to contribute to the literature on 

instructional leadership in schools by considering the role 

that HODs play as part of the SMT and exploring the extent 

and nature of their work. To date, not much attention has 

been paid to the important role that HODs can and should be 

playing in supporting and strengthening teaching and 

learning in schools, and this study makes a contribution to 

deepening our understanding of their work.  

The sciences HODs occupy the middle position between 

the senior school leadership team and the teachers. This 

makes their work both complex and challenging because NS 

is also a multidisciplinary subject area. The HODs are 

expected to lead subject departments but they find 

themselves leading a group of subjects, some of which they 

have no specialisation in.  They find themselves leading 

teachers who know more than them in some subjects. The 

NS and science HODs’ experiences, understanding of the 

reality and expectations are mediated by the contextually 

constructed paths the schools created for them. These paths 

are influenced by the social context and resources available 

at the school; the organizational arrangements around 

instruction; and the support provided to the HODs by the 

senior leadership team at the school and the district office.  

The findings of this study offer evidence that the senior 

school leadership does not hold NS in high regard and they 

do not support the HOD in working with poorly qualified 

teachers. NS competes with other subjects that are given a 

better status. The findings also reveal that science HODs do 

not receive subject specific support (in terms of time, space, 

apparatus, qualified teachers) from the school senior 

leadership nor the subject advisors. The HODs have devised 

ways of mitigating the challenges of poorly qualified or non-

qualified teachers which results in learners being taught only 

one science discipline a year (e.g. only life sciences for the 

whole year and sometimes both years –grade 8 and 9). These 

findings further reveal that senior school leadership does not 

reflect on the instructional leadership provided by HODs for 

the purposes of development and providing feedback to the 

other components of the school system in order to improve 

instruction and learning outcomes.  

The findings of the study sheds light on the role of the 

sciences HOD in the schools, and highlight both the 

importance and constraints of the role. As very little research 

has been conducted in this area to date, the study makes an 

important contribution in deepening our understanding of 

how the work of the HOD fits into the broader school 

effectiveness discourse and literature in South Africa. School 

principals and deputy principals, on their own, will not be 

able to transform their schools and successfully embark on 

improvement initiatives. What is required is “distributed” 

leadership that stretches across the school and is centred 

around common improvement goals. The HODs are central 

to this paradigm of instructional leadership in the country. In 

essence, the findings suggest that the schools were still 

operating within a bureaucratic paradigm that focused on 

management for the sake of compliance, without any explicit 

connection being made to how these management practices 

related to and supported teaching and learning in the schools. 

The findings of the study give rise to a few 



Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

135 

 

recommendations for how the work of HODs can be more 

effectively supported in schools.  

Firstly, from a systemic perspective, the department of 

education and the senior leadership teams in schools should 

relook at the arrangement of the academic departments in 

schools. Junior secondary subjects should not be grouped 

with senior secondary subjects in one department. School 

principals should reconsider how teachers are allocated to 

NS and the suitability of HODs to lead the NS department. 

In addition, the department and senior school leadership 

teams should consider the appointment of senior teachers to 

provide instructional leadership in individual science 

disciplines that would complement the work of HOD and 

support the teachers with subject specific leadership.  

Secondly, from a policy perspective, we recommend that 

the role of subject advisors be revised to include working 

with the HODs to build their capacity for more effective 

instructional support in schools. The HODs as middle 

managers have the most contact with teachers, and their 

potential to make a significant contribution to curriculum 

improvement remains untapped. This would also boost the 

capacity of school based support teams and turn the IQMS 

into an authentic school development tool.   

Thirdly, we recommend that from a training perspective, 

much more attention be given to the role of the HOD as a 

key member of the SMT and the school’s instructional 

leadership team. Currently, there is a focus on the training of 

principals and deputy principals that have not yet been 

extended to the HODs. The focus of such training should be 

on developing curriculum management and supervision 

skills; the monitoring of curriculum coverage; the 

assessment of learner work in order to improve instruction; 

and the soft skills of building personal and professional 

competencies around teamwork and dealing with conflict at 

the school. The curriculum for such a leadership training 

programme should take school contexts in account and focus 

on the importance of shifting the school leadership paradigm 

from bureaucratic management for compliance and control 

to instructional leadership for improved learning outcomes 

in the school.  

Lastly, we recommend that as a supplement to this study, 

further research into the work of senior teachers should be 

conducted to develop a deeper understanding of the 

important role that they can play in supporting the work of 

the HOD in the sciences departments.  

We worked with a small but representative sample of 

schools and the findings could not be generalised to all 

schools across the country. The findings are thus limited to 

the schools and districts that we worked in. However, the 

study is important as it is located within the broader research 

focus on instructional leadership in schools – a focus that has 

become central to the school improvement discourse and 

practice in South Africa. 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES 

Angelle, P. S., & DeHart, C. A. (2011). Teacher perceptions 

of teacher leadership: Examining differences by 

experience, degree, and position. NASSP Bulletin, 

95, 141-160. 

http://doi.org/10.1177/0192636511415397 

Barnett, D., & Aagaard, L. (2007). Developing leadership 

capacity within the teaching ranks: One district's 

approach. International Electronic Journal for 

Leadership in Learning, II (9).  

Barnett, B. G., Shoho, A. R., & Oleszewski, A. M. (2012). 

The job realities of beginning and experienced 

assistant principals. Leadership and Policy in 

Schools, 11(1), 92-128.  

Bendikson, L., Robinson, V., & Hattie, J. (2012). Principal 

instructional leadership and secondary school 

performance. Set: Research Information for 

Teachers, 1(1), 2-8. 

Brown, M., Rutherford, D., & Boyle, B. (2000). Leadership 

for school improvement: The role of the head of 

department in UK secondary schools. School 

effectiveness and school improvement: An 

International Journal of Research, Policy and 

Practice, 11(2), 237-258. 

Bush, T. (2013). Instructional leadership and leadership for 

learning: Global and South African Perspectives. 

Education as Change, 17(Sup 1), S5-S20. 

Bush, T., Glover, D., Bischoff, T., Moloi, K., Heystek, J., & 

Joubert, R. (2006). School leadership, management 

and governance in South Africa: A systematic 

literature review. Johannesburg: Matthew Goniwe 

School of Leadership and Governance. 

Bush, T., Joubert, R., Kiggundu, E., & Van-Rooyen, J. 

(2010.). Managing teaching and learning in South 

African schools. International Journal of 

Educational Development,   

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.04.008      

Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and 

Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 

Department of Education (DoE, 1999). Personnel 

administrative measures. Pretoria: Government 

Printers. 

Department of Education (DoE 2002). Policy: Revised 

national curriculum statements (R-9). Pretoria: 

Government Printers. 

Ghamrawi, N. (2010). No teacher left behind: Subject 

leadership that promotes teacher leadership. 

Educational Management Administration & 

Leadership, 38, 304-320. 

http://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209359713 

Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. 

(2011). Supervision and instructional leadership: A 

developmental approach. (8th Edn.), Boston: Allyn 

& Bacon. 

Guthrie, J. W., & Schuermann, P.J. (2010). Successful 

school leadership: Planning, politics, performance, 

and power. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 

http://doi.org/10.1177/0192636511415397
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.04.008
http://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209359713


Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

136 

 

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2011). Exploring the journey 

of school improvement: Classifying and analysing 

patterns of change in school improvement processes 

and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and 

School improvement, 22(1), 1-27. 

Highfield, C. (2010). Disparity in student achievement 

within and across secondary schools: An analysis of 

department results in English, Maths and Science in 

New Zealand. School Leadership and Management: 

Formerly School Organisation, 30(2), 171-190. 

Hoadley, U., Christie, P., & Ward, C. L. (2009). Managing 

to learn: Instructional leadership in South African 

secondary schools. School Leadership & 

Management: Formerly School Organisation, 29(4), 

373-389. 

Klar, H. W. (2012). Fostering department chair instructional 

leadership capacity: Laying the groundwork for 

distributed instructional leadership. International 

Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and 

Practice, 15(2), 175-197. 

Koh, H. H. D., Gurr, L., Drysdale, L., & Ang, L. L. (2011). 

How school leaders perceive the leadership role of 

middle leaders in Singapore Primary Schools? Asia 

Pacific Education Review, 12(4), 609-620. 

Kriek, J., & Basson, I. (2008). Implementation of the new 

FET physical science curriculum: Teachers’ views. 

African Journal of Research in Mathematics, 

Science and Technology Education, 12, 65-76. 

Lai, E., & Cheung, D. (2013). Implementing a new senior 

secondary curriculum in Hong Kong: Instructional 

leadership practices and qualities of school 

principals. School Leadership and Management, 

33(4), 322-353.  

Lashway, L. (2002). Developing Instructional Leaders (Eric 

Digest no.160). Eric Clearinghouse on Educational 

Policy and Management. 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERIC-

ED466023/pdf/ERIC-ED466023.pdf 

Melville, W., Wallace, J., & Bartley, A. (2007). Individuals 

and leadership in an Australian secondary science 

department. Journal of Science Education and 

Technology, 16, 463-472.   

Mestry, R. (2017). Principals’ perspectives and experiences 

of their instructional leadership functions to 

enhance learner achievement in public schools. 

Journal of Education, 69, 257 - 280 

Naicker, I., Chikoko, V., & Mthiyane, S. E. (2013.). 

Instructional leadership practices in challenging 

school contexts. Education as Change, 17(S1), 

S137-S150. 

Ng, F. S. D., Nguyen, D., Wong, K. S. B., & Choy K. W. W. 

(2015). Instructional leadership practices in 

Singapore. School Leadership & Management, 

35(4), 388-407. 

Nguyen, T. D., & Ng, F. S. D. (2014). Applying the Rasch 

Model to investigate Singapore principals’ 

instructional leadership practices. Leading and 

Managing, 20(2), 1-26. 

OECD (2011). Singapore: Rapid Improvement Followed by 

Strong Performance. Extract from Strong 

Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: 

Lessons from PISA for the United States. 

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/singapore-

pisa.html.      

Osman, K., Halim, L., & Meerah, S. M. (2006). What 

Malaysian science teachers need to improve their 

science instruction: A comparison across gender, 

school location and area of specialization.  Eurasia 

Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology 

Education, 2(2), 58-81. 

Robinson, V. M. J. (2010). From instructional leadership to 

leadership capabilities: Empirical findings and 

methodological challenges. Leadership and Policy 

in Schools, 9, 1-26. 

Skinner, S. L. (2007). Reflecting from the middle: 

Heteroglossia and the role of the high school 

department chair. 

http://dbs.galib.uga.edu/cgibin/ultimate.cgi?dbs=get

d&userid=galileo&serverno=9&instcode=publ     

Smith, C., Mestry, R., & Bambie, A. (2013). Role players’ 

experience and perceptions of heads of 

departments’ instructional leadership role in 

secondary schools. Education as Change, 17(Sup1), 

S163-S176. 

Spillane, J. P., Hallett, T., & Diamond, J. B. (2003). Forms 

of capital and the construction of leadership: 

instructional leadership in urban elementary schools. 

Sociology of Education, 76(1), 1-17. 

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). 

Towards a theory of leadership practice: a 

distributed perspective.  Journal of Curriculum 

Studies, 36(1), 3-34.  

Spillane, J. P., & Hopkins, M. (2013). Organizing for 

instruction in education systems and school 

organizations: How the subject matters.  Journal of 

Curriculum Studies, 

http://doi.org/0.1080/00220272.2013.810783  

Stephenson, A. (2010). An examination of the issues facing 

heads of departments in New Zealand secondary 

schools. Masters Thesis 

http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/1609

?show=full 

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative 

research. Sage Newbury Park, CA. 

Teddlie, C., & Yu, F.  (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A 

typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods 

Research, 1(1), 77-100. 

Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: developing 

theory from practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 

1-26.  

Turner, C. (2003). The distinctiveness of the subject being 

taught and the work of subject heads of department 

in managing the quality of classroom teaching and 

learning in secondary schools in Wales. School 

Leadership & Management, 23, 41-57. 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERIC-ED466023/pdf/ERIC-ED466023.pdf
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERIC-ED466023/pdf/ERIC-ED466023.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/singapore-
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/singapore-
http://doi.org/0.1080/00220272.2013.810783
http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/1609?show=full
http://unitec.researchbank.ac.nz/handle/10652/1609?show=full


Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning  

Volume 6 Number 2 September 2021. Page 119-137 

p-ISSN: 2477-5924 e-ISSN: 2477-8478 

 

137 

 

Turner, C., & Bolam, R. (1998). Analysing the role of the 

subject head of department in secondary schools in 

England and Wales: Towards a theoretical 

framework, School Leadership & Management: 

Formerly School Organisation, 18(3), 373-388. 

Wanzare, Z. O. (2013). Skills and attributes of instructional 

supervisors: Experience from Kenya. Educational 

Research and Review, 8(24), 2270-2280. 

York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about 

teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of 

scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 

255-316.