Inside the Reality of Small Schools Under Pressure
Classrooms with leaking roofs, overloaded timetables and schools that function daily against structural limits are the focus of Dr Rudolph Sibisi’s PhD study, ‘Leading Teaching and Learning in Small Schools in the Context of Deprivation: A Qualitative Study of Principals’ Experiences’, supervised by Professor Phumlani Myende and Dr Vusi Msiza.
The study is rooted in these lived realities.
Born in Umbumbulu, Sibisi describes a career shaped by two very different schooling environments. In one context, he recalls, “I had to conduct extra classes in the afternoons, over weekends and even during holidays to ensure learners performed.”
In another, better-resourced school, the experience was almost inverted: “With little effort, I always produced a 100% pass rate.”
For Sibisi, the contrast raised a persistent question about how context shapes teaching and learning outcomes.
That question became more urgent when he moved into school leadership.
As principal of a small rural school, he encountered what he calls “a shocking reality.” The infrastructure was severely compromised: cracked walls, leaking asbestos roofs, unsafe toilets, and a building declared unsafe by authorities. There was no staffroom or kitchen, and the school was losing many learners to neighbouring schools, with parents citing infrastructure as the main reason for transfers.
He tried formal channels first, but without any success. Support from the School Governing Body helped only at the margins. With local business donations, the school managed small repairs like painting, but core infrastructure challenges remained.
The social side of leadership was just as difficult. “In the first parents’ meeting, only 30 parents attended. I felt that I was alone and did not know what to do.” The low turnout reflected broader disengagement, and in some cases, a lack of trust in the school’s conditions.
Inside the school, leadership was shaped by absence as much as responsibility. In small schools like his, there are often no deputy principals or departmental heads. “At times, principals are the only formal managers in their schools,” Sibisi said. That meant teaching full timetables while also handling administration, compliance and management duties.
Office work had to be done outside school hours. Meetings with district offices meant time away from school, followed by catching up on teaching and administration later. “I had to spend a lot of time outside school hours attending to matters of administration and management,” Sibisi noted.
What emerged in his experience, and later in his research, is what he calls context-driven leadership. In practice, this meant leadership roles being shared informally: “The leadership responsibility was shared with senior educators and sometimes even with Post Level 1 educators. This was not structured delegation, but necessity-driven sharing of tasks to keep the school functional,” explained Sibisi.
Collaboration also extended beyond the school itself. Principals in similar contexts often relied on neighbouring schools for support.
“Principals developed a collaborative culture with neighbouring schools to ensure effective leadership of teaching and learning. This included sharing educators, subject expertise, and sometimes physical resources that were not available within the school,” Sibisi said.
Resource constraints shaped every decision, with priority given to basic teaching and learning needs over everything else because funding was insufficient to meet all school requirements.
One of the most consistent findings in his study was how principals adapted leadership approaches to context. Instead of formal models, leadership became a mix of servant and adaptive practices. A key example was the use of personal resources. Inspiringly, he recounts that instead of focusing on the lack of resources, principals sometimes use their own resources. This included personal laptops, printers, and even personal funds for school needs, staff workshops or transport.
Sibisi said that this should not be framed as innovation, but as compensation for systemic gaps, adding that in many cases, leadership is sustained through personal sacrifice rather than institutional support.
Relationships were another critical factor. Effective leadership depended on networks inside and outside the school. “There must be a very strong mutual relationship between the principal, educators and the wider community,” he said.
In some cases, unemployed qualified educators were brought in to support teaching, while local businesses contributed through donations where possible.
Despite these efforts, constraints remained constant. Sibisi’s study highlights how small schools in deprived contexts operate with fewer educators, limited infrastructure, and reduced administrative capacity. These conditions directly affect how teaching and learning are led on a daily basis.
Reflecting on his journey, Sibisi does not frame his experience as exceptional, but as a common reality in many small schools. “Leadership in small schools is shaped by unique, context-specific challenges, and those challenges require constant adjustment rather than fixed solutions.”
Words: Rakshika Sibran
Photograph: Sethu Dlamini
