Circuit managers’ views on quality education at selected public schools in the Limpopo province, South Africa

Abstract

This article is premised on the notion that the success of an education system depends entirely on the strong leadership and synergy at all its levels. The intention with this article was to assess the extent to which the circuit managers’ views on quality education is affecting its provision at public schools. A Systems Thinking Approach to Leadership guided the study reported on here in which a qualitative research methodology was used. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, observation and document analysis to ensure data triangulation and guarantee the trustworthiness and credibility of the study. Ten participants were purposively selected from 5 districts in the Limpopo province. The findings reveal that circuit managers’ varied views on quality education negatively influence their curriculum delivery, support, and responsibilities entrusted to them. As there is little improvement in the provisioning of basic quality education, I argue for the strengthening of the circuit offices and suggest ways in which they could be utilised to improve the quality of basic education in public schools. The implications of the findings suggest capacity building of effective supervision and monitoring of the provision of quality support by circuit managers.

Seroprevalence and assessment of public awareness of Brucella spp., Toxoplasma gondii and Chlamydia abortus in small ruminants from selected smallholder commercial farms of Zimbabwe

“…abortus and T . gondii was very low, this is consistent with other African studies [ 6 , 16 , 17 , 20 , 82 , 83 ]. This could be due to poor access to veterinary services by smallholder farmers and hence there is a clear need to promote education on the associated risk factors of zoonotic disease among at risk communities, through a coordinated One Health approach.…”

“…Furthermore, most of the animals sampled in the present study were extensively reared which could also account for such a low overall seroprevalence [ 5 , 10 , 18 , 63 , 65 , 66 ]. Similarly low seroprevalences have been reported in other southern African countries; 10% (goats) Botswana [ 67 ]; 6.4% (sheep) South Africa [ 18 ]; 4.3% (goats) South Africa [ 68 ]; 9.2% (goats) South Africa [ 6 ]; and 8% (sheep) South Africa [ 66 ], however, reports of high seroprevalences also exist; 30% (goats) Botswana [ 14 ], and 64.5% (sheep) and 53.9% (goats) South Africa [ 60 ]. These contrasting findings indicate a wide distribution of small ruminant toxoplasmosis, pointing to the influence of a variety of factors in the disease epidemiology both in Zimbabwe and southern Africa.…”

“…The livelihoods of smallholder commercial farmers in Zimbabwean communal areas are dependent heavily on small ruminant production [ 1 – 4 ]. Small ruminants are mainly used for food and nutritional security, income generation, capital storage, manure, as a status symbol, and in important socio-cultural activities and rituals [ 1 – 3 , 5 , 6 ]. Furthermore, they also utilize idling resources like crop residues that would probably go to waste [ 2 , 4 ].…”

“…Thus, small ruminant production related benefits can only be maximised if the causes of reproductive failure such as abortions are identified and controlled. Moreover, abortions may be of public health importance if they are induced by zoonoses, as women and children play an active role in small ruminant husbandry in African rural areas [ 6 , 13 ]. Thus, if women of childbearing age are exposed to small ruminants harbouring these infections the effects may be detrimental.…”

Researching Without “Methods”: An Experiment in Socio-Ecological Sustainability Research With Rural Communities

“…Notably, there are many cases in which Development Assisted Countries (DAC) like Uganda have partnered with outsider interventions with unintended and detrimental consequences. Buildings, wells, and technologies that are left unused, un-serviced, and unrepaired for example, have become irrelevant or a reminder of imbalanced partnerships (Ndou, 2012;Rwakakamba, 2009). In addition, non-indigenous crops or animals provided from external initiatives have disrupted agricultural production, eco-systems, and livelihoods due to their impact on existing practices and conditions (Moyo & Moyo, 2013).…”