|dc.description.abstract||This study sought to understand what training and development the teachers experienced through
the cascade model. In asking the question, “Does the cascade model work for teachers?” I
produced data through the exploration of the experiences of teachers, whose training for the
implementation of the Integrated Quality Management System at schools was through the
cascade model. The critical questions posed in the study were, firstly, what are the building
blocks that constitute the cascade model? Secondly, how did the School Training Teams
experience their training and development on the cascade model, based on the core guiding
principles? Thirdly, what are the experiences of teachers at school level, on their training and
development by School Training Teams for the implementation of IQMS?
Using Zeichner’s paradigms of teacher development (1993) as the theoretical lens through which
to understand how training and development was experienced through the cascade model, I read
and interpreted the workings of the model in terms of the four paradigmatic positionings –
Traditional-craft, behaviorist, personalistic and inquiry oriented perspectives.
Using a descriptive qualitative approach, I accessed three high schools in the Port Shepstone
District to participate in this study. The data sources used to produce the data included the IQMS
Provincial Training Manual (used by the provincial facilitators for the training of School Training
Teams); individual semi-structured interviews of the Provincial IQMS facilitators; interviews of
the School Training Team members who were responsible for cascading IQMS to teachers at
school level, and survey questionnaires to teachers of the schools that participated in this study.
The findings of the study show that the process of teacher development through the cascade
model has not only resulted in the teachers engaging in ‘strategic simulation’ about change and
‘intensification’ of the work they do, but has to a greater extent, also led to teacher de-professionalization.
Although ‘disruption’ was unearthed in the middle tiers of the cascade, by
and large, the intent of change at both levels, bureaucratic and school, was tactical and
I conclude that the continued employment of the cascade as the model for teacher development
and training perpetuates a technicist approach of what it means to be a teacher and reduces
teachers work to a de-intellectualising practice.||