LEADING CURRICULUM CHANGES IN SCHOOLS: THE ROLE OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS

The purpose of this article was to determine the views of teachers regarding the leading role of principals during curriculum changes in schools. The research was quantitative in nature, with one qualitative section and was based on a post-positivist worldview. The qualitative section serves to inform the reader explicitly on leadership issues that are important during curriculum changes. Eight hundred and eighty-four teachers from 67 schools formed the sample. Any change initiative always has an element of resistance to it that should be considered by principals, also when changes in the curriculum are being created. Bearing in mind the views of teachers, the effect of resistance to curriculum changes could be minimised. Principals could be in a better position to steer the curriculum changes in schools in the right direction. Teachers will, as a result, be in a better position to do their work properly to the benefit of the learners and, eventually, to the benefit of society.


INTRODUCTION
Since the inception of the democratic education system in South Africa in 1994, many curriculum changes have taken place to rectify the disparities that existed in the education departments prior to 1994 (Van Wyk & Van der Westhuizen, 2015). The aim was to create a single, uniform curriculum for all schools. As change is a global phenomenon that constantly takes place in organisations, one can assume that another reason for the changes in the curriculum was to create work environments that are more competitive (Specht, Kuonath, Pachler, Weisweiler & Frey, 2017). Change agents often face difficulties in leading curriculum changes successfully. It has been maintained that in the South African schooling context, notwithstanding interventions of various institutions and the government, the curriculum changes in the schooling system do not seem to come to fruition. It seems that most of the old challenges regarding the curriculum still remain, while new challenges pertaining to the curriculum have come to the fore (Van Wyk In the South African context, leadership and management issues in the schooling system also prevent change initiatives from being successful (Van der Westhuizen & Van Vuuren, 2007). Van der Westhuizen and Van Vuuren (2007) maintain that some principals are appointed, for example, based on their learners' good results. This criterion does not guarantee that principals will be good at leading curriculum changes in a school. The minimum requirements of seven years' teaching experience, as prescribed in the Personnel Administrative Measures (PAM) (2016), to be appointed in a principal post can be an advantage for the principal as well as the school. However, it is the view of Van der Westhuizen (2015) that the management and leading of a school require an individual with specialised skills and knowledge that must be modernised repeatedly and employed in a practical manner. It thus implies that teaching experience alone is not sufficient to be a successful principal, but training in educational management and leadership issues becomes another criterion. According to Zuze and Juan (2020), this criterion is crucial for principals to acquire as they have been tasked over the past 20 years with implementing policies and programmes as well as raising the academic standards in schools. Furthermore, the PAM sets out the fundamental duties of school principals, which include among others, policy enactment and the management of teachers, learners, information, infrastructure and school discipline (Zuze & Juan, 2020). These roles have been refined in the Policy on the South African Standard for Principalship (RSA, 2016), which sets out eight interdependent areas of which the management of the curriculum forms one of the core activities of the principal.
In addition, in order to respond to the new curriculum in the classroom and the management and leadership challenges in schools, training opportunities for teachers and principals have also been made available (Gaza, 2012). Notwithstanding these interventions, most schools, especially schools in poor communities, are not performing at a satisfactory level and the envisaged curriculum changes have not yet been realised. However, there is evidence that some schools in poor communities nevertheless excel, implying that not all schools in these areas perform poorly (Ngcobo & Tikly, 2010). In view of the latter, there must be other missing aspects in the South African schooling system that have not yet been accounted for that impede on the readiness of schools for the envisaged curriculum changes. Based on the aforementioned observations and remarks regarding leadership and frequent curriculum changes in the schooling system, the research reported in the remainder of this article was guided by the following question: What are the perceptions of teachers regarding the leading role of principals in curriculum changes in schools? The research was based on the following conceptual and theoretical framework.

CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This section covers the conceptual and theoretical framework on which the empirical research regarding the perceptions of teachers pertaining to the leading role of principals in curriculum changes in schools was based.

Change and resistance to change
Change is an ever-present phenomenon in organisations. It happens to renew organisations and should be dealt with skilfully for it to be successful (Mohamed & Abdel-Ghany, 2014). The element of resistance is always present during change (Van Wyk & Van der Westhuizen, 2015). Resistance takes place when there is change, but also when there is no change in organisations (Van Wyk & Van der Westhuizen, 2015). The skilful handling of change minimises the possibility of resistance. However, employees seldom exhibit change-resistant behaviour from the onset without first considering the negative consequences for themselves (Mohamed & Abdel-Ghany, 2014). Choi and Ruona (2011) hold similar views, stating that individuals are not naturally inclined to resist change but, instead, are annoyed with the consequences that the change might bring and the way change is forced upon them. Change or non-change in organisations each has the potential to manifest in revolutionary or reactionary resistance (Van der Westhuizen & Theron, 2014). Both views of resistance have relevancy for education and serve as aids to let change happen in schools (Zimmerman, 2006). This phenomenon can best be described by Kurt Lewin's force-field theory, which deals with driving forces on the one side and restraining forces on the other (Lewin, 1947a;Lewin, 1947b). Choi and Ruona (2011) maintain, referencing Lewin (1947a), that driving forces, for instance stakeholders in schools, mostly occur when an organisation fails to effect a change. Parents and teachers as driving forces have the interest of the school at heart and one assumes that they will do anything positive to let changes happen in the school. However, they could also be hampering the change process as restraining forces, especially when they believe that the change process is to the detriment of the school.

Readiness for change
Readiness for change refers to the perceptions, beliefs, attitudes and intentions of the members of organisations regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the capacity of the organisation to effect the changes (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999;Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby, 2000;Jansen, 2000;Jones, Jimmieson & Griffiths, 2005). Readiness is all about employees' perceptions of their competencies to implement the change (Combe, 2014;Holt, Armenakis, Feild & Harris, 2007). Being prepared for change implies that the individual needs to be transformed physically and cognitively so that he or she will have control over, and the capacity to, respond to a challenge (Weiner, 2009). During a time of change readiness, organisational members are more likely to initiate change, utilise greater effort in support of change and display greater determination in the face of obstacles during the enactment of the change. http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v38.i2.10 2020: 38(2) The systems and the management of organisations as well as the relationships within the organisation should be conducive for individuals to embrace the change process. Organisational readiness can also be measured by the organisation's financial, material, human and informational resources that can be applied to the change, as well as by the psychological willingness of affected people to cooperate in bringing the change to fruition (Wallinga, 2008). The consequence of being ready will be the effective implementation of new ideas, programme processes or technology. Organisational members whose commitment to change is based on "want to" motives rather than "need to" motives exhibit cooperative and supportive behaviour (Weiner, 2009). By contrast, when organisational readiness for change is low or non-existent, staff will resist initiating change, put less effort into the implementation thereof and exhibit less compliant behaviour.

Perspectives in Education
In an effort to integrate the concepts discussed above, the next section deals with the formulation of a theoretical framework. Kotter's eight-step change model served as the backbone on which the research of the perceptions of teachers regarding the leading role of the principal in curriculum change was based.

Increase urgency
During this phase, teachers want principals to give reasons for the change and an explanation of how it will affect them. The crisis with the curriculum and the opportunities that can be established should be emphasised. Aspects that can be emphasised as reasons for change in the curriculum revolve around teachers' uncertainties of how to implement the curriculum, their negative reactions and resistance, as they find it difficult to maintain a balance between teaching and assessment time. Other reasons are, for instance, the fact that South African learners score poorly in literacy and numeracy tests compared to learners from other African countries (Mouton, Louw & Strydom, 2012).
In addition, reports showed that the literacy and numeracy rates of learners in South Africa are among the lowest of their peers, despite the huge amount spent on education each year (Mouton et al., 2012). To intensify the need for curriculum change, principals could use examples of opportunities, such as the envisaged coding and robotics that will be part of a new curriculum to prepare learners for the Fourth Industrial Revolution in South Africa. It can also be emphasised that the new curriculum will prepare learners to apply their digital and ICT skills to work from their homes to solve a problem such as the current COVID-19 crisis (Business Tech, 2019). Principals should enable teachers to talk about and participate in discussions about changes in the curriculum.

Guide the team
Putting together a team that shares the same goal and vision, communicates effectively and is trustworthy is crucial for effecting the curriculum change (Webster & Webster, 2018). Further qualities of the team are the display of expertise, positive power, credibility and proven leadership skills (Mento, Jones & Dirndorfer, 2010). In this regard, one can think of experienced teachers, head of departments, subject advisors, the deputy principal and the principal of the school. The team, under the leadership of the principal, has the responsibility to execute the curriculum changes that include the following step, getting the vision right. http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v38.i2.10

Van Wyk
Leading curriculum changes in schools

Get the vision right
A clear vision is vital to teachers for understanding what needs to be achieved in a particular timeframe (Anson, 2011;Goldberg, Williams & Paul-Brown, 2002). To convey the correct vision to other teachers, it is, as previously indicated, important to include persons who have experience in curriculum matters. In this sense, it should enable other teachers to visualise a picture of what the end result of the curriculum change would look like (Anson, 2011;Goldberg et al., 2002). The next phase would be to communicate the vision to teachers for them to embrace the curriculum change.

Communicate for buy-in
The message of the team to teachers should be clear and understandable (Mento et al., 2010). It is not sufficient for the leader to hold one or two meetings to sell the vision to other teachers; the vision should continuously be part of the agenda points in all meetings (Anson, 2011). The team, led by the principal, should talk about it in e-mails and presentations and during staff meetings, school gatherings, school governing body meetings, subject meetings and meetings with learners and parents. People want leaders to be ethical and to "walk the talk" to inspire them to do the same. It is counterproductive if the team and its leader say one thing but do something different (Goldberg et al., 2002). The next phase is about the actions the team should take.

Empower
Empowering teachers by giving them training removes the obstacles that are hindering them from doing their best (Webster & Webster, 2018), as the way the different structures at schools are driven can be either detrimental or advantageous to the curriculum change (Sharma, Upadhyaya, Schober & Williams, 2014). Krummaker and Vogel (2012), in turn, are of the view that a team that is highly competent to drive the curriculum change seems to be successful in transferring their readiness for change to other teachers. These teachers could display the same behaviour as a team whose readiness for change is contagious and elicits high levels of drive for the curriculum change (Krummaker & Vogel, 2012). On the other hand, undesirable conditions in schools do not contribute to the empowerment of teachers (Mentz, 2002;Van Wyk, Ogina & Mampane, 2016). Teachers will most likely resist these conditions. The next phase is to create short-term gains for teachers.

Create short-term gains
As change takes time to come to fruition, teachers may lose interest and revert to their old ways of doing things (Webster & Webster, 2018). It is advisable that the leader creates opportunities for teachers to experience success with the change in the short term (Friesen, 2016). The team should, in view of the new dispensation, look for evidence that suggests that teachers have achieved in one way or the other, for instance learner results, good teaching practices and building good relationships with colleagues and learners. These wins should be recognised and rewarded (Friesen, 2016). Recognising and rewarding impart credibility and enhance the urgency levels of the curriculum change to teachers (Friesen, 2016).

Keep the momentum of the change
It is tempting to celebrate efforts at this stage when it becomes clear that a school is out of its comfort domains and starts performing (Kotter, 1995). Teachers who, for instance, still resist the change should be persuaded and retrained to accept the new culture more easily (Anson, http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v38.i2.10 Perspectives in Education 2020: 38 (2) 2011). The principal should recognise and celebrate the perceived success with the teachers without resting on their laurels, which may result in losing focus (Friesen, 2016;Mento et al., 2010). The last phase is to make sure that the new curriculum is sustained.

Sustainable change
During the last stage, the principal and the team should ensure that the policies, procedures and practices of the new curriculum are followed (Mento et al., 2010). Cultural change, institutionalising and connections should be established and articulated as it must be visible that the old curriculum is no longer relevant (Goldberg et al., 2002). Attempts should be made to indicate how the new approaches, behaviours and attitudes contribute to the new curriculum change that has helped performance in schools. Every effort should be made by principals and their teams to explain why the performance of schools has improved (Mento et al., 2010). New teachers should complete a comprehensive training programme to familiarise themselves with how the curriculum works (Anson, 2011;Goldberg et al., 2002). The following empirical investigation was based on the conceptual and theoretical framework outlined in the previous section.

EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
The purpose of the investigation was to determine the perceptions of teachers regarding the leading role of principals in curriculum changes in schools.

RESEARCH ORIENTATION AND DESIGN
A quantitative research approach, coupled with one qualitative section, was used. The research was based on a post-positivist paradigm. The post-positivist paradigm lies on a continuum between the quantitative and qualitative research methods. It is concerned with the subjectivity of reality and so doing, moves away from the solely objective standpoint embraced by the logical positivists (Creswell, 2012).

Study population and sampling
The study population consisted of teachers at primary and secondary schools from the five regions of a province in South Africa. Only schools with 500 and more learners formed part of the population as these schools had enough teachers to provide meaningful data for the research. Every second school was selected from the EMIS system of the Department of Basic Education in the province. Questionnaires were sent to all teachers at the selected schools. The bibliographical section of the questionnaire comprised the profile of the teachers, such as teaching experience, post level and age. From the population mentioned, 67 schools with 884 teachers took part in the research.

Instrument
The survey was posted and hand-delivered to schools. As a result, 884 questionnaires were distributed to teachers in the province. The questionnaires were either sent back by post or collected when officials from the Department of Education visited these schools. The principal of each school was asked to distribute the questionnaires to the teachers. The instructions were printed clearly on the front page of the questionnaire; thus, it was not necessary for someone to help the teachers with the completion of the questionnaire. Eighty-three per cent of the questionnaires were received back due to the fact that the researcher was in constant http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v38.i2.10 Van Wyk Leading curriculum changes in schools contact with the principals and the departmental officials assisting with the collection of the questionnaires. An open-ended question formed part of the survey to cater for the views of respondents who wanted to elaborate on the answers they gave in the survey.

Validity and reliability
The soundness of the questions was constructed from the literature on aspects regarding the leading role of principals in curriculum changes. In order to validate the information further, a colleague was asked to peer examine the information on the questionnaire (cf. Creswell, 2012). A pilot study was also undertaken, where teachers were asked to complete the questionnaire and make notes when a specific question was not clear enough. These notes of the teachers on the questionnaire were considered when the questionnaire was finalised. Furthermore, the validity of the questionnaire was also discussed with the person who handled the data capturing at the independent statistical services of the university. For the questionnaire to be reliable, the alpha coefficient should be one (1) or near one (1) (Ellis & Steyn, 2003). In the case of the research, the different categories of the questionnaire were near one (1), for instance 0.86, 0.70, 0.76, 0.74 and 0.86.

Ethical issues
Ethical approval was granted by the South African university under the authority of which the research was done. Permission to commence with the research in schools was obtained from the Department of Basic Education. Privacy, integrity, professional dignity, the trustworthiness of the information and the anonymity of the participants were all part of the ethical aspects explicated on the front page of the questionnaire (cf. Maree & Pietersen, 2014). The participants could also withdraw from the investigation at any time.

Data collection
The head of Basic Education in the province consented to distribute the questionnaires to the respondents. All the instructions regarding the completion of the survey were indicated on the front page.

Data processing procedures
The completed questionnaires, consisting of 60 questions and divided into four categories, were sent to the statistical services for processing. This research was part of a larger study and only those sections that were applicable to this research were considered. Only questions with d-values of 0.5 and larger were taken into account, as these numbers were regarded as practical and significant to report on. As indicated earlier, one qualitative question was included in the survey. This question was analysed and interpreted by the researcher for similarities and differences to substantiate or refute the information given by the respondents on the survey. The next section deals with the analysis, interpretation and discussion of the results.

RESULTS, ANALYSIS, INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION
The following section contains the results, analysis and discussion of the perceptions of teachers regarding the leading role of the principal in curriculum changes. http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v38.i2.10 Perspectives in Education 2020: 38(2) 0.2 ~ practically non-significant or small significance * 0.5 ~ practically significant or medium significance ** 0.8 ~ practically significant or large significance *** Table 2 accounts for the responses of the participants from the open-ended question. Not all the teachers answered the question and quotations of a similar nature are only from a third of the participants.

D. Management/leadership aspects
• "The lack of consistency in the management style is of a great concern"; "Autocratic management style"; "Lack of participation"; "SGB participation not good"; "the principal say[s] there must be change, but he and the School Governing Body (SGB) hold on to old views"

Category A • Support for teachers
There was a practical significance (d -0.67) (see Table 1) regarding the nature of the support that principals should grant teachers. It is inferred from the data that the teachers held the view that principals did not give them sufficient support during curriculum changes. Support for teachers comes in various forms, for instance encouraging, giving advice and supplying the necessary resources. However, this perception of teachers has been clarified by the open-ended question that revealed that "there is no sufficient staff" and there is "a lack of parental involvement" (Table 2). Sufficient staff and parental involvement should be advocated by principals all the time, as it will help to ease the workload of teachers. Parents, on the other hand, can assist with homework or at least see to it that their children do their homework. Some of the supporting aspects may not be under the direct auspices of principals, but the type of leadership that principals and their teams display to rectify these issues will determine whether teachers perceive their leading as supportive or not. This view concurs with the statement made by Holt et al. (2007) that teachers should be prepared for curriculum changes (Mouton, Louw & Strydom, 2012). In this sense, it will create buy-in from the relevant stakeholders, including teachers (Anson, 2011).

• Previous change initiatives and the agenda with new change
The data showed a practical significance (d -0.53) regarding the way principals led previous change initiatives. It is an indication that the teachers were of the opinion that the way previous curriculum changes had been led created a negative perception of how the leaders would lead the change in future. The teachers' suspicion developed over time. This suspicion was confirmed by the data in the open-ended question, where some teachers stated that "the principal say[s] there must be change, but he and the school governing body (SGB) hold on to old views" (see the response under management and leadership aspects). This response is indicative that teachers have developed an integrity problem towards their principals. The readiness of a school to change can be measured by the psychological willingness of the teachers affected by the change (Wallinga, 2008). It is maintained that the leaders and their teams should be credible, be trusted and be able to "walk the talk" (Mento et al., 2010;Theron, 2014;Van der Westhuizen & Theron, 2014)). It is clear that in this instance, some teachers view their principals as untrustworthy to support the curriculum changes.

Category B • Emotions, scepticism and afraid of the unknown
The data showed a practical significance regarding the emotions of the teachers (d -0.51), the fact that the teachers were sceptical about the change (d -0.56) and the fact that the teachers were afraid of the unknown (d -0.52). These aspects were explained by the views of some teachers in the open-ended question. They stated that there was a general "intolerance http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v38.i2.10 2020: 38(2) and insensitivity towards the views, opinions and actions of others" and that some colleagues had "fixed mind-sets" and "they do not want to change and prefer their comfort zones". It can be deduced from the data that there was a general negative atmosphere among the teachers. This gloomy mood of the teachers is to be expected as it was said earlier that the principals had not been very supportive and communicative towards the teachers regarding the curriculum change. In order to oust teachers from their comfort domains, true urgency for the curriculum change should be created and embedded in the teachers' minds (Combe, 2014) 6.3 Category C

• Skills
The data revealed that the teachers were concerned about their skills and, thus, their capability (d -0.54) to cope with curriculum changes. This concern was complemented by the teachers' views stated in the qualitative part of the questionnaire and mainly revolved around "shortages of resources". Training opportunities to handle the new challenges brought about by the curriculum change are essential (Wallinga, 2008). In addition, Friesen (2016) advised that short-term opportunities to experience success with the change should be created for teachers.

Category D • Communication and participation
A practical significance existed around the kind of communication (d -0.57), participation (d -0.66) and listening (d -0.69) the principals provided to the teachers. The importance of communication was stated by the data in the open-ended question as follows: the principals displayed an "autocratic leadership style" and there was a "lack of participation" that made "collective decision making" impossible. One can thus assume that the teachers were unable to give sufficient input about the curriculum changes as participatory decision making was not possible. A communication gap emanated from the lack of communication between the principals and the teachers.
Step 4 of the Kotter model states that change and the effect thereof should be clearly articulated by principals. In view of this, it can be postulated that the teachers viewed the leadership espoused by the principals as inappropriate for successful curriculum change. The teachers' view concurs with Anson's (2011) view, which states that successful change necessitates effective communication of principals with teachers.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The teachers see principals as the custodians of curriculum changes. Therefore, it is important for them to be at the front -communicating and providing the necessary resources to implement the curriculum changes successfully. In order to avoid making the same mistakes of the past, the input of teachers is crucial. In so doing, their fears and scepticism regarding the curriculum changes can be laid to rest. The curriculum change should constantly be placed as an item on the agenda of meetings, and curriculum training should be provided on a continuous basis for as long as it is necessary. The teachers participating in this research were not sure whether their skills were sufficient for the curriculum changes. Thus, mentoring is important for teachers, especially those who are unsure and new in the system. Better measures should be put in place by the employer to strengthen the type of candidates who are being appointed as principals. Interviews alone are insufficient.