A quagmire of academic underachievement

Tshwarelo Hosia | Monday May 4, 2026 09:09

Habitually, they present themselves as unfortunate and hapless victims of powerful and overwhelming external circumstances. In other words, persistently underachieving schools tend to find reasonable grounds for their predicament and state of affairs. There cannot be any serious investment in charting a new course when the justification for depressing performance seems to exist. Change can only come when the current state of performance is unacceptable and a source of embarrassment to the school. There cannot be any meaningful efforts to address underachievement when a culture of indifference to it appears to have gained currency. If there is some degree of justification or reasonable, understandable grounds for the status quo to continue, then working towards improvement can be a daunting task, if not an impossible mission.

A reconstruction process can only take off and gain momentum where there is a collective admission of systemic shortcomings within a school. Progress begins with admitting that one or two things within a school’s control should be done better. Failure to accept responsibility for matters within a school’s sphere of control can only perpetuate the status quo while frustrating movement towards remedial action. Here are some possible grounds for a school not wanting to accept some degree of responsibility when desirable student learning outcomes remain elusive. It has to be acknowledged that there are a number of externally controlled factors that are making it difficult for schools to provide quality service to students. Outside forces are generally overwhelming, leading to a loss of hope. When the chips are down, it is fair and justified for a school to apportion some of the blame squarely to the crippling effects and limitations imposed by external factors on the operational efficiency of a school.

However, not all the blame should go outside the boundaries of a school. For example, the acquisition of critical teaching and learning inputs is contingent upon the timely provision of adequate funding. It is common cause that insufficiently funded institutions are bound to struggle to navigate their teaching and learning endeavours. Nonetheless, effective utilisation of available resources lies within a school’s sphere of influence. Another external factor, which often receives condemnation when good results are elusive, is the community in which a school exists. Schools that cannot solicit sufficient and relentless parental support feel orphaned and neglected. Teachers, justifiably so, consider teaching and learning a shared responsibility. And in all fairness, a tripartite alliance should prevail between teachers, students and parents in the quest for improved learning outcomes. And without parental shoulders to lean on, schools could struggle to meet their teaching goals and objectives. When a culture of academic underachievement persists, it won’t be far-fetched to apportion the blame on parents for shirking their responsibilities and obligations. But parents cannot be made to absorb all the flak. Yet another important reason schools may avoid taking responsibility is that they are unjustifiably criticised for failing students. The criticism can come from the community and external oversight bodies. When dealing with underachievement, parents should also consider their role in undermining a school culture of good performance.

Not all parents are giving their best selves to schools. Some are totally indifferent to the plight of a school struggling to work with insufficient tools, while others do not visit schools even when an invitation has been extended. As for oversight bodies, they should know better. A negative and critical approach is never a solution to the problems bedevilling schools. When dealing with issues of underachievement, oversight institutions should adopt a friendly and coaching demeanour. It works wonders if you ask me. It is so humbling and disarming for those who may never desire to cooperate with the external supervisory structures. When the results are not looking good, oversight bodies frantically arrange school visits to appreciate what went right or wrong. Underachieving schools always anticipate condemnation from their external authorities, especially where a precedent has been set. When anticipating condemnation, a school would prepare to defend its integrity against any external onslaught by skilfully shifting attention away from internal processes.

While this may ensure temporary survival and cushion, the strategy of avoiding responsibility cannot aid the recovery process. Efforts would be spent on addressing problems orchestrated by external factors, while those emanating from within hardly get justice. This should be a good lesson to external oversight institutions to tread carefully. Considering the plethora of problems schools are dealing with, it is advisable for anyone outside the school system to foster blame-free interactions. Constructive, positive engagement unlocks opportunities for give-and-take. External oversight bodies can make or break a school.

A critical and adversarial approach creates room for a contest of ideas between the schools and supervisory entities. When fearful of the wrath of authorities, underachieving schools would place as much emphasis as possible on factors beyond the school’s sphere of control. Anyone in this position would do the same. It is safe to embark on this course. However, avoiding responsibility cannot help the school’s cause. It can only exacerbate the problems at hand.

Escaping responsibility for things that are under the control of a school creates a situation where discussions tinker on the edges of real problems in instructional practice that could be bedevilling schools. It should be recognised that, as much as external factors conspire to undermine teaching and learning, attention should also be drawn towards addressing challenges of classroom instructional practice. The triangular relationship between the teacher, curriculum and learner falls within the jurisdiction and control of a school. When the train derails, the school should accept some degree of responsibility. When external oversight bodies seek to address issues of underperformance, it is important to eliminate possibilities of intransigence and resistance on the part of schools. And the approach counts. Schools view any outside body approaching them with suspicion, in a negative and critical stance. From the outset, it works well if oversight institutions could ensure morale-boosting engagements. Expressing confidence in a struggling school’s ability to resuscitate and overcome any roadblocks that impede progress is motivating. Positivity is empowerment, while negativity is disempowerment.

Placing faith in the efficacy of internal troops motivates admission of weaknesses and subsequent development of remedial actions. A school can do better if it is not condemned but glorified for its potential to fix what is broken. A blame-free atmosphere fosters rapport and mutual respect. When armed with a positive approach, external oversight bodies could gain what they had not bargained for. That is the school’s admission of shortcomings, which an institution would otherwise have swept under the carpet. Navigating a new course begins with acceptance of the real problem plaguing a school. Schools that are able to accept some degree of responsibility usually learn important lessons from their mistakes. Falling short of achieving desired standards is integral to the development and learning process. Most schools are unable to overcome recurring classroom instructional problems because they fail to admit that such problems exist.

They take solace and refuge in pointing an accusing finger at common, generic problems that universally affect the entire education system. It is important to give some attention to problems that are peculiar to a school. Addressing problems in instructional practice is critical to achieving positive change. In the final analysis, a school that holds itself accountable for what is happening internally stands a better chance of getting better. But any school that diverts attention to outside forces ruins its potential to shed a culture of non-performance. Each school is unique, and no school is exactly the same, even when they exist in the same geo-political environment. Each school should be dealt with as a unique and separate entity. Solutions suitable for one school may not necessarily apply in another school.