School Governance formeSet - CiteSeerX

i

REPORT TO THE MINISTER OF EDUCATIONProfessor Kader Asmal, M.P.

Ministerial Review CommitteeDecember 2003

ii

iii

Contents

Contents

Acronyms.............................................................................................................................. iv

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. v

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... vi

Chapter One: An Enquiry into the Status of School Governance in South Africa............. 1

Chapter Two: An Emerging Model of School Governance in South Africa ..................... 21

Chapter Three: The Composition of the School Governing Body .................................... 41

Chapter Four: The Election of the SGB ............................................................................. 70

Chapter Five: Relationships in the SGB and between the SGB and other structures ...... 82

Chapter Six: School Governance Capacity and Functionality with respect to Core Functions ........................................................................................................................... 103

Chapter Seven: The School Governing Body and Policy-making .................................... 120

Chapter Eight: Improving the System of School Governance ......................................... 144

Chapter Nine: A Conclusion: An Agenda for Enhancing the SGB’s Chances of Succeeding ....................................................................................................................... 173

Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 180

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 201

Acronyms

iv

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS

ABET Adult Basic Education and Training AGM Annual general meetingAPT Appointments, promotions and transfersCALS Centre for Applied Legal Studies CEPD Centre for Education Policy DevelopmentDET Department of Education and TrainingDDSP District Development Support ProgrammeDoE Department of EducationECA Extra Curricular ActivitiesEMDG Education Management and Governance Development EMIS Education Management Information SystemsELRC Education and Labour Relations CouncilFEDSAS Federation of Associations of Governing Bodies of South African SchoolsGBF The Governing Body FoundationHOA House of AssemblyHOD House of DelegatesHoD Head of DepartmentHOR House of RepresentativesHSRC Human Sciences Research CouncilLGS Local Governance StructuresLSEN Learners with special educational needsMEC Member of the Executive CommitteeNAPTOSA National Association of Professional Teachers Organisations of South AfricaNASGB National Association of School Governing Bodies NGO Non-governmental organisationNGS National Governance StructuresNSGC National School Governing CouncilPDE Provincial Department of EducationPTA Parent-teacher associationsPTSA Parent-teacher-student associationsRCL Representative Councils of LearnersS20 Section 20S21 Section 21SACE South African Council of EducatorsSADC Southern African Development CommunitySADTU South African Democratic Teachers’ UnionSANASE South African National Association for Special Education SAPA The South African Principals AssociationSASA South African Schools ActSAOU Die Suid Afrikaanse OnderwysersunieSMT School Management TeamSGB School Governing BodyStd StandardWits EPU University of the Witwatersrand Education Policy Unit

v

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

Many people must be thanked for assisting the Ministerial Review Committee with its work.The Educational Management and Governance Development Directorate in the Departmentof Education needs special mention, particularly its Director, Mr Martin Prew, and MrRousseau Mankge. Thanks are also due to Mr Duncan Hindle, the Deputy Director-Generalfor his unfailing support. Special mention must also be made of the members of theExecutive Committees for Education in all the provinces and their Heads of Department. TheMinisterial Review Committee could not have carried out this task without the generous sup-port of officials in the Provincial Departments of Education. School governance in the coun-try owes a great deal to the immense effort that many men and women are putting into theirwork. The Committee would also like to thank all the officials in the Department ofEducation, the members of the Reference Group, and all the members of the public who tookthe trouble to appear before the Review Committee at the large number of public hearingsthat took place throughout the country and who also made their opinions known through thesubmission process. Finally, the Review Committee would like to thank the researchers andfield-workers who assisted in the gathering of the large volume of data on which theCommittee based its report.

Summary

vi

Executive Summary

SUMMARY AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

The Ministerial Review Committee on School Governance was appointed in February 2003by the Minister of Education for the purpose of reviewing and assessing the state of schoolgovernance in public schools and to make recommendations for the strengthening of themodel of democratic school governance through representative school governing bodies.

The Review Committee was asked to make recommendations about:

● Possible changes to legislation or policy, which will serve to strengthen democraticschool governance, channel the effectiveness and efficiency of schools, and improve thequality of teaching and learning.

● Implications for capacity building.

A process of information gathering was developed for the Review Committee that involved asurvey of 1000 schools and school governing bodies, 36 case-studies of individual schoolgoverning bodies, written submissions, a literature review of South African and internationalmaterial relating to school governance, 27 public hearings, interviews with all the MEC’s forEducation in the provinces, meetings with HoD’s and officials responsible for school gover-nance in the province, interviews with officials in the DoE-, and meetings with stakeholdergroupings in the school governance arena.

The point of departure taken by the Review Committee, is that school governance offersSouth Africa an opportunity of ‘taking the nation back to school’. The notion of ‘taking thenation to school’ is critical in several respects. Most importantly, it presents itself as anothercritical moment in the country’s history for developing civic capacity. Building on, and sig-nificantly extending, campaigns, such as the Freedom Charter campaign in the mid 1950sand the popular campaigns of the 1980s concerning the rights to education, housing andhealth, it offers parents the real opportunity of entering public life. In school governance,they have the opportunity of learning about the issues, difficulties, challenges and rewards ofmaking policies and making decisions that will make a real difference to the quality of theirchildren’s learning experience. The opportunity is one that cannot be passed over.

‘Taking the nation to school’ is important, too, in the sense that the majority of the country’s

vii

Summary

parents now have the right, one that was denied them under apartheid, of entering their chil-dren’s schools as their own schools and not the schools of an oppressive and propagandisticstate.

The school governance arrangements the country has now provides it with the extraordinaryopportunity of :

● Establishing a new relationship between the state and parents.

● Setting a new direction for education in the country.

● Providing a learning space where the critical skills of civic capacity might be extended.

The school governance framework the country currently has, is now almost eight years old.In these eight years, it must be emphasised, a great deal has been achieved. Structures havebeen set up everywhere. The vast majority of schools have school governing body structureswith the designated officials in place. School governing bodies have chairpersons, secretariesand treasurers, who are serving alongside principals in redefining how schooling on theground is to take shape. The provincial departments of education and the nationalDepartment of Education have made appointments for school governance and have success-fully developed the basic architecture for school governance, provided by the South AfricanSchools Act. Procedures, mechanisms and regulations are generally in place for the estab-lishment and operationalising of the school governance framework.

Importantly, school governance has come to be accepted by everybody in the system. Thecountry has a model that it can call its own, a model that has come to be owned by its peo-ple. There are examples of good practice in evidence throughout the system. Individualschools starting from a zero base have developed into thoroughly professional institutions.This achievement is extraordinarily significant. From where the country has come to where itis now, has been for many a road of personal and collective hardship and sacrifice. But therewards have been great. Schools have seen parents develop into their responsibilities andtheir identities as governors, educators have seen their colleagues prosper in the new demo-cratic and shared governance environment, and in many places learners are flourishing. Withthis beginning, the potential is great.

But nobody should underestimate the challenge the country faces. Nobody should shy awayfrom naming and engaging in the real problems that governors face in and out of school andeducators in their daily toil on the school grounds. In the course of its work, it became awareof the enormous obstacles that stand in the way of individual schools and school communi-ties and provinces, of achieving the promise offered by the new governance order.

Specific difficulties that confront the development of school governance include:

Summary

viii

The legacy of apartheid, particularly the large divide between white and black in terms of:

● Levels of education in families. Large swathes of the parent population continue to beeither functionally illiterate or have minimal levels of education.

● The deep and pervasive poverty of large numbers of parents, the majority in someprovinces, who are unemployed.

● The challenge of a large community of rural families, who live far away from the centresof support of the government and the resources provided by business.

● The marginalisation of black parents on school governing bodies in racially mixedschools and the general lack of integration of such structures.

● The differential capacity of largely black and poor parents and largely white and wealthyparents, to support their schools in terms of fund-raising and other ways of support.

There is also a range of systemic issues that can be identified, impeding the progress of indi-viduals and structures from making a difference. Troubling for the field of school gover-nance, is the inexperience of many school governors. Governors lack the understandingrequired to navigate their way through the complex laws and regulations that define the fieldof governance. There is often insufficient capacity in provincial departments of education.With the best of intentions, and also, it must be said, insufficient attention to detail, officialserr or institute inappropriate courses of action.

Particular difficulties being confronted by governors are the following:

● Insufficient capacity concerning key dimensions of the work of school governance, suchas managing accounts, appointing educators, developing policies in critical areas ofschool life, such as language, discipline, religion and the fee structure of the school.

● Difficult relationships between a largely educated educator corps on the school governingstructures and a largely under-educated parent community.

● Conflicts between parents and educators around the meanings of governance and man-agement.

● The weakness of communication channels between SGB’s and the provincial depart-ments of education.

● Conflicts between governing bodies and provincial departments of education concerningissues, such as educator appointments, the management of schools’ Section 21 status, themanagement of issues of which one is learner discipline.

ix

Summary

In the course of working with a variety of stakeholders throughout the country, the ReviewCommittee learnt a great deal. In the midst of the many triumphs, were many tales of frustra-tion, anger and demoralisation. What is patently evident, is that nobody wants to change thesystem of school governance and the broad framework for governance that currently exists.What exists must be protected, is the plea made by many.

But there are insistent calls for the system to be improved. This, essentially, is the mostimportant recommendation that the Review Committee will make. The current system is animportant asset for the nation, but it has to be made better. If the promise of taking the nationto school is to be achieved, two distinct, but related, commitments need to be firmed up anda course of action needs to be embarked upon to give effect to the ideal of having a ‘nationat school.’

The first commitment is to development, and the second to equity.

In terms of the commitment to development, it needs to be recognised that the schools andthe school governing bodies of the majority of the people of the country, operate under con-ditions that range from crisis states, in the worst cases, to what one might call, in the bettersituations, states of fragile stability. The primary commitment of the government and thepeople of South Africa, must be to uplift these conditions away from the crisis conditionsthey rest in, at the most parlous end, to confident self-sustainability at the other end.Effective school governance is crucial for achieving this. While the country has worked hardat putting in place a new curriculum, the benefits that such a curriculum can deliver, can onlybe achieved by governance and management structures that operate with the conviction thatlearning environments demand and indeed, cannot do without, enlightened, informed anddecisive managers and governors. The stakes are enormously high. If education is to providethe engine for economic development and social improvement, the level of attention toschool governance that will be needed, will have to be ratcheted up exponentially.

The second commitment, to equity, demands that the government and the relevant stakehold-ers move the school system away from one that is structured around the two extremes of direpoverty and hopelessness on the one hand, and the inordinately high levels of capacity andconfidence on the other hand. The symbolism that goes with an impoverished black polewithin the system, and a flourishing white pole, cannot be sustained. Efforts need to be madeto reduce the gap between the different kinds of schools – the rich and the poor – which findthemselves within the aegis of one public system.

A strategy for addressing these issues has to begin at the highest level.

Summary

x

It is recommended that:

● A National School Governance Council is established as a statutory structure, consistingof representatives of school governing body associations and the state, for the purpose ofcohering the policies and procedures concerning school governance, such as the proce-dures for managing disputes between school governing bodies and the state, for generat-ing a code of conduct for school governing bodies, for developing and reviewing policyfor important functions of the school governing body, such as educator appointments,regularising and standardising election procedures, achieving equity targets in the schooland, critically, defining a policy for managing school fees. The escalation of learner feesin many schools is a problem that has to be resolved.

● School Governance is given more prominence in the structure of provincial departmentsof education and in the National Department of Education. This means positioning schoolgovernance structures at higher levels than they currently are, and investing greaterauthority in official appointments for school governance.

1

Enquiry

CHAPTER ONE

An Enquiry into the Status of School Governance in South Africa

1.1 Introduction

Early in 2003, the Minister of Education, Professor Kader Asmal, M.P., established aMinisterial Review Committee to conduct a review into, and make recommendations aboutthe status of school governance in South Africa. School governance, like the curriculum, is akey arena for determining the character of school, particularly its climate and ethos and theconditions under which learning and teaching take place. In the context of South Africa’spast, and this is the significance placed on it by the landmark South African Schools Act of1996, it is amongst the most critical instruments in the new government’s transformationprogramme for addressing:

1. Inclusion and exclusion in schools.2. The alienation from the schooling system that parents felt, and thereby restoring a

sense of community ownership of schools.3. Parental and civic participation in school life, thereby enabling the democratisation of

schools. 4. Investing parents with rights of ownership of the school, and, finally,5. Requiring them to take responsibility, with the state, for issues such as school quality.

At the core of these broad objectives, is the ideal of institutionalising the presence of parents at thecore of the schooling system. Where apartheid either disregarded parents and the community, or,worse, treated them with disrespect, the intention of the Act is to help parents take responsibilityfor their children’s schools in partnership with the state. In doing so, it can be said that the coun-try is reinventing, for itself, a tradition of governance. In the process, the parents of South Africanchildren are themselves ‘going back to school’.

In participating in the governance of their children’s schools, parents are giving life to the thirdlargest public elections in South Africa. Every three years, close to five million have the rightto cast their votes for their school governors. Over the period of a generation, several hundredthousand of them would have had the opportunity of experiencing the challenges and the ben-efits of public office as governors. The significance of the moment is extraordinary, and thepotential for building a vibrant civil society partner for the state in the schooling system, isimmense.

The school governance system is now seven years old and already a great deal has been

Enquiry

2

achieved. As this report will show, virtually every public school in the country, over 26,000schools, has a school governing body. Every provincial department of education has a core ofindividuals, who have been entrusted with the task of putting in place procedures, mechanismsand structures to support schools in their efforts to establish governing bodies. Starting from azero base, the achievement is immense.

The challenges, however, are not insignificant, and are heightened by the social realitiesagainst which governance takes place. Well-known as these realities might be, it needs to besaid here, that they militate profoundly against the ability to build democratic participation inschools. Devised as the policy has been to engage with these realities, their extent and scalepresent all of us, those of us who work in policy design and development – the legislators andadvisors – others who work in implementation – officers in the provincial departments, edu-cators and support staff in schools, parents and learners – with the very particular challengethat defines as a special case within the international community.

Common as our situation might be in some respect, to others elsewhere in the world, our prob-lems require a largeness of spirit that will help us look, and act, beyond the debilitating and ener-vating reach of our recent history. While we have to work with this history, we are constantlyrequired to also reach beyond it. It was essentially towards developing a sense of the balance sheet on school governance – ofassessing whether the potential promised by the Act was being realised - that the Ministermandated the establishment of the Ministerial Review Committee. How well, he wished toknow, were the schools of South Africa managing the delegation of authority of importantfunctions to the school level. Was democratic governance being realised in the South African public school? How were parents in their school governing bodies dealing with thenew challenge of managing their schools in the context of their divided pasts and unequalpresents?

The thrust of the report is essentially, that school governance is firmly in place and that thecountry now has a framework for managing the most important features of school life. Thesystem is a partnership between the state and its citizens and has succeeded in involving sig-nificant numbers of parents. As a partnership key, questions of joint responsibility have beenlargely decided. For the most part, parents have accepted the division of responsibility estab-lished by the governance framework. While the state continues to provide the resources foremploying educators, providing the physical infrastructure of the school, and supporting theschool’s basic service needs, parents have the responsibility of determining the most impor-tant features of the school, such as its language, religion, and admission policy, making rec-ommendations about the appointment of educators and so forth. This basic relationship hasbeen implemented even in the most under-resourced parts of the system, where there are inplace active chairpersons who, in general, are fulfilling their responsibilities.

The argument that the report will make, is that the essential model of school governance is a

3

Enquiry

success, but that, in the most critical areas of a school governing body’s life, improvementscan be effected. These include the degree to which a school governing body deals with issues of parental involvement, fund-raising, the appointment of educators, the developmentof plans for the school and so forth. In important respects, more can be required of theschool.

It is argued here that the relationship between parents and the state is central to the improve-ment of the schooling system. We are seeing the parents entering the governance realm ofthe school. That is an achievement that should be protected. It is, however, not an unreason-able expectation to have, that the relationship should be yielding more. We await the impactof school governance on the improvement of the system as a whole – improvement centrallyin learner academic performance, but also in civic consciousness. We need to see the fruits ofdemocratic governance at all levels of the school system, in improved academic standards inhistorically disadvantaged schools, and in an improved sense of social responsibility in theschools of the advantaged.

It is important to emphasise at the outset here, that the report is not calling for an overhaul or areconceptualisation of school governance. As a working model, the basic elements of the systemare in place. Necessary now, it is argued here, is a process of realignment within the system con-cerning the principles of efficiency, good governance and social responsibility. The contributionthat the report seeks to make, is to the enhancement of the potential of the system as a seedbed ofan informed, enlightened and civic-minded citizenry.

1.2. Purpose of the chapter

The purpose of this chapter is to foreground the circumstances surrounding the work of theMinisterial Review Committee. It explains how the Review Committee came into being, itsmodus operandi, the context in which it worked and how it went about gathering the infor-mation that has been used for guiding the recommendations made in this report.

The structure of the chapter is as follows:

1.2.1. Background to the report, including the rationale for the establishment of the MinisterialCommittee, and a brief discussion of the most important issues and tensions involved inschool governance (decentralisation, democratisation, redress and development).

1.2.2. The brief

1.2.3. The work of the Committee

1.2.4. A synopsis of present legislation and policy with respect to school governance, includ-

Enquiry

4

ing the current SASA, the ethos of SASA, and an explanation of SASA in relation to provin-cial Education Acts, provincial power to determine and frame direction of school gover-nance, trends in policy and practice in country.

1.2.5. Review methodology:● Committee meetings● Reference Group meetings● Survey● Case-studies● Documentary analysis● Written submissions● Public hearings● Stakeholder consultations● Meetings with MEC’s and DOE and PDE officials

1.2.6. The limitations of the research

1.2.7. Structure of the report

*

1.2.1. Background to the report

Professor Asmal appointed the Ministerial Review Committee in February 2003. The ReviewCommittee initially consisted of Professor Rejoice Ngcongo, Vice-Dean of the Faculty ofEducation of the University of Zululand, Mr Rej Brijraj, Chief Executive Officer of SACE,Mr Victor Mathonsi, National Co-ordinator of the NASGB, and Mr Nhlanganiso Dladla,Dean of the Faculty of Commerce of the University of Fort Hare. Professor Crain Soudien,Head of the School of Education at the University of Cape Town, was subsequently invitedto join the Committee as Chairperson.1

The impetus for the review came from a concern on the Minister’s part that, while manyschools appeared to be implementing the provisions of the South African Schools Act, there

1 In the course of the establishment of the Committee, the Director of Education Management and governanceDevelopment in the Department of Education, was asked by the Deputy Director-General for Education and Training, towork with the committee. A masters’ student at the University of the Witwatersrand and intern at its Centre for EducationPolicy Development, was appointed as the Committee’s Administrator.

5

Enquiry

were as many where this appeared not to be the case. The situation that confronted theMinister, was one of intense public debate and concern about the transformation agenda inthe country and the speed with which transformation was taking place. One aspect of theMinister’s concern focused on the difficulties schools were experiencing in taking on theirresponsibilities. He sought to understand what the issues were in relation to the effectivenessof school governing bodies (SGB’s), and the impact they were having on schools.

The Minister was equally concerned about reports suggesting that the democratising objec-tives of the Act were not being realised. This concern emanated from reports to theDepartment of Education, that many schools and their SGB’s were not operating within thespirit and the mandate of the South African Constitution. Reports suggested that some for-mer white, and in some instances, coloured and Indian schools, were excluding Africanlearners. In the ways in which school governing bodies were established and in which theyoperated, some schools, also, effectively marginalised poor parents and parents of colour.

In addition to the above, the Department of Education was having to apply its mind to theimplications of the substantial body of litigation about school governance that had developedsince 1996. After the promulgation of the Schools Act in 1996, approximately twentyinstances had come to light, of the provincial departments and the national department beingtaken to court over contesting interpretations of the rights and responsibilities of the variousparties involved in school governance.

Following these developments, the Minister decided that it was necessary to institute areview of school governance. In a press statement on the 17th March 2003, announcing theestablishment of the Review Committee, the Minister made the following comment:

“In some instances, SGB’s in both their practices and their constitutions, are violating theaccess and language provisions of the Constitution, while others are not setting fees andmanaging their finances in keeping with regulations. In some instances, it has alsobecome apparent that SGB’s rarely meet and have not taken any significant decisions,leaving the school leaderless. Many of these issues became manifest during the investiga-tion for the recent Financing of Education report.”

In terms of these concerns, the Minister felt that it would be important to find out what thestatus of school governance in the country was and to have recommendations put before himthat could assist the Department in addressing the most critical difficulties confronting it.

1.2.2. The brief of the Ministerial Review Committee

The terms of reference for the Committee, were spelt out in a memorandum developed bythe Minister and the Department of Education. These terms of reference required the

Enquiry

6

Committee to review and assess the state of governance in public schools and to make rec-ommendations for strengthening the model of democratic school governance. The ReviewCommittee was asked to look at the spectrum of SGB’s within the public school system, theeffective and the weak, to understand the role of the different role-players within it, to exam-ine the processes involved in the management of elections and, broadly, to understand theimpact of democratic governance on schools. Specific aspects of governance that theCommittee was asked to review, included the following:

● The current status and functioning of SGB’s, with a view to identifying any patterns inrelation to class, urban/rural location, etc..

● The current status and functioning of SGB’s in special schools.● The relationship between school governing bodies and management, including the posi-

tion of the principal as an ex-officio member of the school governing body.● The capacity and representivity of school governing bodies.● The role of school governing bodies in determining educational policies, especially those

on language and religious observances, and the impact of those decisions.● The distinction between ‘Section 20’ and ‘Section 21’ schools, including the basis for

determining these.● The exercising of the functions allocated to Section 20 schools, including finances,

admissions, educator appointments and school development processes.● The exercising of the functions allocated to Section 21 schools, including finances,

admissions, educator appointments and school development processes.● The relationship between SGB’s and local education authorities.● The relationship between school governing bodies and local authorities.● The existence and purpose of parallel structures such as PTA’s.● The monitoring of school governance functions by PED’s. ● The appointment and participation of parents, educators and pupils to school governing

bodies, and relations between these stakeholders in the school governing bodies.● The role and status of SGB associations.

For the purposes of producing a report with recommendations, the Committee was taskedwith finding out, through a process of research, what the nature of the relationships betweenSGB’s and school management was, what the state of capacity in SGB’s was, whether PTA’scontinued to exist concurrently with SGB’s, what the role of traditional leaders, farmers andprincipals in SGB’s was, whether SGB’s had any links to local government, what the natureof parental involvement in financial matters in SGB’s was, and how schools and SGB’s werehandling processes of learner admissions and exemptions.

In terms of the brief, it was understood that consultations would be held with the following:1. The general public.2. School Governing Body Associations.3. Education officials.

7

Enquiry

4. Parents, Educator and Student Bodies.5. A Reference Group established to advise the Ministerial Committee.

The Committee was charged with delivering a report to the Minister in August 2003. Thisdate was subsequently amended by the Minister, who required the Ministerial ReviewCommittee to put the report to him by December 2003.

1.2.3. The work of the Committee

The Review Committee had an effective life of nine months. It began its work at the end ofMarch 2003 and was scheduled to deliver its first draft report to the Minister in December2003.

At the outset of the process, a meeting took place on 18 March 2003 in Cape Town, wherethe Minister, Professor Kader Asmal, launched the Review and introduced members of theCommittee to key stakeholder groups and the media. Three interim reports were provided tothe Minister, out of which came his decision to postpone the deadline for the submission ofthe Committee’s report. A meeting with the Minister was also held on 16 September 2003, atthe Department of Education offices in Cape Town. At this meeting, the Committee briefedthe Minister on the work it had done and shared with him its initial findings and recommen-dations.

1.2.3.1. Meetings of the Review Committee

After its formal establishment, the Committee convened approximately twice a month in full,to review its progress and to plan ahead. Telephone conferences were also held on severaloccasions. The first few meetings sought to clarify the brief and to develop modalities andprotocols for the review. Outside of formal meeting times, Committee members spent manydays occupied in specialised work, such as working on research instruments, setting upworking arrangements with provincial departments of education and generating reports ontheir work.

The first meeting, before the Chairperson joined the Committee, defined the scope of thework in terms of the research requirements and, critically, began outlining a calendar of workfor the review. These discussions were continued when he joined the Committee in March2003. A working plan resulted from these discussions (Appendix 1). This plan had to beamended, as time-lines concerning the research process needed to be adjusted.

An important facet of the meetings, was the discussion about the nature of a MinisterialReview Committee, in particular its status and standing in relation to the Department itself.

Enquiry

8

Important from these discussions, was the understanding that, while the Committee couldexpect infrastructural support from the Department and its officials, it was autonomous andindependent of the Department. For the sake of the credibility of the report, it was agreedthat the Review Committee would manage and decide on all the critical elements of thereview process. For this reason, it was decided that the Director of Education Managementand Governance Development would be present at all the meetings of the Committee, butwould not become an official member of it.

The Committee meetings also generated draft research instruments (discussed separatelybelow). These are appended for information.

In addition, the Committee made recommendations to the Department about the compositionof the Reference Group, and made decisions about the relationships with the provincialdepartments of education, about a colloquium to be held with experts and representatives ofother countries to find out how school governance in those countries worked, and about pub-lic hearings and public submissions. These are discussed in detail below.

Ad hoc sub-committees were established for specific purposes, the most important of which,was a sub-committee to oversee the design and development of the research process, includ-ing the outsourcing of the research. This sub-committee was led by the Chairperson, whotook the responsibility on him, for the development of the initial framework for the researchinstruments. The Chairperson also participated in the research in the Western Cape.

1.2.3.2. The Reference Group (Annexure K)

Following consultations with the Department of Education, the Reference Group was estab-lished early in the review process. It consisted of representatives from SADTU, theGoverning Body Foundation, SAOU, NASGB, NAPTOSA, SAPA, FEDSAS, CEPD, WITSEPU, and the HSRC. Four meetings of the Reference Group were convened. The ReferenceGroup was extremely supportive of the review process, particularly its objective of deepen-ing the democratic functioning of SGB’s.

As part of the information-gathering process, the Ministerial Review Committee met impor-tant stakeholders in school governance in the country, such as the MEC’s and HOD’s in mostof the provinces. It also led the public hearings that were held in all nine provinces. Theseare discussed in more detail below.

A colloquium was arranged with representatives from key countries, for the purpose ofdeveloping a comparative perspective on school governance developments in other parts ofthe world in the middle of the process. The intention had been to make the Southern Africanregion, where it was assumed that conditions prevailed similar to those in South Africa,

9

Enquiry

namely, an inheritance of colonialism, widespread poverty, under-resourcing and the pres-ence of traditional authority structures, and other similar to South Africa middle-incomelevel countries, such as Chile, a focus of the colloquium. The question put to these countries,was how were they coping with the challenge of delegating authority in times of hardship.Unfortunately, none of the countries in the region was able to find a representative able tospeak on the topic of school governance. This, it was felt, perhaps reflected the under-devel-opment of this subject in educational systems in the region.

1.2.4. Synopsis of current legislation

Before 1994, policy with respect to school governance in South Africa, essentially took itscharacter from the centralised nature of the apartheid state. While the apartheid government oper-ated within a federal type structure where power was devolved, the nature of this devolution wasessentially racial. The political system was structured around racialised subsystems, each with itsown legislative and administrative mechanisms and procedures. Within these, little delegation ofauthority was permitted and decision-making remained highly centralised. The national educationauthorities (or their agencies at the provincial level in the former white education system), retainedresponsibility for key school governance functions, such as the determination of a school’s medi-um of instruction, the admission of learners and the appointment of educators.

When the new government came into power in 1994, it sought to institute policies and prac-tices that were inclusive. Critically important, and distinguishing it philosophically and ideo-logically from the apartheid government, it cultivated the ideal of an engaged citizenry. Itadopted a Constitution, that devolved powers in important areas of public life, to provinces andlocal authorities. In keeping with this approach, it passed the South African Schools Act in1996, which made education (excluding higher education) a concurrent competence of boththe national and the provincial government. This is discussed in detail in Chapter two of thisreport.

The South African Schools Act is the legal cornerstone of the new education system. It spec-ifies the rights and responsibilities of all the most important role-players in education. It laysout what the position of the learner is in a school, what the responsibilities of educators are,and critically, how parents might become involved in the school. The Act itself came aboutas a result of one of the largest consultative processes seen in any field in the country.

The intention of the Act is to affirm the centrality of education in the building of the newdemocratic South Africa. Where the apartheid government used education, through struc-tures like school committees, to protect state interests and preserve white privilege, the pur-pose of the South African Schools Act is to place the control of schools in the hands of par-ents and to empower parents to determine, within the framework of the NationalConstitution, what is in the best interests of their children. For the first time, the country has

Enquiry

10

a law that has the interests of all South Africans and its children at heart, and is premised onthe principle that parents have a fundamental right to participate in decisions taken abouttheir children’s educational futures.

What responsibility parents have, is important to understand. The Schools Act requires thatevery SGB, among other things, has to promote the best interests of the school by:

● Providing quality education for all learners. ● Adopting a constitution for its school. ● Adopting a mission statement that sets out the goals and the shared values of the school. ● Adopting a code of conduct for learners at the school. ● Assisting the principal and his management team in the performance of their professional

functions. ● Determining the times of the school day. ● Having the responsibility of recommending to the provincial Head of Department (the

Director-General in most provinces), educators for appointment at schools.

Provisions also exist in Section 21 of the Schools Act, for SGB’s to be allocated additionalfunctions, such as taking responsibility for maintaining the school’s property, paying forservices, purchasing text-books and determining the extra-mural programme of the school. Inaddition, all SGB’s are required to supplement their school’s resources.

1.2.4.1. The challenge of the new legislation

The responsibilities accorded to SGB’s in the new dispensation, are considerable. They includefiduciary, financial, administrative responsibilities on the one hand, and educational and peda-gogical responsibilities on the other.

Parents have to account for the general good governance of the school. They are required tohave financial and educational competencies, such as being familiar with the SASA and therange of laws and regulations that have a bearing on education and on governance in general.They are expected to know the Constitution and to understand the responsibilities the lawrequires them to take on. They are required to be familiar with the Provincial Education Actsand all the regulations and circulars distributed by Provincial Departments of Education. Everyschool, and its school governing body, needs to know the law of contract, labour laws, such asthe law relating to employment and to employment equity. If they have been accorded Section21 status (in terms of SASA), they need to know the laws and regulations relating to procure-ment and so forth. Allied legislation, such as the various norms and standards regulations, con-stitutes important companion policies for the SASA. It is important that school governors arefamiliar with these as well.

11

Enquiry

Very briefly, the point needs to be made that the challenge these new responsibilities consti-tute for very many people who were marginalised and kept out of public life during theapartheid era, is great.

For the record, the majority of the parents, who are expected to take on governing responsi-bilities, have not been prepared for them. Little in their political experience or their educationwould have prepared them for the challenges of good governance - about how schools work,the difficulties of making schools work and what innovative measures can be developed andtaken to achieve the ideal of the good school. For many, their primary concern is to supporttheir families – to provide them with food and shelter. The burden of unemployment, theHIV/AIDS pandemic, malnutrition, poor living conditions, illiteracy among adults and soforth, are among the many socio-economic difficulties impinging on the quality of life, of peo-ple within poverty-stricken communities.

People are having to work hard for daily survival in circumstances that make school governancea secondary priority in their lives. Levels of formal employment in the country are low, as areformal levels of education. According to the South African Institute of Race Relations’ AnnualSurvey for 1997/1998 (1998:409), real income had dropped by 1,3% nationally in 1997.Forecasts suggested that this income would drop from R4208 in 1997 to R4150 in 1998, beforerecovering to R4210 in 1999. In Gauteng and the Western Cape alone, there are substantial num-bers of individuals, who earn an annual income that places them in the top income quintile (42%for Gauteng and 30% for the Western Cape). Interesting about the figures for these twoprovinces, however, is that by the end of the 1990s, households in Gauteng earned 134% morethan their counterparts in the Western Cape, where the second highest average incomes in thecountry were reported. It is not possible to have a detailed discussion at this point, about thequality of life experienced by parents as they take on the responsibility of governing their chil-dren’s schools. But the point needs to be constantly borne in mind, that conditions are not pro-pitious for parents as they face this responsibility. (See Appendices A, B and C for more detailedinformation about the socio-economic conditions of parents in the country.)

Bearing this point in mind, it should hardly be a surprise that it is difficult for parents to meettheir commitments to school governance. A principal at an Eastern Cape Primary/JuniorSecondary School (27 June 2003), commented at a public hearing, that “the majority (of par-ents) [are] facing poverty, it is not easy for them to come up with proper structures.” Anotherspeaker at the public hearing at Bronkhorstspruit in the Gauteng Province, added the issuesfacing rural schools, when she said “one would be lucky to find a school without orphanedlearners due to HIV/AIDS.” In these circumstances, even the extensive social support networksdeveloped in communities – their social capital – are subject to immense strain and cannot eas-ily be put to use for the purpose of building the school.

Despite their circumstances, it is true that many school governors are making seriousattempts to improve education for their learners.

Enquiry

12

School governance as a policy and the issues that surround it are discussed at greater lengthin Chapter two of this report.

1.2.5. The research methodology and consultation process

At the outset of the work of the Review Committee, following the brief given by the Ministerof Education, it was agreed that the review would be informed by an analysis of ‘a sufficientand representative sample of SGB’s.’ This necessitated the design and development of aresearch plan that would provide the Review Committee with both width and depth - widthin terms of a range of schools and school types, and depth in terms of detail of a sufficientnumber of individual case studies. Given these requirements, the Review Committee com-mitted itself to a research programme that involved the following:

■ Conducting a survey of 1000 schools determined on a stratified random sample basis.■ Conducting 36 detailed case studies representing the basic types of schools within the

system.■ Receiving written submissions from the public.■ Conducting public hearings in all the provinces.■ Developing a desk-top study of school governance.■ Interviewing stakeholder groupings.■ Interviewing MEC’s and PDE officials.■ Interviewing DoE officials.■ Organising an international colloquium.

The Review Committee, with the Committee outsourcing the national survey, the case stud-ies and the documentary study, it was agreed, would manage this research. The Committeeitself would, with the support of the department, undertake the organisation and execution ofthe public hearings, and extend an invitation to the public to submit written evidence. Itwould also conduct the interviews and meetings with stakeholder groupings itself.

1.2.5.1. Public submissions

An invitation to the public to submit evidence, went out and was placed in key newspapers,late in March 2003. In response to this invitation, 109 submissions were received.Submissions came from a range of different individuals, organisations and public-interestgroupings. The content of the submissions included comments about the importance of theAct and the need to preserve the integrity of the Act, comments, particularly from schoolgoverning body associations, on the different interpretations of rights and responsibilities by

13

Enquiry

provincial departments of education, and many comments about election procedures andterms of office of school governors.

1.2.5.2. Public hearings

The Committee undertook to manage the processes of public hearings in consultation withprovinces. The Chair of the Committee made personal contact with the offices of all theMEC’s for Education in the country. This was followed up with correspondence with thePDE’s and individual calls from members of the Review Committee, whose responsibility itbecame to work with particular provinces. By the end of April 2003, meetings with theMEC’s for Education in all the provinces had been arranged. (See Appendix D for list ofpublic hearings)

From the middle of May 2003 to August 2003, over 27 public hearings were conductedthroughout the country, involving over 1500 people. The public hearings were organised withthe assistance of provincial departments of education. Always present at the meetings, werelocal representatives from the different school governing body associations. Also well repre-sented, were school principals and parents. Less represented at the meetings, and a matter ofsome concern, were student organisations and student representatives on school governingbodies.

With regard to racial groupings, most meetings were representative of the demographic dis-tribution of people in the country. Particular meetings were poorly attended by people of oneracial category or another. The Northern Cape meetings, for instance, had minimal represen-tation of white parents and educators. The first Port Elizabeth meeting, on the other hand,was not only poorly attended, but had little representation of people from the African com-munity.

It is hard to determine from the attendance registers of the meetings, what the parents’ socio-economic situations were. There was, however, based on how parents described themselvesin relation to their schools and particularly in relation to the educators, a regular and evengood representation of poor people, and often people with little formal education, at thehearings.

The meetings were conducted in all formal languages of the country. While no advancedarrangements were made for interpretation, members of the public were always asked tospeak in the language they felt most comfortable. Such inputs were translated by eithermembers of the Review Committee or by officials in the PDE’s.

Important to note about the hearings, and a matter for future attention, is the sense that thepeople who attended, were invariably those who had direct investment in school governance.

Enquiry

14

While there certainly was representation of parents, who were not on school governing bod-ies, this category of people was poorly represented.

The intention had been to have two hearings per province, one in a rural setting and the otherin an urban area. Discussions with provincial departments, however, made it necessary tohave more than this number in some provinces, for example, four hearings took place inKwaZulu-Natal, four in the Eastern Cape and three in the Western Cape. While some of thehearings were well attended, such as the meetings in Durban, Kimberley and George, wherebetween 120 and 150 people were present, the meetings in the Eastern Cape were less so. Awell-publicised meeting in Port Elizabeth, advertised in the local newspapers, drew an audi-ence of less than forty people.

The hearings were immensely valuable and provided important segments of the national pop-ulation, opportunities to provide inputs that would otherwise have been hard to obtain.People were invited to speak in whatever language they felt most comfortable and thisopportunity was often used. Important about the hearings, was the voice of the less-educatedparent that came across clearly and confidently. Of interest in terms of the hearings, andrelated to the last point, was the strong expression of interest on the part of the public, tohave regular opportunities to make their opinions heard about the state of education in thecountry. These hearings were extremely informative to the Review Committee.

1.2.5.3. Meetings with stakeholder groupings

An important need in the review process, was to hear the organised parent community andother stakeholder groupings involved with school governance. Special consultations wereheld with all the major relevant organisations. The Review Committee met with delegationsfrom the most important school-governing body associations, the major trade unions of edu-cators in the country, the LSEN community, and student organisations. These meetings werecritical and allowed the groupings to explain their general position with respect to schoolgovernance and their suggestions for making school governance work more effectively.

1.2.5.4. Meetings with the MEC’s and PDE officials

The Review Committee managed to organise meetings with all the MEC’s and the majorityof HoD’s for Education in the country. The purpose of the meetings with the MEC’s hadbeen, in the first instance, to establish the approach of the provincial education leaders toschool governance, to develop an understanding of the governance policy environment and toobtain the support of the MEC’s for public hearings in the provinces.

Most of the meetings with MEC’s took place in the presence of the HoD, but were invari-

15

Enquiry

ably followed by meetings with provincial officials responsible for overseeing school gover-nance functions, including education departmental officials from the districts. Emerging fromthe meetings with the MEC’s, was not only a sense of commitment and appreciation of thesignificance of school governance, but also, significantly, a strong awareness of the place ofschool governance in the improvement of public education. Many MEC’s took the opportu-nity of the discussions, to express their disquiet about the ways in which the South AfricanSchools Act was being used to preserve apartheid privilege in some instances.

1.2.5.5. National survey, case studies and desk-top study

In terms of the budget for the Review Committee, support for the research was obtainedfrom the Department for International Development and the Royal Netherlands Embassy,half of which was to go to the national survey and the other half to cover the costs of thecase studies and the desk-top study. Briefs were developed by the Committee, which wereused to invite research agencies to submit tenders for these tasks.

A number of tender applications were received for each of the three areas of work, namely,the surveys, case studies and desk-top study. The awards were made on the basis of cost-effectiveness and efficacy in line with normal government procedures for tendering.

As the arrangements were made for the execution of the study, it became apparent that it wasgoing to be impossible to keep to the time-lines specified in the working-plan for theresearch. The initial intention had been to have the entire research process completed by theend of May 2003. It quickly became clear that this was an unrealistic expectation.

A technical problem also arose in relation to the research. To expedite the research, theReview Committee itself developed the most important instruments, the survey, the brief forthe case studies and the desktop study. It also undertook to develop a sampling frame for theresearch. The development of the sampling frame took a great deal of time to sort out. Whilethe EMIS database was able to provide information on the ex-department status of theschool, the province in which the school was located, and whether a school was a primary orsecondary school, it did not contain information uniformly and consistently in importantfields. It emerged that the Department’s EMIS database was unable to classify schoolsaccording to three key criteria necessary for randomly selecting the 1000 schools to be sur-veyed in the country. These variables were the following:

● Whether schools are Section 21 or 20 schools. ● What quintile schools fall into and. ● Whether schools are classified as urban or rural schools (this being critically important).

These difficulties were considerable and resulted in what turned out to be fruitless forays

Enquiry

16

into EMIS and discussions with Stats South Africa, to assist with part of the problem con-fronting the Committee. The critical issue to flag here concerning developing and strengthen-ing the educational system’s capacity to build a uniformly good school governance regime, isthe unevenness in the educational management information system in the country. While theexisting EMIS capacity constitutes an important platform from which to build, there is anurgent need for a radical overhaul of the policies and the practices regarding the collection ofinformation. There are a number of areas in which the EMIS system is inadequate and unre-liable for robust use. These include the following:

1. Provincial practices regarding the collection and classification of information differ.2. Important fields, such as urban, peri-urban, rural and deep-rural, are absent and need

to be defined.3. Definitions regarding the quintiles are provincially determined and need to be stan-

dardised.4. Errors in field classification and placement need to be minimised.

Important for the survey itself, was that a return rate of 26% was generated. While thisappears to be low, the general rule of thumb for an acceptable return rate for a postal surveyis 25%, making this survey slightly better than the norm. More critical, as the discussion inAppendix E seeks to make clear, the rates of return across the different categories of schoolsappear to be satisfactory, with a sufficient return in the most important categories of schoolsin the survey.

This technical assessment aside, it is important to mention that the level of compliance ofprincipals with the survey process was low. Despite a very clear instruction on the first pageof the survey, pointing out to principals their obligations to provide the information requiredin the survey in terms of the South African Schools Act and despite the intercession of dis-trict officials, only about a quarter of school principals returned the questionnaire. While theco-operation of the principals and SGB chairpersons who returned the survey is deeplyappreciated, what this low return rate raises are issues of accountability, and the relationshipsschool principals have with the Department of Education.

2 As will be seen from the data contained in the table ‘Representation of former education authorities, by schools andDoEs,’ it was necessary to treat some of the self-report data with a degree of scepticism. It was found that a large number ofwhat were clearly historically “white” (House of Assembly) schools, reported that they had been administered under theDepartment of Education and Training (DET). The researchers identified these schools on the basis of their location (inwhat were known to be historically “white” areas during the days of the Group Areas Act), educator profile (predominanceof white educators) and learner profile (predominance of white learners). Based on this information, it was necessary tochange schools’ ex-department to one that was more likely, as existing classifications were skewing data and presenting apicture of school governance that was not consonant with that reported in any other South African research.

17

Enquiry

1.2.5.6. Respondent profile

In order to contextualise responses contained in the survey, it is necessary to briefly profilethe respondents. Former education authority was used as one of the main analytical cate-gories, both in the sampling of schools and in the analysis of responses.2

Table 1.1: Representation of former education authorities, by schools and DoE’s

Former education authority Number of Number of Number of schools schools schools as(as reported by (as reported by appear in schools) DoEs) analysis

Ex-DET 149 (59%) 122 (49%) 129 (50%)

Ex-HOA 62 (25%) 46 (18%) 67 (27%)

Ex-HOD (House of Delegates) 12 (5%) 9 (3.5%) 9 (4%)

Ex-HOR (House of Representatives) 21 (8%) 11 (4%) 21 (8%)

LSEN b / / 17 (6%) b

TOTAL 244a 188 a 243 a

An interesting development concerning the survey forms that were returned was the largenumber, almost 20, of ex-HOA schools that listed their former department as having been‘DET’. What the motivation was behind what appeared to be a deliberate decision on thepart of a group of schools to represent themselves as ex-DET schools, was unclear. Once thisproblem was picked up, the self-designation chosen by the schools had to be checked and anumber of corrections had to be made on the survey form.

1.2.6. Limitations of the research for the review

A brief discussion of the limitations of the research is necessary. Three categories of limita-tions are important to highlight:

In the first instance, there are many aspects of SGB life that the Committee was unable tolook into. The Committee did not, for example, look into the nature of SGB training in theprovinces. It also did not have the opportunity of observing the actual workings of SGB’s.The Committee also struggled to obtain a full set of provincial regulations with respect to the

Enquiry

18

different facets of school governance. These questions, particularly the former, are importantand should be made the subject of future reviews.

Secondly, it needs to be made clear at the very outset, that the study was not set up strictly as ascientific project. While every attempt was made to gather as much data as possible and tomake the research and the fieldwork as representative as possible, resources and time did notpermit the development of a statistically representative sample. The process of out-sourcing theresearch work also constrained the degree of control the Review Committee had over the workin the field. These issues notwithstanding, it was felt that the kind of research that was carriedout was appropriate for the work of the Ministerial Review Committee. The Review Committeedid draw on multiple sources of information in drafting the report.

Thirdly, and this is a point that is not given sufficient attention in policy documents andreviews, the question of how one describes and defines individuals and groups for purposesof governance, is a matter of concern. While there is no opportunity in the course of thisreport to address this matter, it needs to be understood and recognised, that the working soci-ological tools used to describe and understand South African society, are the subject of agreat deal of debate.

What the Review Committee did, was to operate within the general conventions of language,description and classification familiar to and used generally in public discourse in the coun-try. These categories, as many sociologists and commentators have said repeatedly, and theframeworks they deploy, are proximates of what the real situation in schools is. They bothreveal and obscure. The framing devices, for instance, of race and class that are used to cate-gorise schools, are useful up to a point. Using a racial lens is critical for understanding theheritage of apartheid. Schools continue to carry the legacies of apartheid in their experiencesand qualifications of their educators, and also in the advantages or disadvantages childrenbring with them from their homes. This lens, however, also obscures. Hidden from viewwhen using a perspective such as this, are other forms of social classification, such asincome, which operate both within and over and above race. Important about this observa-tion is recognising that the sociological approaches one uses, even those that are coded inlaw and policy, are themselves insufficient for understanding the complex differences thatwork inside social groupings.

1.2.7. Structure of the report

The structure of the report, in what follows, is according to the following logic: in the firstinstance, the report looks at the rationale for school governance within education. Chaptertwo, which is devoted to this rationale, examines dominant practices and conventions con-cerning school governance and briefly traverses the discussion regarding the emerging phi-losophy with respect to school governance in South Africa.

19

Enquiry

Given that the contexts in which school governance takes place are complex, how DoE’s thecomposition of the school governing body impact on its efficacy? Chapter Three looks at thepolicy prescriptions for the composition of the school governing body and what is actuallyemerging in governing bodies around the country. Chapter Four deals with school governingbody elections and the current rules framing elections in SASA and provinces. These two chap-ters draw on the range of issues that came out of the hearings and the case studies, in particularthose relating to SGB quorum rules, by-elections, the status of co-opted members and the lack ofuniformity within the national process. How inclusive are such structures in terms of parents,learners and so forth, is what the chapters focus on, and how are structures dealing with matterssuch as their durability, their ability to tap into expertise within and beyond the community? Thechapters also pay attention to special needs schools, where governance models are slightly differ-ent to those of mainstream schools, and asks what possibilities these models hold and provide forthe whole system. Centrally, the chapters are interested in providing a perspective on the degreeof social transformation in the system at large.

After Chapters Three and Four that look at the establishment of the SGB, Chapter Fivefocuses on relationships in the SGB. Specific attention is paid to the major constituentgroupings in the SGB and how they relate to each other.

Chapter Six looks at functionality in the schools in terms of the major responsibilities givento schools and analyses how schools and parents in particular, are using their powers toimprove their school’s management and performance.

Chapter Seven builds on chapter six and focuses on the body of practices concerning schoolgovernance that are emerging within the system. How are school governing bodies dealing withdecision-making and line function in relation to SASA, accountability and reporting; how arethey dealing with the tensions between school governance and school management, and betweenthemselves and the PDE’s and so forth.

Chapter Eight begins to look at how school governing practices can be improved. The mostcritical proposals and recommendations for the improvement of the SGB and the SGB land-scape are made here.

The report is brought to a conclusion with Chapter Nine that synthesises the most importantoutcomes of the review process and summarises the recommendations made.

At the end of each chapter, recommendations for changing or modifying the system of schoolgovernance are made. The recommendations are divided into what are described as core rec-ommendations and secondary recommendations. These recommendations follow directly onthe discussion in the chapter.

Enquiry

20

CORE RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Following the success of the public hearings, it is recommended that theDepartment of Education institutionalises the practice of public hearings on edu-cational issues. Public hearings should be organised regularly in all the provincesto allow ordinary people the opportunity to express their opinions on the state ofeducation.

2. The EMIS system needs considerable improvement. It is recommended that a highlevel review is undertaken of the system, to ensure that it is capable of generatingconsistent and reliable information in important fields, such as ‘urban’ and ‘rural’and socio-economic quintiles. As a tool of governance, it is critical that the invest-ment that has gone into the national system and the provincial systems, is thor-oughly assessed.

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

3. Structures for assisting principals and district officers to account for their workneed to be established. It is recommended that principals submit annual reportsconcerning key indicators, such as school-development plans, learner academicprogress, transformation and so forth.

21

Model

CHAPTER TWO

An Emerging Model of School Governance in South Africa

Introduction

In order to lift education out of its divided and unequal past, the new South African govern-ment developed a comprehensive and complex policy framework motivated by the principlesof inclusion, equity and redress (see Sayed and Soudien 2003). Central to this policy frame-work, was the idea of devolving power and authority – essentially a decentralisationapproach - to the ground where the ‘people’ are. While this approach has won support, it hasalso been the subject of much policy debate (see Sayed 1999).

Promoting the devolution of authority from the central state to local structures, has been acritical element in the new government’s transformation agenda and its quest for buildingdemocracy. It is central, for example, in the South African Schools Act.

Supporters of decentralisation argue that it offers the state opportunities for working withdiverse sections of the public as well as facilitating the achievement of greater efficiency andtransparency. Critics argue that it is a mechanism for government, to shift its responsibilitieson to citizens.

Given the contestation over what decentralisation stands for, one has to ask:

● What underpins the education decentralisation discussion in South Africa?

● What kind of decentralised school system do we have?

● What are its strengths?

● What are its weaknesses?

The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to foreground the issues involved in decentralisa-tion, to contextualise the discussion around the composition of the school governing body,the dynamics within school governing bodies, and between school governing bodies andtheir major reference points, the provincial departments of education. Essential for this fore-grounding, is a discussion of the debates around the principles that underpin the devolutionof authority from a central authority to the school level.

The chapter begins with a discussion regarding the theory of decentralisation. After that, itprovides a short introduction to the history of school governance, it looks at the debates in

Model

22

the literature and then, using the initial theoretical discussion, attempts to describe the kindof decentralisation emerging within the South African educational system.

2.1 Governance and education decentralisation

One cannot understand the current model of decentralisation in South Africa without under-standing the general frameworks for centralisation and decentralisation.

Centralisation and decentralisation are fundamentally about questions of authority andaccountability. Governance in a centralised structure produces the concentration of power atthe centre or the highest level of government, while decentralised governance structures pro-vide for the distribution of authority and accountability at various levels of the system. In termsof this, no national system of educational governance is either entirely centralised or com-pletely decentralised (Caillods, 1999; Karlsson et al., 2001; Winkler, 1989). A country may,for example, organise one part of its education system (e.g. higher education or adult educa-tion) on a decentralised basis, while operating another part (e.g. the primary and secondaryschools) on a centralised model. It is also possible for an education system, to centralise cer-tain functions (e.g. curriculum or finance), while decentralising others (e.g. control of schoolproperty or appointment of educators).

2.2. Forms of decentralisation

Decentralisation can take on different forms. A number of authors classify decentralisation intothree or four different types, depending on the degree of transfer of authority (Davies, 1990:12;Winkler, 1989:4-5; Govinda, 1997:6-7; McGinn and Welsh, 1999:18; Rodinelli et al., 1984).The most common forms identified, are deconcentration, delegation, devolution and privatisa-tion.

Deconcentration involves the delegation of responsibility from a central authority to a region-al or local site. Although decisions can be made at local levels, officials who remain account-able to the central authority, make them.

Delegation involves the transfer of decision-making power to regional or local bodies – whichmay or may not be democratically elected – without actually transferring authority. The cen-tral authority can withdraw delegated power without new legislation being enacted.

Devolution involves the transfer of power to local bodies – for example, provincial or localgovernments or even schools – by means of legislation. Because these bodies have their poweras a result of a Constitution or an Act of Parliament, it cannot be withdrawn without centrallegislative amendment.

23

Model

Privatisation occurs where power to make decisions, is decentralised to the owners of educa-tional institutions. However, although it has particularities of its own, privatisation could beconsidered as a variant of either delegation or devolution, depending on the legal arrangementsby which it is allowed.

Clearly, all the above forms of decentralisation are idealised and any system of education may,or even, as some suggest, will, contain a combination of different forms. In some circum-stances, or in all, as the point is made in the previous sentence, it is possible for centralisationand decentralisation processes to be happening at the same time. While certain functions, suchas curriculum, may be in the process of being brought under central control, other functions,such as the financing of the schools, may be undergoing a process of decentralisation.

2.3. Motives for decentralising education

Aside from the pressure to decentralise exerted by international agencies, states often havetheir own internal motives for pursuing a decentralisation path. These include:

● Increasing democratic participation in educational decision-making.● Increasing the political legitimacy of the government by giving rights to previously-exclud-

ed groups, to participate in the running of their schools.● Defusing conflict to the local level.● Increasing the range of options available to students by creating greater diversity among

schools.● Reducing hostility to national governments and their policies.● Undermining one group by promoting another (e.g. the promotion of parent power in order

to undermine local authorities under Margaret Thatcher’s government in the UK).● Using resources more efficiently.● Promoting the ideology of markets and consumer choice.● Reducing the financial burden of central government by sharing it with regional or local

authorities or parents (Carr & Hartnett, 1996; Davies, 1990; Fleisch, 2002; Karlsson et al:2001; Lauglo, 1996; McGinn and Welsh, 1999; Winkler, 1989).

The success or otherwise, of a particular decentralisation process, depends on what it was intend-ed to achieve and what measures of success are being used. Sayed (2002) notes that the successand efficacy of decentralisation is measured differently, depending on one’s perspective. Thosewith a public administration perspective, according to sayed, will measure the results by theextent to which delegation and deconcentration result in a more efficient provision of education-al services. From a political perspective, success will be measured by the extent to which politi-cal involvement and participation are enhanced. A pedagogic perspective looks at the extent towhich the quality of learning is enhanced, and an economic perspective measures whether theadditional resources are generated and used more effectively (Sayed, 2002).

Model

24

2.4. Decentralised governance and democracy

A number of authors note that decentralisation is often associated with greater democracy,because it allows decisions to be taken ‘closer to the people’ or because power is more diffuse(Davies, 1990:13; McGinn and Welsh, 1999:29; Lauglo and Mclean,1985:5). Others are them-selves strong advocates for decentralisation on the basis that it promotes participatory localgovernance (Cishe and Jadezweni, 2002).

While it may be true that decentralisation can promote greater participation by communities indecision-making, this is not necessarily the case. India, for example, gives considerable auton-omy to state governments and in this way could be described as a decentralised system. Yet,within each state there tends to be a fairly high degree of centralisation – and often with notmuch popular participation (Bray, 1985:185). Even decentralisation to the district or schoollevels, could be exercised by officials in an autocratic manner.

In the same way that decentralisation is no guarantee of democracy, centralised systems do notnecessarily preclude democratic participation. It is quite possible, to have widespread partici-pation in making centralised decisions. The existence of national organisations in civil societythat practise internal democracy (such as teacher unions, parent or learner organisations), canfacilitate such participatory processes (Karlsson et al., 2001: 144). Broadfoot (1985) notes thatstrong control should not be equated with a high degree of centralisation. Depending on howcontrol is actually mediated, strong control may well be experienced by educators in a decen-tralised system, while control may be felt to be rather loose in a very centralised system.

Where there is decentralisation to the level of the school – ‘the most radical type of decentral-isation’ according to Daun (2003) – and where there are in place, democratically-elected gov-ernance structures, it is more likely that democratic participation by members of the schoolcommunity (parents, educators, other school employees and learners) will take place. Talkingabout the United States, Chubb and Moe (1990) in their book, Politics, Markets, and America’sSchools (1990), argue strongly for increasing the autonomy of local schools. The importanceof autonomy for local schools, is also forwarded by Coleman (1990) in his article “Choice,Community, and Future Schools.” The argument is made, that schools led by people who areable to act upon their problems immediately, as opposed to waiting for their problems to besolved down the line, are much more likely to be successful. Despite this likelihood, though,the democracy practised in such circumstances, may also be restricted by various factors,including a lack of sufficient capacity – skills, knowledge, experience – among members ofgovernance structures (Cishe and Jadezeweni, 2002; Govender, 2001; Tikly, 1997; Squelch,1999; Sayed, 2002).

Somewhat in contradiction to the positive gloss on school governance, is the interesting line ofthought developed by Rosemary Deem et al (1995) in the United Kingdom. Deem suggeststhat there are occasions with the decentralisation of school governance, where the state is co-

25

Model

opting its parent community around a narrow agenda. The possibility arises, she suggests, ofparents being turned into conscripts around the state’s school improvement programme. Whatkind of citizenship is being cultivated in the process, she asks.

2.5. Decentralised governance and equity

Turning to the issue of equity, governments and others seeking greater social equality, oftenprefer more centralised systems. A more centralised system provides the possibility of distrib-uting resources more equally, or alternatively, spending unequally in order to redress pre-exist-ing inequalities. However, just as there is not necessarily an association between decentralisa-tion and democracy, there is also none between centralisation and equity. Whether such anassociation comes into play depends on, among other things, the political will and capacity ofthe central authority (Karlsson et al., 2001:144; Davies, 1990:11-32). Of course, neither willhappen automatically, merely because a system is centralised.

Whether decentralisation results in greater inequity or not, depends to a large extent onschools’ sources of funding. Where school communities are responsible for raising a majorportion of their budgets (as in the Harambee schools in Kenya), or where (as in South Africa)they are expected to raise their own funds to supplement state funding, this could easily leadto increasing inequity, since poorer communities are less able to provide for themselves thanrelatively well-endowed ones. On the other hand, where independent schools (such as theDanish Volkschule, or the newer private schools in Sweden) are supplied with their total budg-et by the state, inequities need not arise (Davies, 1990:24; Chapman et al., 1996:7; Mirron,undated:115).

It appears that wealthier states are more able (although not necessarily more disposed), to pro-vide for both equity and democratic participation in their schools, than are states with seriousresource shortages. This is generally because, in countries that cannot provide adequately forall their schools, wealthier or more influential communities have the political muscle to ensurethat they gain better access to state resources, or can supplement meagre state allocations withtheir own private contributions (Karlsson et al., 2001:144-145).

What this initial discussion has sought to make clear, is that there are many different approach-es that could be taken to devolving power and authority. More critical about the discussion,however, is that decentralisation, whatever form it takes, does not per se lead to democracy orthe deepening of democracy. This is an important point to highlight, because it brings intosharp relief, the question of the capacity of the school governing system in South Africa, toproduce democracy.

Where then, is the South African model of decentralisation, embodied in the South AfricanSchools Act, going? What might one say about the system?

Model

26

2.6. Historical Background: The origins of the South African school governance system

Before making an assessment of the nature of educational decentralisation in South Africa, itis necessary to look at the history of educational governance.

2.6.1. Fifteen Departments of Education

Prior to the advent of democracy in 1994, there were fifteen apartheid education ministries inSouth Africa: the Department of National Education, which was responsible for national normsand standards, ten bantustan departments and four racially-defined departments for Africans,coloureds, Indians and whites, in the areas outside the bantustans. Although there was centralcontrol of key elements of all departments, notably finance, the system was configured as anassembly of sub-systems, constituted as independent departments of education (Buckland andHofmeyr, 1993:14-16; NEPI, 1992:6-9; Pampallis, 2002:3). Each department had its ownschool models, with its own funding formula, and its own distinct approaches to state-parentrelationships (Pampallis, 1993:21-26; Karlsson et al., 2001:147).

2.6.2 School Committees

In all departments, school-level structures existed – in law, if not in reality. These were known,variously, as school committees, school boards or management councils. They consisted ofparent representatives and had limited decision-making powers. Their activities tended to cen-tre around fund-raising. They did, however, have influence over the appointment and dismissalof educators.

In the segregated schools for black groups (i.e. Africans, coloureds and Indians), whereappointments were often politically-determined, they lost whatever legitimacy they might haveenjoyed initially as the struggle against apartheid gained momentum (Buckland and Hofmeyr,1993:17; McPherson and Naicker, 2002:1; Prinsloo and Beckman, 1988:39-40). State schoolscould raise money for school funds, but no parent was obliged to make a contribution. In thebantustan-based community schools, though, fees were charged and became an importantissue of political dispute in the mid-1980s, when the National Consultative Conference on theCrisis in Education called on parents to refuse to pay fees (Millar, Raynham and Schaffer,1991:251-52).

2.6.3. Opposition to apartheid School Committees

Opposition to official parent structures, emerged at various times of the anti-apartheid strug-gle. During the 1950s, parents on the East Rand and in the urban areas of the Eastern Cape

27

Model

mobilised, both under the banner of the African National Congress and independently againstbantu education. For a period of time, they were involved in the establishment of independentschools. Earlier, in the Western Cape, a vibrant tradition of parent-teacher associations hadcome into being against inferior education for people of colour. This tradition, within both his-torically coloured and African schools, provided a platform for the political and educationalstruggles that developed against the apartheid government’s racialisation of schools. The tra-dition was, however, dealt a grievous blow, with the banning of oppositional political activityin the 1960s. Voluntary school structures withered and all but disappeared.

2.6.4. The National Education Crisis Committee

It was only with the upsurge of political activity around the 1976 uprising, that parents cameback into the school frame (Christie, 1991; Hartshorne, 1992; Karis, Carter and Gerhart, 1977;Lodge, 1983). This opposition began to take on a different dimension, when democratic anti-apartheid organisations established the National Education Crisis Committee (NECC) in themid 1980s, during the midst of a deepening crisis for black education. The NationalConsultative Conference on the Crisis in Education, in December 1985, called on parents towithdraw from statutory parent committees at schools, and urged school communities to estab-lish parent-teacher-student structures.

2.6.5. New generation of PTAs/PTSAs

The number of PTSA’s grew rapidly, particularly after 1990, when repression from the statediminished and they gained a high level of popular legitimacy. This legitimacy paved the wayfor their popular acceptance among formerly oppressed communities, as school-level struc-tures of school governance (Fleisch, 2002:64). The new political environment also focused thePTSA’s/PTA’s increasingly on school issues, and less on the wider resistance to bantu educa-tion. An evaluation of the PTSA’s, conducted by the EPU (Natal) in 1993, showed, however,that they did not have a clear idea of their functions and that they struggled in practice, to movemuch beyond conflict resolution within schools.

In addition to this lack of clarity about their role, PTSA’s found themselves beset and sur-rounded by a number of organisational problems. As the demands on their time increased andthe complexity of the school compounded, they discovered that they often did not have theskills and the relevant knowledge to steer their organisations. They did not know enough aboutteaching and learning. They did not have the correct experience to deal with staff appointmentsand promotions. Often, they promoted the cause of educators, who were good political com-rades, only to discover that good political credentials did not always translate into good edu-cational instincts.

Model

28

The PTSA’s were also placed under pressure from the authorities, who were suspicious abouttheir roles and their intentions. The DET often and disastrously came into conflict withPTSA’s. School inspectors were banned from the school. Schools were declared no-go zonesfor the apartheid state. The apartheid state often retaliated by withholding salaries, refusing tosanction and confirm decisions taken at school level. Schools were, as a result, in constant tur-moil.

Many PTSA’s persevered, nonetheless. This persistence up to and beyond 1994 revealed, how-ever, a deep political dissatisfaction with the past, and a strong desire among parents to seetheir children’s schools improve. Parents had learnt, as a result of and in conjunction with theirstruggles in other spheres of their lives, that collective and democratic action was a necessaryfirst step towards the rehabilitation of their children’s schools. If they wanted to impact on their children’s schools, to make them better, they would have to secure a voice in thoseschools.

2.6.6. PTA’s in ex-HOA schools

In the white community, a different set of dynamics was playing itself out. PTA’s became muchmore prominent during the dying days of the apartheid regime. Parents were brought into aconsultation process over their segregated status, as schools faced the possibility that theywould have to close, if they did not have higher enrolments. The Minister of Education in theHouse of Assembly at the time, consulted parents regarding the kind of integration they want-ed for their schools. This produced a model of school governance that placed a great deal moreresponsibility in the hands of parents. Unlike governance during the height of apartheid, thestate devolved key areas of responsibility to parents, including giving them powers over thedisposal of school property.

2.6.7. The idea of a new governance system in the new era

By 1994, both the white communities (through official governing bodies) and many blackcommunities (through the PTSA’s) had gained experience of elected school governance struc-tures. This conjuncture – the black experience through struggle, and the white experiencethrough necessity, the necessity of having to open their schools – produced the basic condi-tions of possibility for a new model of school governance in South Africa. Central to the con-juncture, was the shift of the locus of decision-making about aspects of the school, from thecentral state to the decentralised school itself. The parent community in the country was thusreceptive to the idea of elected governing bodies being central to the school governance sys-tem in the post-1994 period.

This coming-together of experience, probably paved the way for the acceptance in the ex-HOA

29

Model

schools, of the new approach to school governance, and the lack of opposition to the idea of anew South African Schools Act in 1996 (see below).

Critically, elements of the experience of the struggle of parents in black schools, and theaccommodationist drift in white schools, were taken up in the new model of school governancedeveloped by the new African National Congress-led government after 1994.

2.7. A review of policy reforms since 1994

Chapter 2 of the Constitution (the Bill of Rights), gives all South Africans the right to basiceducation, including adult basic education. It also gives them the right to further education,although it implicitly acknowledges that the state’s resources are not immediately sufficient todo this: the state, it declares, must make further education progressively available and accessi-ble. The Bill of Rights also gives South Africans the right to receive education in the officiallanguage(s) of their choice, wherever this is reasonably practicable. Furthermore, anyone hasthe right to establish an independent educational institution, as long as it does not discriminateon the grounds of race, is registered with the state, and maintains standards that are not inferi-or to those of comparable public institutions (Section 29).

2.7.1. Education White Paper One

The Government’s first White Paper on Education and Training (DoE, 1995b) defined basiceducation as ‘appropriately designed education programmes to the level of the proposedGeneral Education Certificate (GEC)’ – that is, to the equivalent of Grade Nine in the school-ing system.

The White Paper goes on to say that “The cost of the provision of schooling for all children tothe GEC level, at an acceptable level of quality, must be borne from public funds.” (It also says,in what could be interpreted to be in contradiction with the Constitution, that the costs of basiceducation for out-of-school youth and adults, cannot be borne from public funds alone, butmust be shared by a variety of funding partners. (See DoE, 1995b:40.)

2.7.2. Concurrent responsibility

How these ideals are intended to be realised as practice, is determined by the principle ofshared responsibility. The Constitution splits control over schooling, at one level, between thenational and provincial levels of government (RSA, 1996b), and at another level, betweenprovincial government, representing the state, and parents (SASA, 1996). Schedule 4 of theConstitution states that “Education at all levels, excluding tertiary education,” is an area over

Model

30

which national and provincial governments have concurrent powers. (The NationalGovernment has sole competence over tertiary, i.e. higher, education). This means, that bothnational and provincial governments can legislate on any matter concerning non-tertiary edu-cation. Where there is a conflict between national and provincial legislation, national legisla-tion, which applies to the whole country, only prevails if it deals with a matter that cannot beregulated effectively by individual provinces, or is aimed at ensuring national security, unityand coherence (see Section 146 for details). In all other circumstances, provincial legislationprevails over conflicting national legislation.3

2.7.3. Provincial responsibility

Provincial governments make provincial policy, within the parameters of national policies,frameworks, norms and standards. The provincial Departments of Education have the respon-sibility for establishing, managing and supporting schools and other pre-tertiary educationalinstitutions in their provinces. They are financed through the provincial budgets voted byprovincial legislatures, based on monies largely (but not entirely) received in the form of blockgrants from the national government (Ajam, 2001). In carrying out their functions, all provin-cial education departments have established regional or district offices and other levels ofadministration. These structures, however, have no legislative authority of their own, andderive their operational authority solely from the provincial government.

2.7.4. School governance and the South African Schools Act

Basic to the reform of school governance in post-apartheid South Africa, is the South AfricanSchools Act of 1996 (SASA), which attempts to give shape to the principles of access, redress,equity and democratic governance, which were outlined in the first White Paper on Educationand Training (DoE, 1995b). The Act came into being, as the result of the new government’sdetermination to establish for itself, a new foundational policy that would erase the old struc-tures and frameworks, which produced debased and segregated schooling. The Act was pre-ceded by a major commission of enquiry – the Hunter Commission – which was asked to lookinto the Organisation, Governance and Funding of Schools (1995a). The Hunter Commissionessentially provided the intellectual guidance for the new policy, with its recommendations, forthe establishment of a single, unified and uniform system of education. It made a number ofother major recommendations, including a recommendation calling for greater communityinvolvement in the governance of education.

The SASA is reflected in various provincial School Acts and regulations governing the estab-

3 The Constitution allows a provincial government to assign any of its legislative powers to a municipal council in theprovince (Section 104 (1) (c)). With respect to education, this possibility has never been given serious attention by anyprovincial government, nor have any serious suggestions to this effect been made by any significant constituency.

31

Model

lishment and functioning of SGB’s in all provinces. There are no major differences betweenthe national legislation and the various provincial Acts and regulations.

Most importantly, the Act provides for a significant decentralisation of power to the institu-tional (i.e. school) level, through the establishment at all public schools, of school governingbodies (SGB’s), with considerable powers (see below). Governing bodies are juristic personswith the power to enter into contracts and to sue and be sued.

Given this discussion, it can be said that legislation is a constraining mechanism – as opposedto one of control - to manage the actions of all the actors within the governance arena. This,arguably, is where the ambiguity arises within divergent interpretations of the new legislation.The process of making the SGB a juristic person, has the effect of redefining the conflictbetween the school and the province, from being a political one to essentially a legal one. Thestruggle between the school and the province essentially, as a result, shifts to the judiciary. Aswitnessed in a number of important legal challenges to the powers of the Minister ofEducation, the battle between the centre and sites is now firmly within the legal arena. This hasbeen particularly evident in the growing corpus of litigation between schools and the provin-cial governments (see Appendix F). An important comment to make at this point about theeffect of this decentralisation, is that the legalisation of these conflicts in turn redefines thenature of political struggle and has the effect of diffusing it and dispersing it between the court-room and the legislative chamber.

2.7.5. SASA and SGB functions

In order to deal with the inherited heterogeneity of the school system – the enormous socio-economic inequalities and the great variation in the capacities of school communities – the Actmakes it possible for the governing bodies of different schools to have different powers andfunctions. A basic set of functions is stipulated for all SGB’s. They are required:● To develop and adopt a constitution and mission statement for the school. ● To determine the admissions policy of the school, subject to certain restrictions (see

below). ● To administer and control the school’s property, buildings and grounds, including the right

to rent them out for fund-raising purposes. ● To recommend to the Department of Education, the appointment of educators and non-edu-

cator staff; ● To develop a budget for the school, which could include school fees, for approval at a meet-

ing of parents.4

4 All school governing bodies are expected to supplement state funds in order to improve the education that they offer,either through school fees or other forms of fund-raising.

Model

32

Once approved, school fees become compulsory and all parents, unless specifically grantedexemption, are obliged to pay them. Children may not be removed from a school if parents donot pay fees, or be denied access to the school on the basis that their parents cannot afford topay fees. However, the school may sue the parents for fees owing.5

2.7.6. Section 21 status

In addition to the basic functions noted above, governing bodies may also apply to theirprovincial education department, under Section 21 of the Schools Act, to be allocated addi-tional functions consistent with the Act and with provincial law. These could include (but arenot restricted to):

● The right to maintain and improve the school’s property, buildings and grounds. ● Determining extra-curricular activities. ● Choosing the subject options offered at the school, within the parameters of provincial cur-

riculum policy. ● Purchasing textbooks and other materials and equipment.

Included in S21 powers, is the following: “other functions consistent with this Act and anyapplicable provincial law.” Given the latitude suggested in this clause, it is interesting that sofar, to the knowledge of the Ministerial Review Committee, no SGB’s have elected to explorethe possibilities offered by this provision.

Initially, these powers were given mainly to former white schools whose governing bodies usu-ally included skilled professionals and managers; however, it is the aim of Government toeventually grant additional powers to all school governing bodies as they become willing andable to exercise them, and the number of ‘Section 21 schools’ has spread to many formerly dis-advantaged schools (DoE, 2003:36-37).

2.7.8. SASA amendments

A 1997 amendment to the South African Schools Act allows all public schools to employ edu-cators, in addition to those allocated and paid for by the provincial departments of education,as long as the funds for these additional educators are raised by the school (RSA, 1997). A

5 A discussion of the reasons for allowing schools to charge fees, appears in the second Education White Paper(DoE, 1996a); they centre around a strategy to ensure that the middle classes do not abandon the publicschooling system to the detriment of the system as a whole. The Government’s attempts to compensate poorerschools for the inequities of the past, resulted in the National Norms and Standards for School Funding (DoE,1998b)

33

Model

2002 amendment of the Employment of Educators Act allows provincial departments of edu-cation, to allocate to schools, new educators as well as educators, who return after a break inemployment, without a recommendation from the school governing body (RSA, 2002). Theamendment, which had been presented to Parliament at the time of writing (July 2003), pro-posed to alter the South African Schools Act in order to prohibit the payment of additionalremuneration to educators employed by a provincial Department of Education without thedepartment’s prior approval (RSA, 2003). Considerable public controversy around this pro-posed amendment – with opposition from both governing bodies and opposition parties – sug-gests that some modifications may be made to the amendment before it is enacted.

2.7.9. SASA and admissions policy

As mentioned above, the South African Schools Act allows the governing body of a publicschool, to determine the admissions policy of their school. However, this right is exercised,subject to many restrictions:● It is subject to national norms and standards or to any applicable provincial law (e.g. with

regard to age of admission, or to school feeder zones).● A school must admit students ‘without unfairly discriminating in any way’.● Schools may not administer admission tests.● No student may be refused because his/her parents are unable to pay or have not paid

school fees, do not subscribe to the school’s mission statement or refuse to waive their rightto claim for damages from the school.

● Parents of students, who are not admitted to a school, must be informed of the reasons inwriting, and the parent or the student may appeal against the decision, to the Member ofthe (Provincial) Executive Council responsible for the education portfolio.

Although these requirements restrict schools’ control over admissions, in practice, schools exer-cise actual control of the administration of admissions and this does allow them to discriminatein many ways, both legally and illegally, overtly and subtly (Pampallis, 2003:153-157).

2.7.10. SASA and cluster SGB’s

A provision of the South African Schools Act, which has attracted attention from some quar-ter, is contained in Section 17, which allows the MEC to determine “that the governance of twoor more public schools must vest in a single governing body if it is in the best interests of edu-cation at the schools in question.” While only KwaZulu-Natal appears to be considering thiscourse of action, Patel argues that this is potentially ‘a very powerful tool to decentralisation… as it “will enable a number of schools that may not have the capacity or the governance abil-ity, to be able to govern themselves on a cluster, district or regional basis” (Patel, 2002; seealso Pampallis, 2002).

Model

34

2.8. Issues in the new policy

In attempting to describe the policy reforms that have come into being since 1994, one canmake a good argument that they represent the coming-together of the different practices thatwere around at the point at which the state was having to put a model in place. Elements of thereforms met the long-standing demands of the liberation movement, such as compulsoryschooling for all children, the ban on racial discrimination in admissions, democratic structureselected by all the constituencies in a school (instead of only parents), the ban on excluding chil-dren from school if their parents do not pay the fees; funding norms for current, non-person-nel funding, which favour poorer schools, and the provisions for fee exemptions for poorer par-ents.

Other elements of the reform were either demands of mainly white, middle-class communitiesor could be said to favour them. These include juristic status for schools, the right of individ-ual schools to charge school fees, control (albeit restricted) over admissions, the right of gov-erning bodies to employ educators privately, ‘Section 21’ powers for schools with the capaci-ty to utilise them without the assistance of the department.

2.9. What kind of system is emerging in South Africa?

In terms of the discussion above, it can be argued that the educational decentralisation modelthat has emerged out of the South African Schools Act, is essentially, in terms of the four formsof decentralisation, a dual model. The essential features of this dual type manifest characteris-tics of the Devolution model, while, at the same time, retaining powerful elements of aDeconcentrated model.

2.9.1. A new dual model of governance?

When the Hunter Commission (1995a) considered school governance, it proposed three models:1. One that would allow most SGB’s to continue functioning as they had in the past.2. A model based on existing approaches to school governance but determined by the

principles of equal per capita expenditure, and the prohibition on schools to raiseadditional funds.

3. A partnership model between the state and parents, based on two principles:(i) equal per capita expenditure across the system and (ii) parental contribution to operating costs.

While the Hunter Commission did not commit itself to any of the three options, it did arguethat the third provided the most room to move. The third option, significantly, was also mostcongruent with the National Constitution.

35

Model

The Government’s response to the Hunter Commission was contained in two White Papers.Of the two, White Paper 2 (1995b) spelt out more clearly the principles the state was to com-mit itself to. Fundamental to these, were the principles of shared responsibility. School gov-ernance structures were entrusted with serious responsibilities, one of which the most signifi-cant was the right and power to raise funds and levy fees. Critically, however, this right didnot extend to excluding children that could not pay school fees. This approach was slightlydifferent to that proposed in the Hunter Commission’s third option.

In giving school governing bodies powers over critical areas of the school’s life, the stateessentially effected a transfer of power of a particular kind to it. It is important to under-stand what this means. Portentous as this transfer was, it was framed as a limited power. Intaking this path, the state simultaneously signalled its commitment to a number of importantcauses. Choice was affirmed, but so, at the same time, was the cardinal principal of keepingaccess open – ‘The doors of learning and culture shall be opened.’ It was affirming the com-plex provisions of the National Constitution that sought to balance the rights of individualswith certain limitations. A central limitation clause in the Constitution, is that the state maylimit a right, if such a limitation is “reasonable and justifiable in an open and democraticsociety based on human dignity, equality and freedom.”

The principle of freedom with limitations is well-established in international practice. It isnot, however, without its difficulties. These difficulties have manifested themselves in severaldisputes about the scope of the freedom entrusted to the school, and the continuing responsi-bility of the state embodied in the limitation. What is emerging here, is critical for under-standing the nature of school governance in South Africa, and has been at the heart of anumber of court cases where judgements were made variously in favour of either a provin-cial department of education or the school governing body.

In the Moseneke judgement of 2002, the court overturned a provincial department of educa-tion’s authority to dissolve a school governing body. In other cases involving the EducationLabour Relations Council, a statutory structure for resolving disputes between the state as anemployer and educators and their unions, the council determined that it was not competent toadjudicate over disputes involving decisions made by the school governing body with respectto the appointment of educators. Made clear in the latter situation, was the fact that the Headof Department only had power to overturn a decision made by a school governing body withrespect to an appointment, if five key considerations had not been observed.

Given this redefinition of the way conflict can be managed around particular issues, the powerthat the state commands, has been altered significantly. A key characteristic of state powerunder apartheid, was that it was hands-on, direct and ‘before the fact’. The state directly inter-vened in processes of educational provision and delivery. In the post-apartheid state, control isnow indirect, ‘after-the fact’, and exercised through control of the outcomes rather than theinputs. Control is thus about setting limits and ensuring that goals are ascribed to and achieved.

Model

36

Thus, for example, provincial sites are responsible for achieving the national goals of equitableprovision of educational resources and services.

In taking this direction – one that represents the trajectory that parental governance was tak-ing in the pre-1994 white school system – the policy of governance is essentially taking adevolved form. At the same time, however, there remains within the system, powerful leversavailable to the central government, to correct what it believes to be abuse of powers withinSGB’s. This represents what one might call deconcentration.

Critical about this dual type, is the tension that sits at the heart of the system. On the one hand,the site to which power is devolved, seeks to preserve its autonomy and even extend its sphereof authority. It makes the argument, that its rights are unfettered in respect of several areas ofschool life. A critical dispute is arising at the moment, for example, around moveable assets inthe school. The argument is being made, that the state’s jurisdiction stops with the physicalplant of the school. On the other hand, the state seeks to curb the degree to which autonomypermits the devolved site to operate outside the broad Constitutional framework.

2.9.2. Litigation and the tensions around duality

A number of legal cases involving school governing bodies, give insights into some of the actu-al problems and conflicts, which have arisen around school governance in South Africa at boththe provincial and national level (see Appendix G). Of those cases that are concerned with gov-ernance and governing bodies, the overwhelming majority deal with labour disputes, in par-ticular disputes between SGB’s and education departments, over the appointment of edu-cators.

2.9.2.1. The Grove case

A key case is that of Grove Primary School versus the Minister and others (1997), which gen-erated a great deal of controversy6. In this case, an ex-HOA school won the right to appointeducators, who were not on a list of teachers that the provincial Department of Education con-sidered to be in excess and whom the Department sought to redeploy. In its decision, the courtfound that, despite the South African Schools Act, the school was the effective employer of itseducators. In commenting on this decision, the Annual Survey (1997) noted that “the GrovePrimary School decision has had a devastating impact on Provincial budgets. The result is thata Province can neither retrench educators in excess (as a result of a decision of the Education

6 Jansen (1998:5) describes the ‘Grove case’ as ‘one of the most complex, controversial and contested legal cases in the his-tory of South African education.’

37

Model

Labour Relations Council), nor can it require schools to employ educators in excess. As aresult, the Provinces are forced to pay educators whom they cannot utilise7.”

Government responded to the decision, by amending the Educators Employment Act of 1994by means of the Education Laws Amendment Act (RSA, 1997, Section 17 a-d). This changedthe legal definition of the employer, so as to make the Head of the provincial education depart-ment – rather than the school – the employer of educators paid for by the state, and the schoolcould only recommend educators from candidates identified by the employer. The Ministerwas now made responsible for determining the requirements for appointment, rather than justthe qualifications for appointment. One determining requirement in the appointment, transferand promotion of educators would be ‘the need for representivity’. The head of departmentwas obliged to employ candidates recommended by a governing body, but could deviate fromthat recommendation, if the candidate did not meet the requirements laid down by the Minister.(See also: Jansen, 1998; Gordon Harrison and another v Minister of Education and Trainingand another, 2002, High Court, Pietermaritzburg, Case No. 4295/98)

The Grove case and its aftermath did not bring an end to disputes between governing bodiesand provincial education departments regarding the employment of educators. Although thelegislative changes after the Grove case obviously restored some of the state’s power in theappointment of educators, there have been a number of cases where the courts have found infavour of schools in disputes over appointments. The courts have generally strongly safe-guarded the right of schools to take on only those educators whom they have recommended tothe department for employment8.

Two recent attempts to further strengthen the control of departments over the employment ofeducators, have been mentioned above: (i) the provision in the 2002 Education LawsAmendment Act (RSA, 2002), allowing departments to allocate to schools, new educators aswell as educators, who return after a break in employment, without a recommendation fromthe school governing body; (ii) the provision in the 2003 Education Laws Amendment Bill(RSA, 2003), prohibiting the payment of any remuneration to educators employed by a provin-cial Department of Education, without the department’s prior approval. Despite such changesin the legislation, it would seem highly unlikely, that such disputes will end as long as both the

7 Quoted in the Judgement of Justice J. McLaren in the case of Gordon Harrison and another v Minister of Education andTraining and another, 2002, High Court, Pietermaritzburg, Case No. 4295/98. It is unclear exactly what the ‘Annual Survey’that he refers to, is.8 See, for example, Douglas Hoërskool en ’n ander v Premier, Noord-Kaap en andere, 1999 (4) SA 1131 (NC); GordonHarrison and another v Minister of Education and Training and another, 2002, High Court, Pietermaritzburg, Case No.4295/98; Laerskool Gaffie Maree and another v MEC for Education, Training, Arts and Culture: Northern Cape Provinceand others, 2002, High Court, Northern Cape Division, Case No. 1240/01; Settlers Agricultural High School and another vHead of Department: Department of Education, Limpopo Province and others, 2002, High Court, Transvaal ProvincialDivision, Case No. 16395/02; Destinata School and another v Head of Department: Department of Education, Gauteng andothers, 2003, High Court, Case No. 10207/2003.

Model

38

provincial education departments and the school governing bodies have a hand in the appoint-ment and promotion of educators.

The dual control of many functions by schools and education departments, is likely to also leadto intermittent disputes between the two in various areas, such as admissions and language pol-icy. A disproportionate number of the disputes between schools and departments – concerningeducator employment and appointments, admissions, language and other issues – appears toinvolve the ex-HOA schools.9 There could be a variety of reasons for this: the ex-HOA schoolshave the funds to take their dissatisfactions to the courts, their governing bodies tend to includeprofessionals and managers, who have the know-how and the confidence to do this, they arethe schools with the most resources and thus may see themselves as having the most to losefrom social and legislative changes. It is also true, though, that they are seen by many depart-mental officials and others, as keen to protect the privileged interests of the white communi-ties or, at least, to protect middle-class interests. This perception is not without foundation.

2.10. Conclusion

The South African school governance system is a product of both our history and the policychoices since 1994. Both the Model C (the ex-HOA) and PTSA models have had an impact onthe type of school governance system designed in the post-apartheid period. So, no doubt, hasthe fact that decentralisation has become an international trend in an era of globalisation andthe adoption by government, of economic policies in keeping with a hegemonic consensus thatfavours such policies. Importantly, however, the kind of decentralisation that has emerged, hasbeen shaped by the need to deal with a number of conflicting local issues and interests. Theseinclude, among others, the attempt to reconcile the quest for equity with the resources that thestate felt it could allocate to education; the desire to move towards a more equitable distribu-tion of resources among schools while maintaining the middle class within the public schoolsystem; the need to reconcile the rights and responsibilities of individual schools with thewider national interest; the quest for greater democratic rights for stakeholders while main-taining the professional integrity and accountability of school managers and other stateemployees.

9 A number of the disputes which have reached the courts have had racial overtones. This is discussed in great detail byJansen (1998:13-21) in the case of the Grove Primary School case, although he makes the point that he does not believe thatthe school was racist, but argues that history and context – e.g. Grove was supported by a group of ‘80 white schools’ –ensured that its case was widely understood as being in support of white privilege. In the highly publicised – and politicallycharged – struggle of black learners and parents against racial discrimination at Vryburg High School (which did not go tocourt) there is indisputable evidence that racism has played a role in causing disputes as white communities have tried todefend their historically-derived privileges9 (Barron, 1998:19; Maphumulo and Sheehy, 1998:8; Sheehy and Maphumulo,1998:8; Tolo, 1998; Absolute CRD, 1998; Venter, 1998). A 2003 court case9 involving Elsburgh High School on the EastRand appears to reflect an SGB using its right to determine the school’s language policy as a means of excluding blacklearners, suggests that this type of attitude still continues at some ex-HOA schools.

39

Model

What these conflicts reflect, is a form of decentralisation that is strong in terms of devolution,but weak in terms of managing the disparate and often discriminatory proclivities and tenden-cies within local sites. In ceding power to the local site, the model in use in South Africa, hasfailed to take account of the diverse interests, not least of all, those of race and class, that con-tinue to circulate and have currency at the local level. The result of this decentralisation, is theemergence of what Clive Roos (Cited by Fleisch, 2002:83) has described as a number of dif-ferent types of governing bodies (see discussion in the conclusion section of chapter five for amore detailed discussion of this).

In terms of the four imperatives determined for decentralisation described above, namely thedelivery of a more humane society, the setting up of conditions for economic growth, the uni-fication of society and, finally, the achievement of greater democracy, it is clear that theapproach being taken, has the potential to deliver a more humane society, to build social cohe-sion, to nurture democracy and possibly to even stimulate economic growth. This report willseek to show that great progress has indeed been made. There are now more black childrenthan white children in most former white schools in the country. But progress can only bemaintained in the presence of a system that operates with the requisite degree of regulationwhere the principle of checks and balances is constantly refined. Without this regulation, with-out a refinement of the system of checks and balances, unfettered choice will favour the abil-ity of already privileged groups, and the newly-privileged middle-class, it must be said, tooperate what are essentially public resources for the sectional and sectarian good. Schools willhave the freedom, as many currently do, of becoming semi-private schools within the frame-work of a model that proclaims itself to be public.

Significantly, much of the discussion that will follow in the remainder of this report, will showthe need for firming up a model of governance, which is sensitive to the interests and needsthat come with individual choice but avoids rolling over entirely into an open and free marketparadigm. What is needed, it will be argued, are measures that will affirm the principle ofdevolving power to the local level, measures that will continue to guarantee freedom of choiceand freedom of association, but will simultaneously safeguard the rights of weaker groups andindividuals. Such a model can be put in place through the development and elaboration of theexisting structures. The central proposal made in this report, is for the conversion of the exist-ing advisory school governance framework that operates within the system at national level, tobe turned into a statutory structure, such as the Education and Labour Relations Council(ELRC). This is discussed in great length in chapter seven but will already be alluded to at sev-eral earlier points of the report.

Model

40

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the policy framework within which school governance is set, isconstantly evaluated, to assess how effectively educational decentralisation is address-ing the imperatives of building democracy, but also of meeting the diverse needs of allSouth Africa’s learners, educators and parents. This essentially means having the capac-ity to manage a policy that is structured around a refined and sensitive understanding ofthe demands of equity.

41

Composition

CHAPTER THREE

The Composition of the School Governing Body

3.1. Introduction

Following the previous chapter, where the focus fell on understanding the decentralisation par-adigm in which the SASA is set, the discussion now turns to how the school community inSouth Africa is breathing life into the Act. The chapters that follow, deal with the compositionof the SGB, its elections and its functionality.

This chapter is essentially about how the SGB is composed. At the outset, it needs to be said thatthe discussion of the composition of the SGB is a complex one and can move in several differ-ent directions. The direction for the composition discussion that is pursued here, is largely framedby the legislative framework in which participation is set in the country. The problem with pur-suing such a direction in an unquestioning way, it must be said, is that the notion of participationis seen only as a legal question. Pursued in this way, it is essentialised and the large questions anddebates of the different routes to democracy that are possible through governance, are never con-sidered. To modify this legalistic approach, which exists in so far as the chapter focuses on thelegal provisions contained in the law and the regulations surrounding governance, it seeks tobring some of these debates into perspective in considering the question of the membership ofthe SGB. This is central for answering one of the central questions framing the work of theReview Committee, namely that of how democratic governance may be enhanced within theschool setting.

The work of Kruss, Sayed and Badat (2001), is crucial for the purposes of understanding thedimensions of the debate. They argue that “the notion of participation means different thingsto different people and in different contexts. In South African educational policy discourses,four competing notions of participation relating to school governance can be discerned”(Kruss, sayed and Badat, 2001:171), namely community as the basis of participation, stake-holder participation, regulated participation and weighted participation.

Composition

42

3.1.1. Different approaches to participation

3.1.1.1 Community as the basis of participation

This first approach begins with the ideal that, despite the difficulties of defining community(territorial, religious, cultural, ethnic, political and so forth), community participation in edu-cation is a virtue in and of itself. The argument is made that school governance should reflectthe interests of the community within which it is located and serves. This sentiment is firmlyembedded in legislative and policy frameworks.

While there clearly are strengths to the concept of a ‘community’ and while ‘community’ as aninclusionary ideal must always be promoted, the notion, as is to be anticipated, is not with-out difficulties. Critically, most notions of community, work with the idea of a community asa fixed, stable and homogeneous structure. They also, equally critically, work with the notionthat a community has special interests to protect, often over and above, in preference to, theinterests of others. SASA, at some levels, invokes these notions of community but qualifiesthem, somewhat, by saying that community representatives must be acceptable to SGB’s.

The problem with this notion is its exclusionary potential. Community can be framed in sucha way, that it permits the privileging of some and the marginalisation of others.

3.1.1.2. Stakeholder participation

The discourse of stakeholder participation essentially holds that, in any field of decision-mak-ing, can be found individuals and groups with legitimate rights of participation. Such groups,it is argued, have more of a stake than others do in certain situations. As Kruss, Sayed andBadat (2001:172) say, it is implied that not all things are open to all people all of the time. Thediscourse is less open and less inclusive than the ‘community’ discourse.

This discourse is clearly articulated in SASA through its delineation of parents, educators,learners and so forth, as distinct stakeholder groupings within the governance landscape.

The difficulty with this discourse, as Kruss, Sayed and Badat (ibid) explain, is what they call‘translation.’ This problem refers to how the right of stakeholders to participate, translates intopractical policy terms: “Does it imply that stakeholders have the right to decide policy? Dothey do so autonomously? Are each of the ‘stakeholders’ assumed …to have the same inter-ests? At the same time who or what is a stakeholder becomes critically in need of clarifica-tion.”

At issue, as is apparent, are the questions of inclusiveness.

43

Composition

3.1.1.3. Regulated participation

Regulated participation is an attempt to move away from the difficulties posed by communityand stakeholder approaches to participation. It involves the continuation of community andstakeholder participation but, crucially, seeks to place limits on the nature of participation.Participation is regulated by the state through the institutionalisation of mediational forums.The advantage of forums such as these, is that they have the principle of co-operation, collab-oration and partnership inscribed within them. Groups and interests are present within theforum, but they are always subject to the mediational and negotiating aegis of the forum.Differences within groups and between groups are able to be managed within the frameworkof the forum.

Mediational forums are already present within the governance landscape, such as the adviso-ry school governance council to the minister, but, and this is the problem with this form of par-ticipation, the precise character of the regulation process is under-described and under-speci-fied. It will be argued in this report, that it is in this dimension of school governanc, that mostpotential lies. The recommendation will be made in chapter seven, that statutory governancecouncils should be established at the national and provincial levels. It is acknowledged herethat this proposal has application only at high-level policy-making strata within the system andnot at the individual school site.

3.1.1.4. Weighted participation

Weighted participation could embrace all of the above, but essentially speaks to the point thatsome people have more rights than others within decision-making structures. Again, as withthe other three discourses, this principle is evident in SASA, in so far as the requirement isenforced, that parents should have the majority say on the SGB. As Kruss, Sayed and Badat(2001:174) suggest, another way in which the weighting could be managed, is by giving morevoting rights to some constituent parts of the SGB than others, such as a parent having twovotes for every one of the educator.

The question about this approach, one that emerged powerfully during the work of the HunterCommission, is why some constituencies should have a stronger voice than others. Whyshould parents have a stronger say in governance than the professionals – the educators –whose business is education in the running of the school. While this question has been resolvedin the passage of the last seven years since the SASA was passed, the question, in a sense, isstill valid. The conflicts concerning the meaning and scope of governance as opposed to themeaning and scope of professional management, are emblematic of these difficulties.

Composition

44

3.2. Participation in relation to the composition of the SGB

The question raised by these debates is, essentially, how does one assess the standing of theSGB? It is suggested in this chapter, that there are two approaches one can take to assessingthe standing of the SGB. The first is clearly that of the legal standing of the SGB. An SGB islegally constituted, as it will be shown below, when it consists of the required number of mem-bers in the different categories specified by the law. The second approach one can take tostanding, flows from the discussion above about the nature of participation in the SGB in rela-tion to inclusiveness and representivity. What approach to the composition of the SGB, one canask, will produce the best and most just forms of democracy in the school and will yield andfulfil the ambitions of democratic governance?

Building on the discussion borrowed from Kruss, Sayed and Badat (2001) above, one canbegin to make a distinction between a ‘legal’ SGB and a ‘legitimate’ one. How does one get tothe point where one can make assertions about what constitutes legality and what constituteslegitimacy? It is important to recognise, that neither legality nor legitimacy can be discussedand analysed outside of the parameters of the existing policy regime in the country. Legality isderivable, and measurable, by what the law says. Legitimacy, on the other hand, while it hasto be referenced by the existing policy regime, in so far, for example, as the policy regime givesit a language in which it can be described and understood, always has to be considered in rela-tion to a wider set of issues that take their meaning beyond the language of the dominant pol-icy. These wider considerations include interests of justice and fairness that are not always,indeed cannot be, totally encompassed by laws that are constructed, as all laws are, within oneor other ideological framework.

The discussion that follows, first deals with legality and then shifts to the more difficult issue oflegitimacy.

3.2.1. Legality and composition

Legally, the aim of SASA, is:

● To provide a uniform system of organisation, governance and funding of schools.● To establish minimum and uniform norms and standards for the provision of education at

schools.● To ensure the provision of quality education across the school system. ● To amend or repeal certain laws relating to schools.

Mda and Mothata (2000: 10-11)

Since SASA is a national policy, it is applicable to schools in all nine provinces. The provin-cial departments of education (PDE) are responsible for the effective administration and man-

45

Composition

agement of education institutions. PDE’s can promulgate their own Education Acts. Thesemust, however, be in alignment with the framework of national policy (ibid). National policytakes its lead from the National Constitution (No 108 of 1996), which is the supreme law ofthe country. All other national laws, provincial regulations and local rules must be in accor-dance with its stipulations, especially those contained in the Bill of Rights (Chapter 2).

In starting its formal existence as a legally constituted structure and maintaining its legality, anSGB often encounters difficulties in composing its membership correctly. Legally, one canargue, an SGB has to be constituted in terms of the provisions of SASA, and these are dis-cussed below. The SGB’s composition has to be framed in accordance with the provisions ofthe provincial Education Acts, SASA and the Constitution. Common to all of these, is the rightto access, democracy and representivity. SGB’s have to comply with the principles of democ-racy and national education policy documents. These difficulties of constituting its membership correctly, are in part issues of definition andinterpretation. The point will be made, for example, that schools interpret laws in differingways. But, it will also be shown that these interpretations have to do with the social dynam-ics of a school. Sometimes, groups operate in ways that exclude other groups.

The focus of the chapter is on the current rules and regulations relevant to the composition ofthe SGB, as mandated in the South African Schools Act (SASA) No. 84 of 1996.

3.2.1.1. School Governance – composition

The legal situation for the composition of the school governing body is defined by Section24 of SASA (1996: 18). This section stipulates that the SGB will consist of a member ormembers from each of the following categories:

● Parents of learners at school.● Educators at the school.● Members of staff at the school, who are not educators.● Learners in the eighth grade or higher at the school.

In relation to the other groups on the SGB, it is expected that the parent component will alwaysbe in the majority.

3.2.1.2. Overview of the establishment of the SGB

The Ministerial Review Committee survey results and a great deal of anecdotal evidence, sug-gest that most schools in the country have fulfilled their commitments to the SASA withrespect to the legal establishment of SGB’s. These findings are consistent with those of other

Composition

46

studies (for instance, Kruss, Sayed, and Badat, 2001; CEPD, 2000; EPU Natal 1998) that showthat the majority of schools in South Africa have governing bodies in place. Of the 251 schoolsthat returned the questionnaires for the Ministerial Review Committee, 98% reported havingsuccessfully instituted elected governing bodies. The remaining schools, which did not estab-lish SGB’s (three, constituting 1,2% of the returns), attributed their failure to do so, to contex-tual factors such as high levels of illiteracy.

The Kruss, Sayed and Badat (2001) study, that looked at 54 schools in the Western Cape in the1998-1999 period, found that 63% of the schools formally established their SGBs in the courseof 1997, as required by the provincial regulations. Fifteen percent (all ex-HOA) had alreadyhad their SGB’s established during the 1992 and 1994 period. It is presumed, that these struc-tures were used and simply confirmed as the new SGB’s after the passage of the SASA.

All the schools in the Ministerial Review case studies had SGB’s in place.

In terms of these findings, the strong conclusion to which one must come, is that the countrynow has a uniform school governance system in place. Relatively standardised rules and prac-tices are in place everywhere. While it may be that provinces essentially define the details ofhow the SGB is to operate, the recognisable broad-brush strokes of the system are evidenteverywhere. The debate about SGB’s taking place in the country, significantly, is premised onthe same range of issues. Whether one is sitting in the township of Kwamashu in KwaZulu-Natal, or in the suburb of Emmarentia in Johannesburg, the issues are very much the same.

Given, thus, the difficulties surrounding the nature and the establishment of these structures,the accomplishment of institutionalising the SGB, is immensely significant. It needs to beborne in mind constantly how much is being achieved with how little. In this respect, credithas to be given to all the people involved in establishing these structures, not least of all thebeleaguered officials, particularly in the provinces. There is, however, evidence that suggests that, while schools are able to establish SGB’s, keepingthem going through retaining the involvement and active membership of particular groupings, isanother matter altogether.

The discussion that is entered into here, focuses on the composition requirements of the legis-lation. It seeks to make the point that, while there is a high degree of compliance with theSASA in terms of the establishment of SGB’s, there are a significant number of SGB’s thatwither and weaken, or ‘thin out’ during their term of office. In many cases, as one speaker saidat a hearing in the Northern Cape, SGB members do not resign but simply become inactive. Itis widely recorded that in some schools, only a few elected parents are active, in most casesthe chairperson of the SGB. The work of Kruss, Sayed and Badat (2001:259) in reporting ona case in a Cape Town township, makes the following contribution:

“The principal claimed that there has been a general decline of parental involvement in for-

47

Composition

mer DET schools, in comparison with other former departments for a number of reasons.This placed a burden on educators, who were concerned ‘because it’s a fundamental aspectof strengthen… the school system, the parental participation and involvement.

As a result according to many educators, there was a problem of poor attendance by par-ent members, which meant that the SGB did not function effectively: “they don’t come reg-ularly to our meetings. They are not available sometimes. When we deal with … discipli-nary cases, you’ll find that some of them are working and we can’t find them…. And some-times they would just say, we should just go on, then they’ll agree with whatever we agreeupon.”

Why SGB’s wither, has to do with a combination of factors, many of which are socio-eco-nomic in nature. These include the following:

● Literacy levels in communities. ● A lack of time. ● A lack of understanding of parents, of their role. ● The personal, and often crippling, costs parents have to bear in exercising their responsi-

bilities, such as transport to meetings and forfeiting their wages for days away from workon SGB business.

● Individually, having to deal with the difficult-to-articulate psychological issues of assert-ing themselves in relation to others with much more education and knowledge of gover-nance than themselves.

3.2.1.3. The rural and farm school SGB and the question of membership

Literacy and socio-economic issues affecting participation, are important to bear in mind.Appendices A, B and C draw attention to some of these difficulties. These difficulties aregenerally pervasive but are acute in rural and farm schools. The following comment fromone member attending the hearing in Bronkhorstspruit, highlight problems facing parents infarm communities:

“we have parents – SGB members – they work in farms. Farmers refuse them permis-sion to attend meetings. It’s a problem for parents to know how to function at theschool. Our meetings have to be called mostly in the evenings and parents are unableto attend. Even when we call meetings on Sundays, it is difficult for SGB’s to be of anyassistance to schools” (Admin clerk of a school).

Another participant, a member of the SGB, in the same hearing had this to say:

“As a member of SGB, I’ve gone house to house of learners. It is true parents are very

Composition

48

destitute. The question is what the government is doing to assist. I stay 25 kilometresfrom Bronkhorstspruit, I am unemployed. Coming to district meetings at the districtoffice or Johannesburg, is it not possible for transport to be provided for SGB mem-bers?”

Where governance structures are making a concerted attempt to take ownership of schools inrural areas, their plight is hindered by conditions beyond their control. Many school governorsare compelled to travel long distances to and from schools for meetings, workshops, etc. Theburden of transport fees, more often than not, is being carried by governors themselves. Insome areas, due to inaccessible roads, the lack of transport facilities creates additional burdensfor governors.

Given these circumstances, it is hardly a surprise, therefore, that parents struggle to meet theircommitments to school governance. A principal at an Eastern Cape Primary/Junior SecondarySchool (27 June 2003), commented at a public hearing, that “the majority (of parents) [are]facing poverty, it is not easy for them to come up with proper structures.” Another speaker atthe public hearing at Bronkhorstspruit in the Gauteng Province, added the issues facing ruralschools when she said “One would be lucky to find a school without orphaned learners due toHIV/AIDS.” In these circumstances, even the extensive social support networks developed incommunities – their social capital – are subject to immense strain and cannot easily be put touse for the purpose of building the school.

In the context of these realities, there is compelling evidence to suggest that schools in ruralareas are governed differently from schools in the more affluent urban areas. The most impor-tant difference appears to lie in, among other things, how parents assume their roles and sub-sequent responsibilities in school governance.

The assumption of governance duties in rural schools, more often than not, is propelled by alarge degree of persuasion and motivation from school managers, for parents to become schoolgovernors. The rationale for such persuasion and motivation is twofold. Firstly, schools arecompelled by SASA (1996) to establish school governing bodies. Secondly, the culture ofschool governance among parents in rural areas, is still in its infancy. The lack of information,experience and expertise about governance is a contributing factor. Principals, therefore, areleft with little choice but to undertake campaign drives to encourage parents to become gover-nors of schools. Those parents, who eventually do stand for elections, often do so after a greatdeal of pressure. They are predominantly from the female sector of the population, primarilybecause more females than males attend meetings and furthermore, because many are unem-ployed, they are perceived as being available.

Schools located on private farmlands, it appears, face an even worse plight. In a significantnumber of cases, schools are being forced to comply with the dictates of farm owners.Complaints have emerged, that it becomes an inconvenience to school managers when farm

49

Composition

owners enter their schools intermittently and at any time without prior notice or appointments.Whilst SASA requires governors to take ownership of their schools, farm owners feel that,because the school building is on their land, they not only own the school, but also the schoolgoverning body. The result is that SGB members are in constant conflict with the farm ownerwhen the question arises about school buildings that are in a shoddy and dilapidated state andno water and toilet facilities are available. They struggle to assert their rights. The effect ofthese conditions is demoralising and demotivating. There appears to be a deep sense of despon-dency and hopelessness among those faced with the daunting task of governing schools inthese circumstances.

Parental membership of the rural and the farm school is, it must be acknowledged, a fragileone. Circumstances militate against this membership remaining in place in a steadfast and con-sistent way.

3.2.1.4. The urban school and the SGB’s composition

It is not only rural schools that experience difficulties. While problems may be less acute inthe urban areas, they are present nonetheless. Apart from Gauteng and the Western Cape, tworelatively strong urbanised provinces, it must be said, parents struggle in other cities andtowns. Different kinds of struggles arise in urban SGB’s where different social forces are atwork, as parents and educators, more so in the more established and economically stableareas, struggle for ascendancy about the nature, form and content of the education processes.Struggles for ascendancy and the desire to have an impact on decisions, to be influential andto take control, become evident. Since the status accorded to governors in urban areas is oneof prestige and recognition, parents vie for governing body positions, in an attempt to gainpower and influence over others. The struggles become particularly pronounced during theappointments and promotion processes, when many disputes tend to be declared. Hence,governance structures become arenas in which political and other non-educational differ-ences in the community are fought out. This has the obvious potential of disrupting theschool and discouraging parents from making themselves available to serve on the SGB. Itthus becomes advisable to keep governance structures as non-partisan as possible and forthem to deal only with issues that affect the school.

Despite these problems, levels of parent participation in SGB’s are relatively strong. TheMinisterial Review Committee survey, found the following:

Composition

50

Table 3.1 Level of parental participation

From: Ministerial Review Committee survey

On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is very high and 5 is very weak, a mean of 2.4 was attained inthe survey, for describing levels of parent participation in SGB work and activities. The con-clusion to which one can come, is that the strength of parental participation on the currentSGB is moderate to high.

Almost a third of the schools rated parental participation as ‘very high’ and ‘high’, while anominal number of schools (between 3% and 6%) reported that parental participation wasweak or very weak.

Increased co-ownership of, and co-responsibility for the school were commonly associatedwith parental participation, and were reported by almost 91% of respondents. In the analysisof open-ended responses, themes were isolated and similar responses were assigned a com-mon code. The types of responses that fell under the broad heading of “co-responsibility” forthe school, are detailed below in the table derived from the Ministerial Review Committeesurvey.

51

Composition

10 The reason for these figures not amounting to 100% is due to the unusability of some data.

Table 3.2. Co-ownership and co-responsibility characteristics

Co-ownership and co-responsibility for the school10 Total %

Having an interest in the school’s affairs 32%

Showing an active involvement in issues that impact on learners and educators within the school environment (e.g. issues of safety, discipline, etc.) 24

Showing active involvement in fund-raising and/or resource mobilisation for improving and/or maintaining infrastructure 16

Being dedicated to the school’s efficient functioning 15

Being committed to the school’s vision 3

Being willing to serve the school’s mission 2

One of the goals of SASA, and of the Tirisano programme, was to improve community own-ership of schools. It would appear, that this goal has been achieved through the establish-ment of governance structures throughout the system.

The difficulties of SGB’s, notwithstanding, and they are substantial, there is no question thatSGB’s are a firm part of the schooling landscape. PDE’s have succeeded in institutionalisingthe structures and have ensured that schools have assimilated the policies around school gov-ernance. Given where the school governing body process began – an apartheid-induced antipa-thy to schools, an endemic lack of understanding of what school governance is all about, and,critically, an absence of a culture of parental governance in the life of the school – the achieve-ment, incomplete as it may be, is significant and substantial.

3.2.2. The legitimate SGB

But who are the people serving on SGB’s? Evidence suggests that, while SGB’s are now inplace, questions can be posed about their make-up. There is evidence in the research of theMinisterial Review Committee, across the indicators of gender and race, that SGB’s are con-stituted in unrepresentative ways. Experience of Review Committee members and information

Composition

52

deduced from the research data, strongly suggest too that SGB’s, even in racially homoge-neous settings, are dominated by the better educated and the more economically stable mem-bers of the community.

The complexities of how SGB’s are composed, are many. This report provides only a limitedview of the many differences that characterise this dimension of school governance.

The discussion that follows, first provides an overview of the demographic profiles of SGBs andthen moves to look at specific difficulties that SGB’s are experiencing with respect to the mem-bership of the SGB.

In terms of legitimacy, questions that arise have to do with the broader prescriptions of theConstitution and include issues such as representivity and inclusiveness. A consideration ofthese issues, has to begin with the prescriptions of the Constitution. It is necessary to say here,that what the Constitution intends, is always open to debate and contestation.

There are two kinds of requirements that an SGB has to meet in relation to its composition.These are, as suggested above, the legal requirements embodied in the SASA and the legiti-macy requirements that stem from the equity guidelines contained in the Constitution. Thelegitimate SGB is one that is representative of the diverse interests represented in the schoolcommunity.

In terms of these, one can say that the composition of an SGB might be legal but not legiti-mate. An SGB might have gone through a perfectly legal process, but not fully explored howit makes itself legitimate in dealing with the compelling demands of the interests of women,the interests of under-represented groups within the school, such as speakers of languagesother than English or Afrikaans, and the interests of learners. The list of interests that mightbe marginalised in the SGB, can be extended almost indefinitely.

3.2.2.1. The social class profile of SGB’s

Determining the social class of SGB parent members, is a more difficult task than determin-ing their race and gender. Nonetheless, some inferences may be drawn, based on the infor-mation that is available.

Based on the case studies research, one might suggest that the social class profiles of formerDET and ex-homeland schools are significantly more diverse than those in the former HOAschools. The 17 schools from the ex-DET system that formed part of the 36 schools studiedin detail, had governors from a variety of occupations. There were, significantly, unem-ployed people, drivers, artisans from a range of different kinds of work and domestic work-ers.

53

Composition

Interestingly, the SGB’s of two rural schools in KwaZulu-Natal, and perhaps this is to beexpected, given the location of the schools, consisted almost entirely of people whose occu-pations might be described as being working-class in character. One school listed its SGB asconsisting of a policeman, a farm-worker and a domestic. Another SGB listed as its chair, anunemployed person. It also contained a dressmaker.

The diversity of occupations in the schools discussed above notwithstanding, it remains thecase, that middle-class or emerging middle-class people tend to be dominant, if not in themajority, in ex-DET SGB’s and are in fact leading them. Very evident in the 17 schools wereuniversity lecturers, educators, clerks, lawyers, and a scattering of other professional occupa-tions. Most of these people were the chairpersons of their SGB’s.

The poor representation of working class and unemployed parents in the SGB’s is also hard-ly a surprise. The research of the Review Committee repeatedly brought to light, what thescale of the daily challenge is for poor families. The most important concern for many poorparents, is to support their families – to provide them with food and shelter. Many know notwhere the next meal will come from. They face, as has been argued in several places in thisreport, immense difficulties and challenges, that constantly frustrate their ability to take uptheir roles as governors. According to McPherson and Naicker (CEPD: 2002):

“issues such as the socio-economic environment of the school and attendant financialimplications; levels of expertise of SGB members; the understanding and utilisationof Department-generated processes and procedures; and the formulation of short- andlong-term school plans, while neglected to date, impact profoundly on effectiveschool governance, and need to be given attention.”

Large numbers of parents are unemployed and/or economically inactive people in the country,particularly in provinces, such as the Eastern Cape and Limpopo. Without formal employment,many parents are dependent on the state and the social networks they have access to where theylive. While it may be true that what has come to be called the two-economy phenomenon, isfirmly in place in the country; with many parents, who are not employed in the formal econo-my, making ends meet through the informal economy, survival is an abiding concern for many.Maintaining their responsibilities as school governors in this context is hard. In many parts ofthe country, the effect of these circumstances is to keep parents out of the governance arena,or, marginally better in some senses, having them in, but not enjoying quality levels of partic-ipation from them. The Kruss, Sayed and Badat (2001) study recounts many educators com-plaining of the quality of parental input in the SGB. The tone of voice of the educator respon-dents is often either that of complaint, or worse, contempt. In some cases, parents are chidedfor what is claimed to be their irresponsibility. The point that needs to be remembered in all ofthis, is how high the mountain is that these parents have to climb every day of their lives. Trueas it may be, that negligence and lack of interest are evident in many parents’ behaviour, thecircumstances fuelling these dispositions must not be ignored.

Composition

54

Another problem confronting the poor, is the flight out of township schools, by more eco-nomically stable parents and families. While definitive statistics about this phenomenon arenot available, studies carried out by the Human Sciences Research Council (Sekete et al, 2001)and also the work of the Human Rights Commission study (Vally and Dalamba, 1999), arestrongly suggestive. The Sekete et. al. (2000: 33) study based on a survey of 120 schools (79returns) in five provinces in the closing years of the 1990s showed that enrolments hadchanged dramatically. In response to the question of the extent to which changes had occurredin their schools, schools reported in the following way:

Table 3.3: Extent of changes in selected schools in five provinces

None Minor N/A Moderate Major

Enrolments have 6,8% 16,1% 16,2% 31,2% 29,3%changed in terms oftheir racial composition

The schools 10,4 11,4 10,8 27,7 39,7admission policy has changed to accommodate learners from different residential backgrounds

The number of 5,2 19,3 6,1 36,2 33,1learners coming from other than the school’s immediate neighbourhood has changed

From: Sekete et al, 2000.

If one accepts that almost 75% of schools are former DET schools and that, as is argued below,very little change would have happened in these schools in terms of demographics, the extentof the changes signalled in the table in the other schools, is considerable. In response to allthree questions about the extent of change, as is shown above, more than 60% of the respon-dents acknowledged that either moderate or major changes had taken place in their schools.

The point will be repeated below, but what is clear, is the strength of the movement into the

55

Composition

former white, Indian and coloured schools. This movement, one can assume, is that of themore economically stable parents in these communities.

The movement of what one might see as the proto-middle-class element out of the townshipschools, is a matter of concern and amounts to something of an ‘expertise-drain’. Similardevelopments, one might deduce, are taking place as communities move from rural to urbanareas. While the government’s intention is for communities to take ownership of theirschools, the economically well-endowed community members are exercising their democrat-ic choice not to invest in their local schools. The exodus of the proto and established middle-class families to urban and/or former white, coloured and Indian schools, results in the verypoor being left behind to ‘fend for themselves’ in terms of school governance and funding inthe rural schools. The absence of literate parents and the meagre school funds, are issues ofgreat concern facing rural and poorer schools’ governing bodies.

Ex-HOA SGB’s are very different in so far as they have large numbers of middle-class andprofessional people represented on them. In the seven schools studied in this category, all theparents were educated. Most of the SGB’s had business people and professionals, such aslawyers and accountants. Important about this phenomenon in these schools, is that not onlydo these schools have a capacitated layer of parents to draw upon, but these kinds of parentsare actually running their schools’ SGB’s. Again, it is hardly a surprise that this is the case.Middle-class parents, as any elementary sociology textbook will make clear, place a greatdeal of store in the process of education.

A great deal more can be said about the differences between former HOA schools and for-mer DET and homelands schools, but perhaps the one fact that counts for the professional-ism of the ex-HOA schools that cannot be left aside, needs to be mentioned quickly. This isthat the schools of the poor and the schools of the rich draw on very different social capitalresources. Social capital is the network that a community develops in the process of estab-lishing itself as a community. This network facilitates relationships between the communityand others and assists the community as it negotiates the challenges of poverty, hardship andso forth. The point about the networks of the poor, is that they are often defensive ones,while those of the more economically settled, are about holding on to and promoting advan-tage.

3.2.2.2. Gender profile of the SGBs

According to the Ministerial Review survey, women are, relatively-speaking, under-represent-ed on the governing bodies. This is especially so with respect to parent members of the gov-erning body (see table below). At the level of both the educator component and the learnercomponent, the distribution between males and females is more balanced.

Composition

56

Under-representation of women is particularly marked in the former DET system. The situa-tion is slightly different in ex-HOD, ex-HOA and ex-HOR schools, where the gender repre-sentation is more or less balanced.

In addition, significantly, most chairpersons of SGB’s are male. The survey, reflected in thetable below, revealed that approximately 80% of SGB chairpersons were men. The fieldworkof Ms Stunky Duku of five rural SGB’s in the Eastern Cape, confirmed this. In all her researchsites, men made up the chairperson strata of the SGB. Two of the reasons provided for thismale preponderance, were that male chairpersons “gave dignity to the SGB establishment” andthat “men always lead the way”. These two justifying reasons may reflect, it could be said, thetraditional African beliefs that men are leaders. It is also worth noting, that in certain sites, themen elected to lead these SGB’s, were elected regardless of their very limited educational qual-ifications as opposed to their educated female counterparts.

More disconcerting in some regions, is the fact that no unmarried women were found at all,regardless of their education, in any of the SGB’s Duku studied. The explanation provided toDuku, was that unmarried women do not respect authority and men in particular, as they donot have husbands to respect.

In contrast to this marginalisation of women, Duku did find in another phase of her work, afemale chairperson, who had just been elected. This female chairperson indicated that it wasnot the first time that she had been elected chairperson. Significantly, however, even though

SGB members Gender Number Percentage

Parents Male 845 26.5 Female 610 19.1

Educators Male 390 12.2 Female 372 11.6

Support staff Male 63 1.9 Female 124 3.8

Learners Male 397 12.4 Female 386 12.1

Total Male 1695 53.2 Female 1492 46.8

57

Composition

11 The figures here do not add up to 100% because of unclassifiable data

she was the chairperson, she did not command the same respect as the male principal in herschool governing body. Parents responded more strongly to invitations to attend SGB meetingssent by the principal than they did by her.

As these little vignettes show, much more effort should be put into ensuring that the voices ofwomen are not only present in SGB structures, but also given more weight.

Table 3.5: Gender of chairperson

Chairperson gender %11

Male 79

Female 18

According to the Ministerial Review Committee survey, ex-HOR and ex-HOA schools havethe lowest number of female chairpersons (10% and 14%, respectively), while LSEN and ex-DET schools had the highest, with 24% and 20%, respectively.

3.2.2.3. The racial profiles of the SGB’s (former HOA, HOD and HOR schools)

The available empirical information about the state of racial integration in the country’s schools isinconsistent. The evidence to hand for the purposes of this report with respect to learners, forexample, was contradictory at particular levels. The findings of the Ministerial Review survey sug-gested that demographic learner proportions in ex-HOA schools had become more representative,while those of ex-HOD schools were not. Work conducted by Vally and Dalamba (1999) sug-gested, on the other hand, at least for Gauteng, that ex-HOD schools were even more demo-graphically representative than the former HOA and HOR schools.This notwithstanding, it is undeniable that the role of race in school governance is problem-atic. Many of the submissions made for the purposes of the review suggest that, while thereis indeed a transformation in the racial structure of school governing bodies, such transfor-mation is incongruent with the learner population within the school. In other words, many ofthe formally white schools, which accommodate a majority of black learners, have predomi-nantly white governing bodies. At a hearing on the 16 August 2003 in the Free StateProvince, Ms M of the ANC Education Desk, speaking about school SGB’s, unequivocallyexclaimed, “there are no black people (on SGB’s in ex-Model C schools).” This observation

Composition

58

was shared by participants in most public hearings in KwaZulu-Natal.

At the same meeting referred to in the Free State, a Ms S disclosed that she was the only blackperson on an SGB that was all white. The perception that the inclusion of a token percentageof black governors would meet the requirements of representivity, is reflective of a problem-atic attitude amongst some predominantly white SGB’s.

The table below reflects the demographic situation in schools in the Gauteng area.

Table 3.6: Percentage of Gauteng learners by ‘race’ groups

From Vally and Dalamba, 1999.

While, as suggested above, African people are moving into former white, Indian and colouredschools in significant numbers, they are still under-represented in those schools. While careneeds to be exercised in how one interprets the figures, and it is understood that more investi-gation is necessary, the imbalances or the lack of representivity within the parent populationon school governing bodies, is stark. The table below reflects the distribution of parents by raceacross the former departments.

Ex-DET ‘African’ Ex-HOA ‘white’ Ex-HOR ‘coloured’ Ex-HOD ‘Indian’

A W C I A W C I A W C I A W C I

Gr. 1 100 0 0 0 16 75 2 6 9 0 91 0 61 0 22 17

All 100 0 0 0 22 72 3 2 31 0 67 0 45 0 5 50 Grades

59

Composition

Table 3.7: Racial Composition of the SGB

Ex-DET Ex-HOA Ex-HOD Ex-HOR LSEN TOTALLearners Black 97% 28% 69% 19% 39% 68%

White 1.2 56 1.3 2.3 46 25 Coloured 1.5 14 1.3 73 15 14 Indian 0.05 2.1 3 0.01 2.5 0.8 Other 0 0.6 0 6 0.08 0.6

Staff Black 94 4 13 7 25 52 White 5 89 9 9 62 35 Coloured 1.2 3 0 78 8 9 Indian 0.3 4 77 1.8 7 5 Other 0 0 0 5 0 0.4

SGB Black 96 11 72 8 33 60 (including White 2 79 0.2 3 49 24 parents, Coloured 1 6 1.2 81 14 8 educators, Indian 0.4 4 27 1 4 7 support staff Other 0.1 0 0 8 0 0.8 and learners)

SGB Black 55 7 3.5 7 18 27 (Parent White 1.2 40 0 1 26 12 component Coloured 0.5 5 0 43 9 5 only) Indian 0.2 2.3 5 0.4 0.6 1.7

Other 0.2 0 0 3.5 0 0.4

In ex-departments such as the former HOA system, while black learners now constitute up to30% of the learner profile in some schools, their parents only make up 11% of their SGB’s’membership. Indian and coloured parents in those same schools, constitute a further ten per-cent. In ex-HOR schools, while black learners now provide almost 20% of the learners, theirparents only make up 8% of the SGB profile.

There are, moreover, clear instances where tensions are arising in SGB’s between whites andblacks. One prominent conflict that led to the dissolution of an SGB, is worth recounting.Recently, the Eastern Cape Education Department was forced to dissolve an SGB, when itbecame clear that the white principal of a prominent ex-HOA school that had become a major-ity black school, had sought to manipulate an SGB election in favour of a white parent. Whilethis kind of evidence by no means describes the state of affairs in the entire country, it cer-tainly is suggestive.

Composition

60

The issue of parental representation on SGB’s and the lack of representivity was referred torepeatedly at hearings, where various explanations for this state of affairs were provided. Aregular explanation, often heard in suburban schools, was that African parents did not makethemselves available for elections. Another explanation, one that surfaced in the Port Elizabethhearings, was that black people themselves were voting for white people.

Black parents in the hearings, however, frequently spoke of racism and marginalisation. A par-ticipant in the hearings in the Free State explained:

“On decision-making, there are no black people. When doing elections whites beat us.We need to co-opt other black parents. Principals don’t include us. If votes beat usthey should co-opt us. Our people don’t come to elections because they are held inthe evening. They don’t have transport. We need elections to start from in the morn-ing.” (Free State hearings; 16.08.2003)

3.2.2.4. The age profile of the SGB

There is, in the wide range of source materials that the Review Committee had access to, littlethat talks about the age profile of serving school governors. There is, however, interesting evi-dence from the doctoral research of Stunky Duku of the Education Policy Unit of theUniversity of Fort Hare that suggests that rural SGB’s have a preference for older people asopposed to younger people.

In Duku’s work in five rural areas of the Eastern Cape, she found that 67% of the SGB mem-bers were over the age of 50. The least represented age group was that of people under the ageof 30 years. What emerges from her data, is the strong presence of pensioners in the rural areas.When she asked parents why SGB’s preferred older people, respondents indicated that “oldpeople still have all the respect for educators” and that “they were available whenever theywere approached by the educators.”

Of course, the reasons for this preference for older people is more complicated. It is a well-documented fact, that younger people and those who are of a working age (15-60), are leavingthe rural areas. Carol Paton, in a poignant article in the Sunday Times (4 August 2002), writesof the abandonment of the land in the Eastern Cape. She quotes an Elugewheni grandmother,who says, “Our cattle died. Our children went to school and after that some went to work. Butthey didn’t buy cattle, they only bought cars… Now, when you ask the children to be involvedin ploughing they say they are abused. They do not want to work (here).” In the same article,a young man who grew up as a herdsman, says quite categorically “I am not interested in farm-ing. When I got money I bought a TV, a radio and a house in Kokstad.”

While the reasons for the abandonment of the land are complex, it would appear that young

61

Composition

people do not see a future for themselves in the rural areas. This is borne out by the consistentincrease in urbanisation rates since the early fifties and sixties. Current estimations suggest thatSouth Africa’s urban-rural split is something of the order of 56-44, but that this ratio will havechanged to 65-35 in a matter of ten years.

The reality of this situation, is that young people are leaving the rural areas. More amenable tothe SGB as educators might find older people, the point is that younger parents are not choos-ing to live in their rural places of birth for the whole of their lives anymore.

3.2.2.5. The language profile of the SGB

The Chief Executive Officer of the PAN South African Language Board, Professor CNMarivate (PanSALB), argues that the Constitution of SA ushered in a new era with its legit-imisation of all the country’s major languages as languages of equal standing. This resulted inthe country formally adopting a policy of multilingualism. Marivate goes on to state that in1997, the DOE released the Language in Education Policy (LEP). The policy is based on addi-tive bilingualism that entails the promotion and use of the home language alongside an addi-tional language. The LEP aspires to create a platform for communication across cultural, reli-gious and racial barriers. It encourages the creation of an environment of tolerance and respectof one another’s culture and language.

Language is the main means through which knowledge is conveyed and learning acquired. InSouth Africa, the issue of language has always been a contested terrain. Language has beenthe basis for classifying and dividing people and it became the cornerstone of the country’ssegregationist education policies. The interplay between language and power within theSouth African context, brought about some notable effects within the field of education andschooling. An important feature of the interplay, has been the elevation of English as the lan-guage of access to opportunity and a better life. It has become, understandably, the preferredlanguage of instruction for even English second-language parents and learners. The effect ofthis preference, has been the marginalisation of many African languages and the concomitantmarginalisation of those not able to speak in English or Afrikaans.

A representative of a key non-governmental organisation in the Port Elizabeth area (DELTAfoundation: 12 May 2003), in his submission, provided an ‘on the ground’ perspective of thelanguage policy. This view, he claimed, was that of “… people who have been entrusted withthe implementation of SASA on a day-to-day basis.” In his submission, he refers to S.6 ofSASA:

“although participants concede that the right of the parent or individual to choose thelanguage of learning and teaching should remain unfettered, they nevertheless are con-cerned that the choice is always English rather than Xhosa, the mother tongue. This

Composition

62

clearly raises many questions about the future of Xhosa as an official language despitethe Department’s stated aim of promoting and developing all official languages.”

The claim was also made in some submissions, that there were SGB’s that were deliberatelyusing language as a mechanism to exclude learners from their schools and potential SGB par-ent members off such structures. It was also said that, where black parents were in the minor-ity in SGB’s, they felt intimidated by English first-language speakers. A speaker at the publichearing in Bronkhorstspruit (Gauteng Province), made an appeal for SASA to be written in alllanguages. At a Johannesburg hearing (Johannesburg: 07 June 2003), a parent complained of(IDSO D8) “everything [being] in English’ and expressed the opinion that the language barri-er inhibited the participation of parents. At the same hearing, the comment was made again,that language was used by some SGB’s to exclude learners.

3.3. Some difficulties SGB’s are experiencing with respect to SGB membership

Before the chapter concludes its assessment of the legality and the legitimacy of the SGB, anumber of other issues that have arisen with respect to composing the SGB, need to bepointed to.

3.3.1 Learner representation on SGB’s (secondary schools)

Two kinds of difficulties relating to learner participation in the SGB can be pointed to. The firstemanates from the policy itself and the second from attitudes in schools, to young people.

Current regulations provide for the participation of learners in schools consisting of GradeEight and higher. In terms of these regulations, such schools are obliged to establishRepresentative Councils of Learners (RCLs). Any two members of the RCL are eligible to beelected by the RCL, to serve on the SGB. The controversial point about learner membershipof the SGB, is that it is only valid for one year. This is, it is presumed, because the RCL itselfonly has a formal life of one year and has to be reconstituted each year. The difficulty with thisis that RCL membership of the SGB, because it invariably changes each year, is constantly incatch-up mode, thus severely limiting the potential for this category of membership to con-tribute to its full potential.

The rules also stipulate that, if the learner is a minor, i.e. under the age of twenty-one, he orshe:● May not contract on behalf of the school.● May not vote on resolutions of an SGB that impose liabilities on third parties or the school.● Is excluded from any legal consequences that arise from decisions taken by the SGB.

63

Composition

Protective of the interests of the young as these clauses may be, and the argument is not madehere that these exclusions should be changed, the effect that they have on the learners, is todowngrade their status on the SGB.

In conjunction with these difficulties, are problems that young people as learners experienceas a result of negative attitudes towards them by older people on the SGB. While these atti-tudes are in both ex-HOA and ex-DET schools, they express themselves in different ways. Informer HOA schools, there is a tendency to see young people as not being qualified, becauseof their youth, to sit as equals with their elders in school governing bodies. This approachderives from the strong age hierarchies that existed in the apartheid system, where the youngwere expected to ‘know their place.’While the attitudes that existed towards the youth in white schools are not absent in blackschools, they have had to be put aside as the youth asserted their authority as freedom-fight-ers, in their own right, during the struggle against apartheid. It was the immense contributionthey made, that made it essential for any future school governance dispensation, to take themseriously and include them. In this respect, and SASA is unequivocal about this, the SGB hasto grant two learner representative council members, seats on the SGB.

Interestingly, while the majority of secondary schools have learner representatives on theirgoverning bodies, their status as fully-fledged members has been put in question, even in for-mer black schools. While participants at several sites of the hearings, and stakeholders inter-viewed, supported the involvement of learners on governing bodies, it was clear that their rep-resentation was equally often called into question, thus compromising the weight of the inputthat learners might make.

Various explanations are offered for the reduced status of SGB learner representatives. Thecomment has frequently been made, that learners of the current generation have different inter-ests, particularly political ones, to those of their predecessors in the seventies and eighties. Thisis not an insignificant point to be made. It is true that there has been a great deal of public con-cern about what has been called ‘youth apathy.’

There are other explanations for the diminished role young people are playing in SGB’s. It canbe said, that a breakdown in communication and understanding has taken place between chil-dren of school-going age and the adults with whom they have to relate. There is also, it mustbe admitted, the perception of many adults that children have had too much authority and thatthey now need to take back this authority.

While these are by no means new sociological phenomena, they have serious implications forthe way in which schools are governed. One such implication arises during governance meet-ings, where learners are not given a fair hearing. “We are often excluded when key decisionsare taken and are only informed of the outcomes of the meeting,” said a learner at a hearing inNelspruit. An interviewee representing a student organisation, alluded to the fact that SGB’s,

Composition

64

especially parents in SGB’s, have negative perceptions about learners and their ability to par-ticipate in school governance. They often label learners as rebels, whenever the latter inquireabout issues that affect them (Interview with COSAS).

Another emerging trend, is that certain secondary schools appear to be operating on the oldprefect system when it comes to learner representation on SGB’s. According to one participantat the hearings in Malelane in Mpumalanga, “the prefect system still prevails in Ex-HOAschools and other schools following the PTA system.” While the prefect system cannot be dis-allowed, it is important that the relationship of the prefect system, particularly the responsibil-ities of prefects, with the wider system of governance is clarified in schools and that the pre-fect system is not used as the means to determine membership of the SGB.

3.3.2. The principal as ex officio member

At the other end of the ‘power spectrum’ is the principal. A perennial difficulty in the SGBand how it is constituted, relates to the presence of the school principal. According to SASA,principals are not elected to the SGB, but have ex officio status. According to the Centre forApplied Legal Studies (CALS), this status is ambiguous and needs clarity. The question aris-es, whether the principal as SGB member, represents the interest of the SGB or that of theDepartment of Education.

The submission from CALS (University of Witwatersrand, 2003: 15), makes reference to a case,where the Free State Head of Education withdrew an SGB’s functions. In this particular case, italso suspended the school’s principal. The reasons it gave for doing so, were substantially thesame as some of the reasons it gave for withdrawing the SGB’s functions, namely, that the prin-cipal acted as an SGB member and under its mandate, and that his actions were beyond thescope of the regulations by which he was bound as a school principal. The argument CALSmakes, is that principals should not be disciplined for acting in their capacity as governors, aslong as they are discharging legitimate SGB functions in a lawful manner.

There are, however, other opinions about the membership rights that should be given to princi-pals. A participant in the hearings at Stanger (09 May 2003), made the point that “the schoolprincipal of a school should not serve on the SGB, even in the ex officio capacity. Currently,SGB’s are greatly influenced by the principal.” He also stated that “learners (in the case of highschools) should not be part of the SGB. They should be given the opportunity, via the RCL, toliaise and work together with the management of the school.” He was of the opinion, that theSGB should be a completely autonomous body, which can monitor the school objectively, with-out due influence from the principal. The speaker was also optimistic that this ‘separation’would, to a certain degree, minimise collusion between the principal and the SGB.

Support for the drive to eliminate principals as ex officio members from SGB’s came from

65

Composition

the Chairperson of the Parents Association in Phoenix (11 May 2003). His point was, thatmany principals were determined to have the major power in the SGB, even though theyonly held ex officio status. He claimed that “the principal stubbornly refuses to [help us call]Parent Meetings and address the issues (the submission listed many dysfunctions rangingfrom mismanagement of funds; violation of stipulations in SASA; sexual abuse not beingaddressed; needs of learners, example, extra tuition not met etc.).” He stated that the princi-pal does not attend to parental concerns and claims that, although the principal’s duty is “tomaintain a high standard of quality education – unfortunately this is not the case”

Another case in point about principals, came from the specialised schools sector. It was saidby a participant at a KZN hearing (06 June 2003), that “SGB’s are ineffective especially inLSEN schools. The fact that we receive a subsidy from the government, principals wouldensure that they get a parent who is illiterate and don’t have a say in subsidy because theydon’t have information. The SGB members especially in LSEN schools are bribed and mostlearners don’t have parents who can stand for their rights.”

While it clearly is not the case that every principal is abusing his or her powers with respect tothe SGB, there certainly is evidence, that such principals do exist. At the same time, it alsoneeds to be acknowledged, that in many circumstances, principals are compelled to play force-ful roles in their SGB’s. This is particularly the case in SGB’s where parents are learning theculture of school governance and need the guidance of the principal.

3.3.3. Co-option of members to SGB

According to the Ministerial Review Committee survey, there are substantial numbers of co-opted members serving on SGB’s. More than half of the number of SGB’s (55%) have co-opted members. Co-opted members are, invariably, brought onto the SGB because of theirskills or qualifications. The table below, provides a perspective of the percentage of co-optedmembers in SGB’s, classified along former education authority lines.

Table 3.8: Percentage of co-opted members in SGB’s, by ex-department

Former education % authority

Ex-DET 54

Ex-HOA 58

Ex-HOD 66

Ex-HOR 43

LSEN 53

Composition

66

As these figures suggest, co-opted members play a significant role in the life of the SGB. Aproblem exists, however, in relation to their status as non-voting members of the SGB. In termsof SASA, co-opted members are not allowed to vote. No matter, therefore, what kind of con-tribution they make, whether it is to bring much-needed expertise onto the SGB, or to correctthe lack of representivity of the SGB, their ability to impact on the decision-making process-es of the SGB, is minimised. It is in this context, that some of the participants in the hearingsrecommended that co-opted members should be granted full voting rights (report on the hear-ings in Upington). This was supported by one of the MEC’s for education.

Giving each co-opted member a vote, is clearly a matter that will give rise to both applause andobjection. Way forward, may be to use the same kind of rights that specialised school SGB’shave, namely, that of co-opting a limited number of fully-fledged members, as long as thesenumbers do not exceed the number of elected members on the SGB. What this means, is thatthe SGB brings to the SGB, the special skills or makes good the particular lack of repre-sentation it needs and empowers this representation with full voting powers. The impact ofthis, will be to give status to co-option but to always limit the power of the co-opted membersof the SGB in relation to the other members.

3.3.4. SGB’s in specialised schools

Although the specialised school offers a model for how co-option might be managed, it mustbe said that even here caution is required with regard to the composition of the SGB. Thespecialised school is entitled to co-opt members, who will have voting rights. A submissionby South African National Association for Specialised Education (SANASE, 05 May 2003),indicates that “if one looks at the current way of the SGB composition of a specialisedschool, it means that a SGB at a specialized school can have 31 members if parents must bein the majority.” While SANASE supports the fact that parents should be in the majority, itmakes the recommendation, that the number of members of an SGB should be limited to amaximum of 15 members. This means that the number of parents elected should not be morethan eight. SANASE states, that the SGB will decide on a maximum of three, who shall have voting rights. More may serve on the SGB at their own cost but without voting powers.

3.3.5. The existence of PTA’s

A particular set of issues relating to membership of SGB’s has to do with the role of PTA’s.

It emerged from the Ministerial Review Committee survey, that 24% of schools amongst thosesampled, had PTA’s operating alongside the SGB. This situation was particularly evident in ex-HOA, LSEN and a few ex-DET schools, where membership of PTA’s and SGB’s over-lapped to a large degree. It was unclear in these schools, how the membership of these struc-

67

Composition

tures, never mind their roles, was being determined. It can be argued that, where dual struc-tures exist in schools, there is room for considerable ambiguity.

3.4. Closing comment on the composition of the SGB

As this discussion has made abundantly clear, the vast majority of schools in South Africa aregoverned by SGB’s that have a legal standing. In terms of the prescriptions of the law, thereare few SGB’s that have not been constituted with the required component parts of parents,educators, learners and non-educators.

Following the discussion of legality and legitimacy, critically, however, in relation to legality,the observation can be made that the intention of devolving power to parents, equitably has notmaterialized everywhere and equally successfully. While all the legal constituents of the SGBare in place in the vast majority of schools, there continue to be distinct differences in the sta-tus of membership on the SGB. These factors do not take anything away from the legality ofSGB’s, but they do raise questions about their legitimacy. There is sufficient evidence to makethe point, that legally appointed members of SGB’s, particularly parents and learners, are notalways able to play their roles fully and confidently. While it is true that the phenomenon ofthe bullying SGB chairperson, who seeks to impose his or her will on the school, is notunknown, it is much more so the case, that one will hear parents talking of principals and edu-cators undermining them in the SGB.

In terms of representivity and inclusiveness, the situation is even more complicated and pos-sibly cause for a great deal more concern. While it cannot be said that the SGB’s of the coun-try are illegitimate, it must be conceded, that what one is seeing in the system, are degrees oflegitimacy in terms of inclusiveness and representivity. Many SGB’s are as legitimate as canbe. They represent, across a spectrum of indicators of difference, the interests of the differentconstituencies they serve. This, as has been previously said, is a great achievement for thecountry.

But, many schools have not become the sites of democratic and open participation that theSASA intended. Levels of representivity in SGB’s, are poor across a range of indicators andwill have to be addressed by both national and provincial departments of education.

The pace of transformation in relation to the integration in schools that served racial groups otherthan Africans, appears to be very slow, despite the various avenues available to schools to ensureracial integration. Gender representation, with SGB’s continuing to be dominated by males, alsocontinues to be a problem. Similar issues can be raised about the domination of the economicallymore stable groups in the system.

In terms of this discussion, if SGB’s are to be one of the great seed-beds for cultivating dem-

Composition

68

ocratic participation in public life in South Africa, the debate must be opened up about howthey can become more representative and more inclusive.


1. It is recommended, that participation in school governance is made the subject of agreat deal more public debate. While it is recognised that the services of theIndependent Electoral Commission have been made use of in managing school gov-erning body elections, it is recommended, that instruments of public communicationbeyond the DoE are drawn and mobilised, to draw attention to the important issues ofrepresentivity and inclusiveness in school governance.

2. It is recommended, that all SGB’s should strive to be representative of the demo-graphic diversity of their schools. Representivity could be achieved in three ways: thefirst, asserting the demand for racial inclusivity through the insertion of provisions inSGB constitutions that mandate the designation of positions on the SGB on raciallyproportional grounds, such as is the case where a school is 60% black and 40% white.The second, achieving representivity through electing parents on a geographical sys-tem, so that if the school draws its learners from a number of areas, that a system isdeveloped, to ensure that the different areas are represented. The final approach couldbe to elect parents on a grade basis. Co-option of under-represented groups shouldonly be explored as a final option. (Also see Appendix H for more discussion.)


3. The recommendation is made in chapter seven, that a statutory National SchoolGovernance Council, and Provincial School Governance Councils are established.Reference is made in the recommendations below to these Councils. For further dis-cussion of these Councils, please refer to the recommendations in chapter seven.

4. It is recommended, that at least one third of parent members on a governing body shouldbe women. It is recommended, that this is regulated through amendments in the nationaland provincial legislation.

5. It is recommended, that a specified minimum number of co-opted members, whereapplicable, be given full voting rights, but remain subject to the Code of Conduct forSGB’s, discussed as a recommendation in chapter seven. Where an SGB wishes toco-opt more than two members, it is recommended, for example, that only the first

69

Composition

two such appointments be granted full voting rights. Where such appointments aremade, an SGB would have to ensure that it always has the requisite number of fullyempowered parents, to maintain the parents in the majority. The proposed NationalCouncil would develop a framework (national) for the process and procedures of co-option. This framework would be applicable to provincial tiers of the council.

6. It is recommended, that the SGB in a post-grade 8 institution is not fully signed off bythe HoD, unless the SGB establishment contains its required minimum of two learn-ers. It is recommended, in mixed-gender schools, that the representation consist of amale and female learner.

7. It is recommended, that a system of RCL representation to the SGB, is developed thatwill increase the elected learners’ representation to a period of two years.

Election

70

CHAPTER FOUR

The Election of the SGB

4.1 Introduction

Parents, who have learners at the school, any educator or non-educator (conditional uponwritten permission from the HOD) employed at the school, and all learners, who are in gradeeight or higher, may stand for elections to the SGB. Thus, the electoral officer will need tohold, or ensure, that separate election meetings are held for parents, educators, non-educatorsand learners.

This chapter deals with elections and the issues that arise in trying to get the SGB off theground. With respect to the first part of the discussion, reference is made to election policiesas a framework, within which current problems and issues emanating from the multiple pub-lic hearings and submissions, are viewed.

SGBs are statutorily constituted bodies whose membership requirements and functions arestipulated in SASA. School communities are granted legitimate power to choose, who theywant as members of the SGB, by voting. The legitimacy of governors derives from two basicprocesses. The first and most important, is through a process of nomination and then electionby other parents in good standing in the school. The second way a parent might become amember of an SGB, is through being co-opted by serving governors.

Election procedures are decided by provincial MEC’s. These procedures have to be consis-tent with SASA. The first election meeting must be held within sixty days of a date decidedby the MEC. In new schools, elections must be held within sixty days of the new schoolopening. In terms of this, another important achievement for school governance in the coun-try, is that relatively well-specified procedures and mechanisms are in place throughout thecountry.

When the Ministerial Review Committee survey was being conducted (June to July 2003),SGB elections had just taken place in most provinces. Respondents were specifically asked,to obviate confusion with the process that was playing itself out, to reflect on the composi-tion and functioning of the 2000-2003 cycle of the SGB’s’ life. As could be expected, morethan two-thirds (63%) of the schools’ SGB’s were elected in 2000.

71

Election

Of the ex-DET12 schools with SGB’s, 64% were elected in 2000, while 5% were elected in2001 and 2002. A small minority of ex-DET schools (2%), were still working with SGB’selected in 1997 and 1999 respectively. Both ex-HOA and ex-HOR schools reported, that70% of their SGB’s were elected in 2000, while very few reported having worked withSGB’s prior to 2000-2001.

The most common reason given for elections taking place outside of the prescribed periods,was a lack of interest expressed by parents. This was particularly the case in farm schools.One school reported, that it did not make the quorum required for elections to take place,while another reported, that the school had only opened officially, in January 2001.13

4.2. Election rules and procedures as per SASA and challenges in respect thereof

4.2.1. Principal as electoral officer

An electoral officer is the person in charge of the election and is responsible for conductingand managing all aspects of the election. According to Jones (2000: 13), the HoD appointsan electoral officer in writing. This officer, in most cases, will be a principal of a school (nothis or her own).

It is important that the election officer, for the election to succeed, knows the rules, the rele-vant policies, processes and procedures involved in the election (Jones (2000: 14). Theseinclude all the sections of SASA, which deal with elections, Public Notice No 149 of 1997and Public Notice No 151 of 1997. Lack of clarity in this respect, seriously jeopardises notonly the process of electing SGB’s, but its subsequent legitimacy as well. Matome Sefalafala(Ksaphane, 2003), highlights this imperative, when he states that elections should be con-ducted by a properly trained election officer.

Referring to the electoral officer, Mohamed (April 22, 2003: 1) explains that “the presidingofficer must come from a different district. School staff must not know the presiding officer.Voting must be done in secret.” While it is not always possible for a staff not to know thepresiding officer, there are good reasons for having someone from outside the school to manage the election. Issues of impartiality and disinterest are crucial qualities for the suc-cessful electoral officer to have. Any hint of bias can call the legitimacy of an election into

12 It must again be noted that some of the information given on ex-departments is debatable.13 Rules for quorums for meetings differ from province to province. It is likely that the quorate rule in this province did notmake a second meeting without the prescribed quorum possible.

Election

72

question. It is for this reason, that the continued training of principals is critical for theeffective and efficient management and administration of SGB elections.

Since one of the aims of the DoE is to promote self-reliant schools, every attempt should bemade to capacitate principals in respect of holding authentic SGB elections. The practicalityof having an expert ‘presiding officer’ within the domain of each school, lies in the fact thatelectoral officers have to hold four election meetings, namely for parents, educators, non-educators and learners.

4.2.2. Election dates

Current arrangements for SGB elections are, that the elections should take place on anagreed date at an agreed venue, usually at the school. There are, however, provinces thathave not yet developed policies for the timing of elections. Many participants in the hearingsand those who made submissions to the Review Committee, complained about the differentdates or periods for elections of governing bodies. Many felt that different dates create astate of confusion and instability.

In some provinces, despite the fact that all the role-players knew that elections were to beheld in the course of 2003, it still took a long time for the dates for the elections to be prom-ulgated. Regulations require that provinces announce these dates well in advance. It wouldappear, that some struggle with this requirement. One reason for provinces struggling withthis requirement may be, that when the announcement is made, all the regulations coveringthe election are also announced. Configuring these regulations and ensuring that they are inorder, is not an easy task.

FEDSAS (11 April 2003) states further that, the amendment to section 23 of SASA (to theeffect that a member of the governing body ceases to be a member of the governing body ifhe or she ceases to fall within the category referred to in subsection (2)), creates seriousproblems for the timing of elections. Many parents cease to be parents at the end of a partic-ular year and therefore also cease to be members of governing bodies. A parent must then beco-opted for a maximum of 90 days. Within that period, a by-election must be held. Becausea general election may take place within a month or two after the by-election of a new gov-ernor, the situation may arise that a school could have had three different governors withinthat ninety-day period. It is for this reason, that serious consideration should be given to theproposal, that the term of office of the SGB and the time for the elections are articulated, toachieve the situation where the terms of office of the old and the new governors overlap. The difference in times of elections in different provinces is a serious impediment, not onlyto the proper functioning of national associations of governing bodies, but also to the stabili-ty of the SGB. It is for these reasons, that many organisations recommend a nationally deter-mined date for the election of governing bodies. The date set should be set before the end of

73

Election

the first term of the year in which general elections of governing bodies are to be held. Theelection itself should then take place, at least three months before the new SGB takes office.With respect to this, FEDSAS makes the following points:

● A nationally determined date for election of governing bodies, would contribute immenselyto the promotion of the importance of governing body elections.

● A single nationally determined date would promote and assist national advocacy and mediacampaigns for elections.

● The idea of a single date or period within which governing bodies throughout the countryare to be elected, would enhance the idea of a single and uniform system of public schools.

In debating the question of a single date, the challenge that this will pose for the person-power resources in the DoE, needs to be borne in mind. The current practice of the EMDGDirectorate, is to observe a sizeable number of elections in every province. If a single datefor elections were to be chosen, the DoE would not be able to cope.

While the merits of a single date can be debated, there is no doubt that a strong case can bemade for having uniform election procedures in the country. Organisations involved inschool governance, refer to Section 146 (2) of the Constitution, which provides for nationallegislation to apply uniformly across the country, including taking precedence over provin-cial legislation, as long as certain criteria have been met.

4.2.3. Obtaining a quorum

Although notification is sent out to parents, informing them in advance (at least fourteendays before the meeting) about a forthcoming election, in many areas, particularly in ruralschools, it is difficult to make up a quorum. This appears to be a widespread problem experi-enced by all the provinces.

While an election is bound, in terms of the regulations, to be quorate, what constitutes a quo-rum is unclear. Different provinces have different rules for what constitutes a quorum. Thequorum rule appears to range between a low of 15% in provinces, such as Gauteng, andhighs of 50% in provinces, such as the Northern Cape.

With respect to the quorum rule, a submission from the Eastern Cape (17 April 2003),explains that “the way in which the elections are conducted …at our school is not very goodin particular schools at rural areas. The communities in particular those who are illiterate inrural areas do not even know what SGB stands for.” The Executive Director of the SchoolGovernors Network from KZN (Stanger: 09 May 2003), states that “the poor attendance atparent election meetings is a well-known fact and this clearly limits the effectiveness of theelection process.”

Election

74

From the submissions, it is evident that parent complacency is a problem that hinders theprocess of elections because without achieving a quorum on the first occasion, schools haveto wait for a second occasion, when the quorum rules do not apply.

The danger of installing an SGB in a second meeting where the quorum rule falls away, is thatbecause only a hand-full of parents attends, the legitimacy of the SGB is called into question.The incentive and motivation to serve on the SGB is deflated by a culture of passivity.

Commentators, such as Pampallis (2003), suggest that many parents do not attend electionmeetings because there is no incentive to do so. He makes the argument that “the fact thatSGB members are not remunerated tends to result in ‘lack of commitment’ by parents” (ibid:24). The result is that, when principals find themselves in this situation, they often have littleoption cases but to handpick parents to serve on SGB’s. This process stands in contradictionto the stipulations of SASA and other provincial directives that are fundamentally aboutupholding and nurturing the principles of democracy, legitimacy and transparency. In hissubmission, a principal (30 April 2003) from Florida in the Gauteng Province, explains thedifficulty of obtaining a quorum, as partly the result of insufficient recognition for the contri-butions made by governors. Some provinces have responded to this situation by awardingcertificates to SGB members. Gauteng Province, for example, organises a special occasionwhere SGB members are assembled and collectively recognised and honoured.

Due to the difficulty of acquiring a quorum for the elections, the electoral system should,according to the same principal described above (Gauteng: 30 April 2003), take advantage ofthe benefits provided by technology, particularly computer technology. It should be possible,for example, to introduce proxy votes by either e-mail/websites or even SMS over the mobiletelephone system. Other mechanisms, such as learner-carried votes (learners bring names ofcandidates in writing directly from parents) aimed at promoting a more practical and conven-ient approach to SGB elections, should be considered.

According to a participant at the Stanger Hearings (09 May 2003), “those responsible for theelection arrangements must by law take all reasonably practical steps to inform all parents ofregistered learners of their right to stand as candidates and to vote, and must then enablethem to stand and if the election is contested to vote by secret ballot. In order for participato-ry democracy at school level to be effective, [the] majority of all stakeholders should beactively engaged.” The same speaker claimed that there was no legislation in his provincespecifying a quorum for SGB elections and proposed two suggestions to increase parentattendance at election meetings, namely:

● Currently, there is no quorum for an election meeting – a minimum quorum could be leg-islated.

● Voting for candidates nominated, could occur through the secret ballot system, which didnot require to come physically to vote on election day. Parents should be given the

75

Election

opportunity of voting by post but may, if they prefer, return their votes by learner post orin person prior to the election day.

Other incentives for parent participation in school governance, are suggested by the SouthAfrican Principals Association in Levubu (12 June 2003), namely that “parents should bereimbursed for transport in attending meetings.” FEDSAS is in agreement with this (11 April2003): “consideration should be given to some form of compensation of SGB members bythe State, for attending meetings and possibly other aspects of their responsibilities.”

In giving consideration to proposals, such as compensating SGB members for their costs, itwill soon be recognised that issues of feasibility and cost are central. There will be a mini-mum of 100,000 SGB members in the governance system at any one time. If just this mini-mum number of people are to be compensated at a reasonable level, the cost to the fiscuscould run into the hundreds of millions of rands.

4.2.4. Election of parents on SGB’s

SASA mandates parental participation in school governance and stipulates that the parent com-ponent must be in the majority. However, it makes no mention of the criteria, which qualify aparent to serve on the SGB, other than stipulating, not always sufficiently comprehensive, whoa ‘parent’ is (see discussion above). On the one hand, it fails to recognise that there are manypeople in often poor communities, who have had the role of parent thrust on them. Theseinclude older children, who often become parents to other orphaned children. It does not also,on the other hand, deal with situations where parents are committing fraud to make themselveseligible to be elected to the SGB. Situations are arising where older people are ‘buying’ chil-dren by paying their school fees for the purpose of sitting on the SGB.

A contributor from Stanger (09 May 2003), argued that “the involvement of parents in the edu-cation of their children is potentially one of the biggest problems we are facing. In order tohave effective SGB’s it is important to recruit the ‘right’ quality of school governors to serveon it.” He makes a distinction between the election of parent governors in rural and urbanschools. He claims that the election of governors with knowledge and skills in urban/affluentschools is ‘not a big problem’. However, the point is made that “deprived/rural schools facemuch bigger problems. Presently the majority of individuals are elected onto SGB’s withoutthem understanding the purpose of SGB’s, their roles and responsibilities.”

The Catholic Institute of Education (CIE) (09 May 2003), highlights the problem of illitera-cy among parents. The CIE states that “in some instances the low literacy level of SGBmembers presents a problem because some SGB functions require a relatively high level ofliteracy. This is more acute in rural areas where some SGB members have very low literacylevels or cannot read and write at all.”

Election

76

Matome Sefalafala (2003) states that:

“A parent should not be a chairperson or treasurer …Most SGB’s fail because theirchairpersons are illiterate parents. A chairperson of any committee or organizationshould have a thorough knowledge of the committee or organisation. At the moment,99% of the rural schools do not have a constitution, vision and mission statement,development plan, code of conduct for learners, budgets, financial control systems, etc.how can a rural standard two chairperson take a lead in any of these? Educated peopleare needed to help the principal in the professional running of the school”.

Many submissions take a similar view. An SGB chairperson for example, (M PrimarySchool, Khuhlu: 08 April 2003), suggested that to be eligible for election, parents shouldhave a minimum education level of Grade Twelve. An SGB member of the PH PrimarySchool in Dobsonville (07 April 2003), claimed that parents, who are elected “lose interestas time goes on because they don’t have any idea what they’re supposed to do.” He wasemphatic, that workshops and training should be an on-going and continuous process. TheCentre Manager of L Centre in Northern Gauteng (02 April 2003), was of the opinion that‘basic literacy’ is a necessary requirement for the election of parents as SGB members. Inorder to improve the recruitment of school governors, a submission made the recommenda-tion, that the DOE undertake a comprehensive literacy campaign and education drive.

4.2.5. Election of non-educator members of SGB

According to SASA, all non-educators employed at a school, are entitled to participate inSGB elections, to elect non-educator members. The Act is silent about situations where thereis only one non-educator employed in the school. The question arises, whether this individ-ual automatically qualifies to serve on the SGB. In addition to this question, is the concernof whose interest he or she is representing. If the sole non-educator automatically qualifies, asubsequent question arises, namely does indefinite employment result in indefinite member-ship on the SGB? This question needs to be addressed.

4.2.6. Election of educator members of the SGB

Educators are required to elect a certain proportion of educators to the SGB. Apart from theprincipal, all the educators in the school are eligible to stand as members. While there aresituations where educators are reluctant to make themselves available, so making it difficultfor the school to fill its educator quota on the SGB, generally educator representatives are inplace in the governance system.

While educator members of the SGB are in place, some difficulties have arisen in relation to

77

Election

their election in a small number of cases. In some schools, their election appears to havetaken on political overtones. A Shellcross participant (14 May 2003), raises the issue of edu-cators serving on governing bodies outside of their own schools. She states that “the all toofamiliar methods of nepotism and collusion when educators are serving on GB convenientlyresign from their governing body positions to apply for promotion to the same school.”Evidence indicates, that the complaint of political interference is not uncommon and has ledsome SGB members to the extreme view (Mr KX, 2003: No date), that “an educator atanother school should not be elected to the SGB even if he or she has a child in the school.”It has been suggested, that these applicants must not be allowed to apply for a promotion to aschool in which they are serving as SGB members (K, Shellcross: 14 May 2003).

It has also been suggested, that there are schools where educators only nominate those whobelong to their own union. The perception exists, that the comrade-votes-for-comrade philos-ophy is emerging as a mechanism to exclude minority union members from SGB member-ship, but also to manipulate the appointment and promotion of educators, of people from oneunion as opposed to another. Many complaints of this nature were made in KwaZulu-Natal.When an election outcome does not meet the expectation of one group or another, then the‘norm’ applies, of a dispute being lodged. Multiple cases have been cited relating to disputesand most of these involve promotions that lead to mounting tension and conflict in gover-nance. Where elections have taken place involving these kinds of manipulations, it is recom-mended that such members are removed from office.

4.2.7. Election of non-educator members of the SGB

There were no general difficulties experienced with the election of non-educator members ofstaff. The work of McPherson and Naicker (2002) for the CEPD found that, where schoolshad administrative assistants and cleaners, representation was satisfactory and the genderbalance of serving non-educators was even.

An issue arises in schools that do not have the funds to support this level of appointments,such as the many ex-DET schools in the system. These schools operate without this vitalconstituent part in their SGB’s.

4.2.8. Term of office of members

Apart from the learners’ representatives who serve on the SGB for one year, the term ofoffice for all other voting members is a maximum of three years. During these three years,if, for whatever reason, they cease to qualify as governors, they automatically cease to bemembers of the governing body. The primary reason for members losing their status is thatthey cease to be members when their children leave the school. When a three-year term has

Election

78

come to an end, those governors who still qualify in terms of their status as either continuingparents or as educators, may be re-elected in the following election cycle.

There are many issues relating to the governors’ terms of office. Some respondents to theMinisterial Review Committee were of the view that terms should be prescribed and limited,while others felt that more flexibility should be written into the rules. This is clearly a vitalissue and in some ways is fulcrum on which the success or the failure of the SGB rests.SGB’s, given the difficulties they encounter in learning what their jobs entail, often needmore time than three years to become fully capacitated.

Respondents arguing for a curtailment of the term, frequently pointed to abuse of power onthe part of governors who stayed in office too long. A Mr BV, (from KwaDukuza: 22 April2003), argued that

“any governing body of a public school should be restricted to two terms of one yeareach, that is in total two years. Where a person continues to be a chairperson over andover again without any change he/she, at times, arranges so that most or all the samemembers serve on the body and a clique evolves much to the detriment of the educationof our learners and the democratic rights of parents and guardians and even some princi-pals and educators.”

This view was supported by other submissions (Name unknown, Karen Park: 22 April 2003),which urged that “no parent may be re-elected into the office of the school governing bodyfor more than two terms.”

Other participants in the submission process and the hearings took a different view. Theopinion was often expressed that the lead-in time, the settling-down time and the time it tookto grow in confidence, in stature, as a governor, was decidedly longer than the three-yearterm specified by the regulations. The value that was to be added by governors could only beutilised after they had come to understand and master the demands of the job. In Gauteng,for example, one participant had the following to say, “We have just elected almost new peo-ple. This looks childish. You empower me and remove me.” In the Western Cape, the sameissue was highlighted: “We are going to lose governors in the new election process whenmany were just getting into their stride.” The argument was made that the three-year termwas often too short for a governor to be really effective. Just when the governor had learntwhat it meant to be an effective governor, he or she would have to vacate their office.

While many voices were heard in the hearings and in the submissions for and against theregular term of three years, the weight of the argument must come down against a shorterterm of office for SGBs and for a more creative way of retaining the capacity that the SGBundoubtedly nurtures. It may be so, that situations arise where having an SGB member inoffice for a period longer than the prescribed term is against the interests of the school, but

79

Election

the feeling is fairly widespread in the SGB community, that members require a termlongerthan three years, to become effective. Where extreme situations arise with individuals abus-ing their power, recourse must be had to the PDE that could then rule, in terms of a Code ofConduct for SGB’s, that a member should be disciplined. It is true that most conflictual situ-ations in the SGB will not always be so dire that they require this kind of arbitration, but theremedies for resolving extreme conflict in the SGB must be available to it.

4.2.9. By-elections

SGB’s are obliged, in terms of SASA, to hold by-elections when a governor resigns orvacates his or her office. These by-elections are required to take place within 90 days of sucha vacancy arising.

Provincial approaches to by-elections have caused some confusion within the system.According to a Mr H (Gauteng Province: 30 April 2003), the apparent oversight in the formof Section 23 (11) of SASA (Act 84 of 1996), has created significant confusion in theGauteng Province, as it inadvertently brought the Schools Education Act No 6 of 1995 intoconflict with its own provisions, in that the procedure (section 28[d]) prescribed therein forthe province, gave a discretionary power to the SGB on whether to take the co-option or by-election route. He goes on to state that, since this power is a regulated one, an awkward situ-ation has developed in Gauteng. Since the MEC has not been able to bring amendments tothe regulations, the schools are not legally obligated to meet the provisions of SASA’sSection 23(11). Because SASA applies when the provincial law is either inadequately speci-fied or in conflict with SASA, the point can be made, that the rules are not always adequate-ly understood in the provinces. Important as the contribution that officers in the provinceshave made to the present stability, and even success, of the governance platform in educa-tion, it is a matter of concern, that such misunderstandings are allowed to take flight.

4.3. Conclusion

What this chapter has shown, is that the rules and regulations concerning the election ofschool governors, are not always sufficiently comprehensive to deal with the challenges ofinclusivity and representivity. These challenges are compounded by the decentralised charac-ter of the country’s legal framework that permits difference to be institutionalised into thesystem. Given the concurrent status of national and provincial laws with respect to educa-tion, provinces are able to develop policies and approaches, which make it difficult to holdthe country, and the individual schools within it, to a set of national protocols. It is the development of such a national framework that is now the priority. This framework shouldaddress, as a matter of urgency, the questions of the timing of elections, the period of officethat governors serve, the regulations surrounding vacancies and by-elections and the ques-

Election

80

tion of succession from one term of office to another. These matters will be returned toat greater length in chapter seven.


1. It is recommended that, as a matter of urgency, a task force is established to look intothe matter of the nature of the elections of the SGB. An approach to SGB electionsmust be developed that will avoid the possibility of a school losing all its SGB capac-ity every three years and having to construct it anew each time. Such a task forceshould also consider the possibility of a fixed period, as opposed to a fixed date, forall provinces to have and complete their elections. (See Appendix G for differentoptions that could be considered.)


2. It is recommended that clear and uniform national guidelines are provided for themanagement and administration of SGB elections.

3. It is recommended that other government structures outside of PDE’s, are utilised topromote awareness of SGB elections.

4. It is recommended that the definition of a parent is amended to include persons, whobecome caregivers of abandoned, destitute and other categories of children, who falloutside of the normal prescriptions of children in need. Such parents would need toproduce affidavits proving their caregiver relationship to the child.

5. It is recommended that, where the school has only one non-educator representative onthe SGB, this person is regularly included in PDE training activities to maintain therepresentative’s interests in the welfare of the school.

6. Where PTA’s and the prefect system are found, the terms of reference of such struc-tures must not be conflated with those of the SGB. It is recommended that the pro-posed NSGC develops a framework and boundaries within which the prefect systemand PTA’s operate.

7. It is recommended that the current practice in some provinces, of according recogni-tion to parents, who are involved in school governance, is replicated in all provinces.This could involve certification for parents, who serve a full term of office and the

81

Election

possibility of accrediting parents who have been on training courses. The Departmentof Education, through the proposed Council, could also engage the relevant institu-tions, such as, for example, labour and chambers, to consider allocating ten paid leavedays per year for parents, who serve on governing bodies. The possibility of develop-ing a dedicated fund to provide for the transport and catering needs of such parents,should also be explored.

8. It is recommended that SGB’s deliberately seek out partners in the various communi-ties in which they find themselves. This would mean, identifying and making them-selves known to the local religious community, the cultural and sports associations,and whatever other civil society structures exist, with a view to making known to theseorganisations, what their broad educational objectives are. It is suggested, that manyopportunities for developing the school are lost through not pursuing these rela-tionships.

Relationship

82

CHAPTER FIVE

Relationships in the SGB and between the SGB and other structures

5. Conflicts in governance

The Review Committee heard repeatedly that relationships within SGB’s are generally har-monious. Many principals said, for example, that they enjoyed good relationships with theirSGB’s. The assessment that one has to make about the school governance terrain, is that it isa remarkably stable one. The point has been made repeatedly, of the long distance thatschool governance has had to travel to reach this point. Given the enormous challenges anddifferences of interests of the players involved within the arena, it is important to acknowl-edge how much of a unifying force for the school the SGB has become. This is so, despitethe regular stream of incidents that are brought into the public domain through the media.Recent public discussion about the controversial role of SGB’s in escalating fees in ex-HOAschools, about the role of SGB’s in managing racism in schools, have tended to projectSGB’s as beleaguered and embattled. These incidents, while cause for concern, incorrectlyproject SGB’s only as sites and points of contestation.

Having said that SGB’s are often misrepresented, it has to be expected that, because of thenature of their work, in presenting themselves as forums for the consideration of differentinterests, SGB’s take their structural and procedural character from the issue of conflict.Organisationally, the identity of the SGB is grounded in what one might call a mediationalimperative. It is fundamentally about taking different interests and mediating those intereststo the point where they come to constitute the consensual view of the school.

Conflicts, given this discussion, are endemic to the organisational life of the SGB.Fortunately, as the thread of the discussion has suggested above, the conflicts that make upthe everyday work of the SGB, have not destabilised it. But they are there. The discussionthat follows, focuses on the most common conflicts in the SGB environment.

The kinds of conflicts that arise in the SGB, are numerous. Frequent reports were made inthe public hearings, about educators ridiculing parents for their assumed illiteracy andincompetence. Conflict was also reported within groups represented on the SGB (8%). In afew of the schools (6%), conflicts were blamed on the blurring of roles between school gov-ernance and school management. In one instance, a respondent indicated that the chairperson

83

Relationship

tried to exert his power by being domineering and telling the principal and educators howteaching should be done. Ten percent (10%) of the respondents to the Ministerial ReviewCommittee survey, reported that conflict remains unresolved, despite various measures tosettle the disputes.

Case studies indicated a “lack of trust between teachers and parents” and this “hampers theestablishment of a partnership between the home and the school.”

5.1. Conflicts between SGB’s and SMT’s

It is a fact, that conflicts are taking place between SGB’s and School Managing Teams(SMT’s), and within SGB’s. These conflicts appear to be the most pervasive, according tothe information gathered by the Review Committee and also according to the work of Kruss,Sayed and Badat (2001) and that of McPherson and Naicker (2002).

The distinction between what constitutes governance and what management is, is at the heartof the difficulties that appear to be plaguing all kinds of schools. Many educators expressedunease about SGB members ‘not knowing their place.’ SGB members, on the other hand,made regular comments about either having to deal with arrogant educators, who disrespect-ed them, or educators, who were misbehaving and/or not doing their work and who neededdisciplining.

The nature of the tensions varies in different schools. In some schools, SGB chairpersonshave been able to assume leadership in the school, at the expense of the principal’s profes-sional authority and obligations. This is particularly the case in schools where SGB chairper-sons are more educated, or are perceived to be of higher social standing, than the educatorsand the principals at the schools. By contrast, and in many instances, particularly in poorerschools, principals are driving the agenda of the SGB, including determining how chairper-sons should carry out their jobs.

Disputes about the sphere of competence of the SGB chairperson and that of the principal,are not uncommon. Required is a structural mechanism to mediate between the SGB and theprincipal.

Both principals and SGB’s are turning, often inappropriately so, to District Officers, tradeunions and SGB Associations for help. While advice might be provided by these structures,it is not within their remit, as the law currently stands, to solve them. Because the legislationand the regulations are silent on this matter, it is possible here that the proposed NationalSchool Governance Council (NSGC) and its provincial sub-councils can play a role. Thiswas a matter that featured regularly and prominently in the public hearings.

Relationship

84

In the Ministerial Review Committee survey, interestingly, and by contrast, the number ofschools that reported these conflicts was small but significant. Only 15% of the surveyed schoolsspoke of tensions between SMT’s and SGB’s. It is suspected that this is an under-reporting ofthe true extent of the difficulty.

SGB representatives in the survey, were asked to rate the relationship of the SGB to the SMT on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 signified ‘very good’ and 5 ‘very poor’. Of the total of251 schools, 139 schools (55%) reported having a ‘very good’ relationship, while 28%reported that their relationship was ‘good’. Only one SGB reported having a ‘very poor’relationship, while three (1%) described their relationship as ‘poor’. Thirteen percent (13%)described relations as ‘satisfactory’.

SGB’s were asked to indicate the nature of difficulties experienced with regard to their rela-tionship with the SMT. Given that so many schools reported having a good relationship, it isnot surprising that response levels were fairly low.

Table 5.1: Difficulties experienced by SGB’s with regard to SMT’s

In the same survey, principals and/or SMT members were asked to indicate what theythought the state of these relationships was. On the whole, similar ratings were given. Themajority of schools (55%) reported having “very good” relationships. Table 5.2 presents theresponses:

Total %

Lack of communication 16

Lack of implementation of decisions taken at SGB meetings 14

Conflict over spending priorities 10

Unavailability of management members 8

Other 4

Total % Very good 55%

Good 27

Satisfactory 13

Poor 2

Very poor 0

Table 5.2: Rating of relationship of SGBs with SMTs

85

Relationship

Of those that had satisfactory to poor relationships with the SGB’s, the following difficultieswere most frequently reported:

Table 5.3: Difficulties experienced by SMT’s with regard to SGB’s

Total %

Unavailability of SGB members 24

Lack of implementation of decisions taken at SGB meetings 20

Lack of communication 14

Blurring of the distinction between SGB and SMT 14

Conflict over spending priorities 4

As indicated by the tables, a number of SGBs (14%) and SMT’s (20%) experienced difficul-ties regarding a lack of implementation of the decisions taken at SGB meetings. Some SGB’s (16%) attributed this to a lack of communication by the SMT’s; for example, theyreported that the SMT decided to call meetings, but did not inform SGB members. At oneschool in the case studies research, the SGB accused the SMT of ignoring its decisions. Thisresulted in a lack of co-operation between school and parents, as mistrust was created. Someattributed the lack of implementation, to problems of narrow self-interest and too few meet-ings held.

On the other hand, SMT’s felt there was a lack of implementation on the part of the SGBmembers, particularly parents. SMT’s attributed this to general apathy, lack of interest, orunavailability of SGB members for meetings and workshops. Some attributed it to lack ofco-operation, while others suggested that it was caused by a limited understanding of poli-cies and SGB responsibilities. In the case studies, detailed explanations were provided ofproblems experienced. In a rural school, the SMT was angry with the SGB, which accused itof ignorance. The SGB did not understand its role, it was said. The SMT was particularlyannoyed with the SGB for organising extra classes. The principal and SMT argued with theSGB regularly, and were experiencing frustration, as it was said, ‘they are illiterate old vil-lage men’.

Some SGB members stated that members of management were not always available formeetings and workshops.

In addition to these difficulties, the blurring of governance and management roles wasreported as a problem in schools. Three percent (3%) of both SMT’s and SGB’s regardedthis as an important issue. SMT’s stated that SGB’s wanted to interfere in ordinary school

Relationship

86

matters, which resulted in staff becoming irritated and unco-operative.

Some SGB’s indicated that the SMT’s were not providing enough workshops or training,which resulted in a limited understanding of school policies. Two percent (2%) stated thatmeeting protocols were not implemented, either because of a lack of knowledge and under-standing or because SMT’s did not co-operate. However, SMT’s were of the opinion, thatSGB members did not take the initiative to attend the training. Although there was interest,very few actually attended.

Recent high-profile media cases of tension within SGB’s, appear to suggest that many diffi-culties were experienced but not made known. One such case reported to the ReviewCommittee, involved one of the oldest schools in the country, an ex-HOA school, where theSGB chairperson, an experienced educator in his own right, with a deep knowledge of SASAand school governance, came into conflict with an enthusiastic but relatively inexperiencedschool principal concerning the governance implications of her (the principal’s) allegedlypoor management of labour relations obligations at the school. The work of Kruss, Sayedand Badat’s (2001) makes frequent reference in their case studies, to similar incidents at therelevant schools.

It would, therefore, be correct to assume, that big challenges await SGB chairpersons andprincipals, even in the most privileged schools, concerning how they would deal with thejoint responsibility of managing and governing the school.

In the light of the above-mentioned, the rest of the chapter is devoted to the power dynamicswithin the SGB’s, particularly the methods of participation by the various role-players, name-ly the educators, the learners, parents and principals. The relationship between SGB’s and theSchool Management Teams (SMT’s), is discussed.

The approach of the chapter, is to look at each of the constituent segments of the SGB in ananalytic way, to understand what the issues are in their participation in SGB business.

5.2. Educators

SASA makes provision for educators in a school, to be members of an SGB (SASA-23 (2) b).However, the number of educators are not specified and their role not clearly demarcated. ThePersonnel Administrative Measures (PAM) policy (February 1999), entitles educators:

– To participate in the school’s governing body, if elected to do so. (4.5 (e) (iv).

– To serve on SGB’s of other schools, in their capacity as parents.

87

Relationship

The types of roles educators are expected to perform in SGB’s, are informed by the following(inter alia):

1. The Code of Ethics of the South African Council for Educators (SACE), legally oblig-es educators to behave in the following way:

An educator, where appropriate:

– Recognises the parents as partners in education and promotes a harmonious rela-tionship with them.

– Does what is practically possible, to keep parents adequately and timeouslyinformed about the well being and progress of the learner.

– Recognises that an educational institute serves the community and thereforeacknowledges, that there will be differing customs, codes and beliefs in the com-munity.

(SACE – Code of Ethics: Sections 4 & 5)

An obligation is placed by these regulations on the educator, to co-operate with parentsand the community.

2. The Norms and Standards for Educators (NSE) in the National Education Policy Act,1996 defines one of the seven roles of educators as:

Community, citizenship and a pastoral role.

The educator will practise and promote a critical, committed and ethical attitudetowards developing a sense of respect and responsibility concerning others. Theeducator will uphold the constitution and promote democratic values and practicesin schools and society. Within the school, the educator will demonstrate an abilityto develop a supportive and empowering environment for the learner and respond to the educational and other needs of learners and fellow-educators.

Furthermore, the educator will develop supportive relations with parents and otherkey persons and organisations, based on a critical understanding of community andenvironmental development issues. One critical dimension of this role, is HIV/AIDS education.

This requirement broadens the duties of an educator to a larger role as overseer in co-operation with parents. The foregoing suggests, and one might even say, makes it clear,that educators have a significant role to play within the SGB.

Relationship

88

At the outset, it must be emphasised that there is appreciation for the fact that the majori-ty of educators practice their trade, not only in terms of policy, but also in the spirit of thelaws. There are, however, some difficulties that emerged at hearings that need to belooked at.

5.2.1 Unacceptable conduct of educators

The question of unacceptable conduct of educators came up repeatedly at meetings (e.g. in PortElizabeth). SGB’s are of the opinion that it should be their competency to deal with educa-tors’ conduct, and in some cases they do just that. Educators have resistance towards this,understandably, as they believe that they fall under the jurisdiction of the DoE and not theSGB. They believe that their conduct is subject to the Department of Education’s conditions of service as in the PAM and the Code of Ethics of SACE.

A hearing in Upington indicated that educators were hostile towards SGB processes and to par-ents. In other hearings (Kimberley), it was submitted that educators in some schools tended todominate the SGB proceedings, taking advantage of the incapacity and/or illiteracy levels ofthe parents. In other cases, it was reported that SMT’s dominated most governance decisions,drowning the voice of the parents.

These are clearly matters of great concern, which deserve the attention of the PDE’s.

5.3. Learners

As reported in chapter three, learner representatives appear to have been marginalised in vir-tually all the schools. Unhappy as learners are about this, the relationship between them-selves and the SGB’s appear to be cordial nonetheless, and for the most part, constructive.Critically, and this is a cause for concern, not a single report made any significant referenceto the presence or contribution of learners, to the governance processes of the school.

Earlier discussions have repeatedly drawn attention to the diminution of the role of the learn-ers in school governing processes. Legally, the situation is that SASA has made explicit pro-vision for “learners in the eighth grade or higher at the school” (SASA 23 (2) (d)), to be elect-ed to serve on the SGB of their school. As with the educators, their numbers and roles are notspecified. There are, however, limitations placed on their legal responsibilities and their legalaccountability, which derive directly from their status as legal minors. Section 32 of SASA,for example, protects minors on SGB’s by not allowing them to contract on behalf of theschool or vote on resolutions that impose liabilities and indemnifies them from personal lia-bility.

89

Relationship

SASA also makes it compulsory for every school with Grade Eight or higher, to establish aRepresentative Council for Learners (RCL). The RCL elects learner representatives to theSGB, and policy gives direction in connection with conduct and disciplinary issues related tolearners, as formulated in the “Guidelines for the Consideration of Governing Bodies inAdopting a Code of Conduct for Learners.”

It therefore appears, that adequate provision exists for the promotion of the democratic rightsof learners as well as their protection and discipline. A number of difficulties have, however,emerged from the practical implementation of these policies:

5.3.1. Setting fees

Learners feel they are being disempowered by the fee-setting decisions at school. Manyexpressed dissatisfaction with being left out of the discussion concerning fees. This has, in fact, been the subject of school boycotts in recent years where learners, through their organi-sations, have objected to parents and educators making, what they believe, critical decisionswithout consulting them.

McPherson and Naicker (2002: 5), commenting on the situation, suggest a need for educatinglearners concerning their legal responsibilities in terms of the law. They make the followingcomment:

“Learners’ grievances centre on the exclusion of minors from financial decision-mak-ing. Learners have the mistaken belief that they should have some degree of controlover the fees they pay. These grievances are related to the age limit for minors withregard to making financial decisions” (McPherson and Naicker, 2002: 5).

5.3.2. Learners’ rights

A view was expressed at a Kimberley hearing, and elsewhere, that “learners are given toomany rights today.” Others (e.g. a Port Elizabeth hearing) felt that learners should not beinvolved in governance decisions, especially in matters concerning appointments, promotions,finances and property.

Generally, many respondents, ranging from the poor and illiterate to the well-off and even those in high office, have felt that learners should not participate in SGBs as a general rule. Thisview needs to be engaged with. As learners should have the benefit of a process of informationabout their rights and responsibilities, so also should other stake-holders on the SGB, beinformed of the benefits of cultivating governance responsibility within the learner communi-ty. Efforts are already underway in some provinces, to institutionalise these arrangements. It is

Relationship

90

critical that the leading of these provinces is followed everywhere else in the system.

5.3.3. Learners and discipline

In one report, it was clear that relations had broken down between the SGB and the RCL,where the RCL was boycotting the governance process because the SGB had decided to useunused sports funds for general maintenance. In another case, where there was tensionbetween the RCL and the SGB, it appeared that a liaison educator in the school was able tosmooth over the difficulties. Critically, however, the learners were not being given a sub-stantial voice in the process.

The issue of discipline of learners arose repeatedly in public hearings across the country. Thegeneral feeling was, that learners were doing as they pleased and got away with it. Parentscontended that school management and PDE’s were not assertive enough in dealing with learner discipline issues and that this was problematic, particularly in light of the abolition ofcorporal punishment. One example was provided in a meeting, of learners chasing the princi-pal away and “running the show” themselves. Parents also complained that their recommen-dations for expulsions were “falling on deaf ears”. Much unhappiness was expressed about theway the PDE’s and HoD’s were handling recommendations of SGB’s concerning expulsionsand suspensions.

Two points need to be made in relation to this discussion. Given the frequency with whichthe issue of discipline in classrooms is being raised, the problems that educators are experi-encing around discipline should be regarded as indeed being real. Educators are speaking ofhaving to deal with high levels of stress and tension. Where there are programmes underway,such as the initiative of the Human Rights Commission publication on corporal punishment,to assist educators with keeping discipline in their classrooms, every effort must be made topromote and replicate these.

Following this, much more serious attention should be paid to the RCL and its role in guid-ing decision-making in the school. The place of learners in governance is a critical issue andreflects, at least tentatively at this stage, the fact that the politicised student representativecouncils of the eighties and nineties have lost ground in the school, and may suggest thatthere is a need for thinking more constructively about how learner voice could be utilised inschool development processes.

5.4. Parents

SASA prescribes, that the number of parent members (elected), should comprise one more thanthe combined total of other members of a governing body, who have voting rights (Section 23 (9)).

91

Relationship

This prescription indicates the value placed on parent participation by SASA. The Act fur-ther specifies how parents should be elected and the grounds and procedures for removingmembers. (This was discussed in detail in the previous two chapters.)

It needs to be kept in mind here, that the issue of parental dominance in terms of numbers onthe SGB, in the formulation and eventual passing of SASA, was extremely contentious.Significantly, seven years after the passing into law of SASA, the anxiety of educators aboutparental majority seems to have disappeared. However, there remain three types of chal-lenges regarding this component of the SGB:

5.4.1. Skills deficits among SGB members

The Ministerial Committee Survey report made the following observation concerning skillsdeficits among SGB members:

“This was the weakness noted most frequently by schools. Forty-four percent (44%)felt that skills deficits among SGB members weaken the effective functioning of SGB’s. This was most frequently reported by Section 21 schools.

Of the total 44%, almost 15% reported that SGB members lack financial managementskills, which prejudices resource mobilisation and optimisation within the school. Thisdeficit was reported mainly by ex-HOR schools and ex-DET schools and some ex-HOA schools. Of the 44%, 10% claimed that their members lack legal expertise.”

Important to note about this information, was the following:

❑ The skills deficit affected almost half the schools surveyed.❑ To a lesser degree, the capacity to effect promotions and/or appointments was want-

ing. The report, in this regards, stated:

“… some respondents (less than 10 %) reported that (parent) members have a limitedunderstanding of teaching pedagogy and subject expertise (syllabus, curriculum, etc.),which in turn results in the inability of SGB members to match educator profiles to jobcompetencies required for a particular post.

❑ Capacity problems were also associated with literacy.

A number of school principals (15%) attribute the skills deficits to the fact that manyof the SGB members, particularly among the parents, have high levels of illiteracy, lim-ited proficiency in English or very little formal education.”

Hence, while there is a willingness to serve, parents are hampered by capacity problems. Socio-

Relationship

92

economic conditions act as another barrier to successful parent co-operation. Parents are notgiven time off and cannot afford the travel expenses. More attention needs to be paid to the issueof parent conveniences.

In schools, where these difficulties arise with parents, the principal and/or the SMT takescharge of governance issues and in doing so, only heightens the tension in the SGB. Thesedevelopments place a school, in many instances, in double jeopardy. The governance of aschool breaks down, or, as happened in many schools, a stalemate situation develops, whereneither the principal and his/her SMT, nor the SGB knows how to move forward. The poten-tial for paralysis to set into the school under these circumstances is great. Service deliverybreaks down, e.g. stationery, repairs and maintenance are not carried out, appointments ofeducator and non-educator staff are not made, facilities fall into disrepair, and so on. In many hearings, especially in out-of-town areas, frequent reference to these difficulties weremade.

Out of these situations, a strong chairperson (who has some degree of power and even domi-nance over the community) sometimes emerges, playing the kind of autocratic role it isbelieved principals sometimes play. A hearing in Upington referred to these individuals as“Mugabes.” It was also said that such individuals sought to hold on to their appointmentsindefinitely.”

5.4.2. The problem of the ‘expert’ SGB

At the other end of the spectrum from the under-capacitated SGB, are schools that haveextremely strong and skilled governing bodies. Besides having access to the high skills levelsof the parents, these schools also have access to expertise in legal and commercial fields out-side of the school. The complaints directed at these types of schools, emanating from hearings,speak of schools being “taken over” by SGB’s and/or experts (see discussion in Chapter twoon the different types of SGB’s that are emerging particularly in ex-HOA schools). These areregarded to be successful schools, especially in terms of academic performance. However,these schools are in the minority. The majority of schools are of the type mentioned earlier inthe ex-DET schools. Ex-HOD, ex-HOR and some ex-HOA schools seem to be makingprogress in empowering parents at different levels.

5.4.3. Lack of recognition of parent input

Several of the hearings (for example in Kimberley and Cape Town), produced complaintsabout the lack of recognition of the role of parents. Two different kinds of complaints were registered:

93

Relationship

The first complaint is from parents, who feel that the government does not recognise the valueof the voluntary service received from the parent body. The point made, is that high-levelexpertise is placed at the disposal of the state, free of charge, and attempts on the part of thestate, to restrict and control parents’ available volunteer time, are regarded as being short-sighted. The comment was made frequently, that these parents would simply not make them-selves available for SGB duty. (This complaint was frequently made by white parents.)

Parents, particularly in poorer areas, complained that they were simply “being made use of”.They pleaded for recognition of their service, transport and subsistence allowances or provi-sion, and some form of certification.

5.5. Principals

In terms of SASA, the principal is an ex-officio member of the SGB. Under the section ofduties and responsibilities, the PAM policy requires the principal:

● To serve on the governing body of the school and render all necessary assistance to the governing body in the performance of their functions in terms of SASA.

● To co-operate with members of the school staff and the SGB in maintaining an efficient and smooth- running school.

In addition, the Principal is obliged to liaise with the Department, other departments andagencies regarding all matters pertaining to the well-being of the school.

As these provisions suggest, the principal plays a pivotal role in the SGB. This role, as the dis-cussion above concerning the principal’s membership status of the SGB has already madeclear, is not uncontroversial. The principal is the focus, the victim and often also the cause ofa great deal of the tension that plays itself out in the SGB.

In general, there appear to be good relationships between SGB’s and their schools, particu-larly their school principals. Only three or four principals in the entire sample of 36 schoolsin the case studies, suggested that they did not see the need for SGB’s and in one case, aprincipal changed his mind during in the course of the interview, by stating that the SGB was actually “a good thing.”

Most principals made it very clear, that they did not wish to have compliant SGB’s but wanted to have SGB members, who could speak independently. Most principals thought thatSGB’s could be doing more. Not surprisingly, most principals wanted SGB’s to be moreactive in terms of fund-raising. The main challenge most principals mentioned, was havingwhat they called uneducated parents, on the SGB. Some principals took up the challenge of

Relationship

94

capacity-building of their SGB members, by running of workshops.

The following are some of the comments concerning the role of principals, from the datasearch undertaken:

■ Principals are often reluctant to relinquish or even share their power and authority,especially in poorer schools (from the case studies).

■ Principals, in schools with high-expertise governing bodies, are often reduced to beingclerks, having very little say, even in professional governance in these governing bod-ies.

■ Principals between these extremes, it is said, who are trying very hard to democratizeschool governance, receive little support from the Departments.

■ Some participants suggested that principals should not have anything to do with finan-cial matters, as they either do too much or too little, sometimes, by abrogating theirfiduciary responsibilities entirely. Both these stances create much tension in the SGB.

Before the conclusion is drawn that all principals have difficulties in terms of one of the cate-gories, it must be added that there are many good stories, of principals serving model roles,with good support from both the SGB and the Department.Principals, however, as with their other SGB counterparts, should be provided with far morehelp as they take on the responsibility of governance. It is clear, that there are ambiguitiesaround the role of the principal within the SGB. These ambiguities are most significant,when it comes to the requirement that the principal continues to be the accounting officer ofthe school while remaining a member of an SGB, which has a legal responsibility towardsthe financial affairs of the school. In managing this tension, it can be expected that the prin-cipal will often come into conflict with his or her SGB on the one hand, and the PDE on theother.

5.6. SGB’s and PDE’s

While there are a number of case studies in the work of Kruss, Sayed and Badat (2001:256)as well as the Ministerial Review’s own case studies, in which SGB’s express a sense ofgratitude regarding the help they receive from PDE’s, generally, SGB’s uniformly, across the range of different kinds of schools, do not seem happy with their relationship withPDE’s, in particular with the service they are receiving from PDE’s. There seems to be aunanimous feeling, that PDE’s have not fulfilled their training responsibilities. Virtually,every single SGB has appealed for more assistance. SGB’s have expressed unhappinessabout receiving information through the principal and the feeling that they are not recognised

95

Relationship

by the PDE’s. They have felt that they should have been consulted directly, and feel particu-larly unhappy about decisions affecting SGB’s that were made between the department andtrade unions in the ERCL. In some instances, criticism was directed at PDE’s for misusingreserve funds earmarked for training.

Particularly ex-HOA SGB’s have been very dissatisfied with their relationship with thePDE’s. In several cases in the Ministerial Review case studies, SGB’s from this quarter haveexpressed verbal dissatisfaction with the way they have been marginalised by PDE’s. Theyclaim that PDE’s and the DoE have been negotiating in the ELRC on matters of school gov-ernance, without consulting the SGB.

Section 19 of SASA requires PDE’s to take responsibility for building SGB capacity. The Actstates that PDE’s must:

“Provide introductory training for newly-elected governing bodies to enable them toperform their functions; and to provide continuing training to governing bodies to pro-mote the effective performance of their functions or to enable them to assume addi-tional functions.”

McPherson and Naicker’s (2002:24) work provides a great deal of insight into the relationshipof SGB’s to PDE’s. It makes the point, that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in schoolsabout the levels of service delivery they are receiving from PDE’s. Many comments have beenmade during the course of the public hearings and also in the case-study research, concerningthe lack of training or the insufficient volume of training provided by PDE’s.

Complaints were also raised about district officers not visiting schools and SGB’s oftenenough. The research project associated with McPherson and Naicker’s study did, however,find a considerable improvement in the number of visits that officials paid after the secondround of their fieldwork. The research showed, however, that only about 50% of SGB respon-dents knew who their district officer was, although this statistic could just as easily be inter-preted against the people making the complaint – have they, for example, always been presentwhen officials came to the schools, this does point to a difficulty.

5.7. Conflict within the SGB

Twenty percent (20%) of the schools in the survey, reported conflict among members of theSGB. Of the schools reporting having experienced conflicts, 62% described the severity ofthe conflict as “moderate”, while 22% described it as “serious”. Only 8% reported havingconflicts that were deemed to be “very serious”.In general, conflicts centred around differences of opinion between the SGB members(40%).

Relationship

96

In summary, there are specific difficulties in the roles of each component of the SGB, i.e.principals, educators, learners and parents. The relationship between and amongst the com-ponents, generally, is not at an acceptable level. A lot has to be done in this regard.

5.8. Other relationships

5.8.1. Involvement of school-wide community

The data does not reveal the extent to which whole school community participation in the SGBprocesses is facilitated. It appears that it is mainly through the annual general meetings, thatmembers of the community are brought on board, through a process of co-option. It is clear,that schools exist in complex relationships with the broader and wider community.

Different issues of the SGB’s relationship with the wider community exist in former whiteschools, former DET and homeland schools and former HOR and HOD schools. One couldsee this challenge in a different context and argue that specific community challenges faceurban schools, whether they are historically black or white, as opposed to rural schools, andwith respect to the latter, schools in former homeland areas, fall into a category of their own.

5.8.2. How expertise from community is tapped

The survey findings suggest that some SGB’s do take advantage of existing resources in theirsurroundings. This, however, is mainly in the form of training from various organisations,including the NGO’s, the education department and SGB associations. The church is anotherstructure that appears to provide support to SGB’s in some instances (Hearing in Paarl,Western Cape).

There is also some evidence to suggest, that some schools draw on the expertise of certain local people. The extent to which this practice is spread, could not be established, but certaincomments made during the hearings, suggest that schools face numerous challenges in relationto this issue. A comment was made at the George hearings, that well-off parents send their children to ex-HOA schools in town and do not participate in the activities of the local school.While the data collected during the task-team activities did not touch much on this issue, otherresearch in South Africa (as discussed above) suggests that learner migration to formerly whiteschools, is taking place on a large scale. Thus, schools in poorer communities are unlikely tohave access to the skills of parents of these learners. However, schools have leeway to co-optother parents. As noted earlier under co-option, there have been serious efforts to co-opt mem-bers with some skills, although their levels of participation are not clear.

97

Relationship

There are many other formations, whose input into the SGB activities would be crucial, butthis does not appear to happen often enough. These include trade unions, traditional and localauthorities and other civil society structures. In particular, teacher unions appear to play a less-er role in the functioning of SGB’s, except in cases related to labour relations, such as theappointment of educators are concerned. More crucial, it seems, is understanding the positionof structures, such as the traditional authorities. In rural communities, while the support of tra-ditional leadership is viewed as being crucial, the extent of their engagement with these bod-ies, is unclear.

5.8.3. Relationships with traditional authorities

There is evidence in the work of Stunky Duku as well as the case studies of the ReviewCommittee, that traditional authorities are sometimes brought into the school governancearena. This was the case in a few examples, where school governing bodies petitioned the localchief for more land, to build additional facilities for the school. In some instances, relation-ships with the traditional leader were excellent. Reports exist in the case studies, of chiefs par-ticipating in the meetings of the SGB. In other cases, the SGB, for a variety of reasons, foundit difficult to win the trust of the traditional leader. It is not suggested that the regulations sur-rounding the role of the traditional leader be changed, but it can be argued that SGB’s shouldbuild on relationships with traditional leaders for the purpose of consolidating the legitimacyof its work in education.

5.8.4. Local Authorities

As is the situation with traditional leaders, so it is also true that in legal terms, local authori-ties have no jurisdiction over schools. Schools, however, are users of the services of the local authority, and enter into contractual relationships, particularly Section 21 schools, withthe relevant authority, concerning the delivery of services, such as water, electricity and sanitation. In many situations around the country, this relationship has become fraughtbecause schools are unable to pay the high user-fees they are charged. From never havinghad to bear these direct costs in the past, to becoming serious consumers of bulk services,SGB’s are entering difficult territory. The argument is made by many organisations, that thisis an unfair burden a school has to carry.

It is in the interest of the SGB, or better still, the associations to which they belong, to devel-op a relationship with the local authority, in order to develop protocols for the delivery ofand payment for services.

Relationship

98

5.9. Conclusion

A brief conclusion is in order to conclude this chapter. What the discussions above suggest,is that relationships within the SGB, and between the SGB and other structures are complex.Many interesting phenomena are emerging. One is beginning to see, not unexpectedly,strong moves being made by individuals on SGB’s, to push or pull them in particular direc-tions; that PDE’s are flexing their muscles in impatience with particular types of SGB’s and,critically, that interesting dynamics are beginning to play themselves out between the SMT’sof schools and the SGB’s.

These developments should not cause alarm. They have to be anticipated in growing socialspaces, where people are attempting to work out all their different agendast. Conflict, as ithas been suggested at the commencement of this chapter, is at the core of the mediationwork the SGB must do. The SGB must mediate between the different voices and interests onthe SGB. In attempting to typify the different kinds of governing bodies that have come intobeing since 1994, Clive Roos provides a useful typology of what SGB’s look like (in Fleisch, 2002).

Roos makes the argument that there are four types of SGBs that have emerged since 1994:

1. Despite legislation, according to Roos, most SGB’s conform to the traditional type.When speaking of traditional, he is probably referring to the SGB’s that existed inwhite schools before 1994. These were governing bodies, with little authority, whichacted as a as rubber stamp for the principal.

2. In line with the intent of the legislation, a small number of governing bodies, whichisworking in the spirit of the legislation and crafting new relationships between parentsand school managers.

3. Governing bodies emerging mainly in ex-HOA schools that operate according to acorporate discourse, which see themselves as a board of directors and like an enter-prise, have the job of setting the direction of the school. In this model, the principal isthe CEO, with responsibility for day-to-day operations.

4. Governing bodies, also mainly found in ex-HOA schools, where the discourse isessentially that of micromanagement. These governing bodies operate like boards ofcontrol.

This typology is useful and provides an accurate description of the range of structures cur-rently existing within the system. It does, one could argue, underestimate the size of the SGB communities in the first and second categories. Evidence is available, even in schoolswhere the principals continue to determine the agenda, of a bubbling awareness on the partof governors, of their responsibilities. Many governors might not yet be in charge of theirportfolios, but the volume of discontent expressed about the bullying role of educators, sug-gests that this situation will change. Also, the evidence from the various reports, provides

99

Relationship

ample justification for making the argument, that a large number of SGB’s, as the discussionon legality and legitimacy suggests, are grappling with the issues defined by the policy. What we are beginning to see here, to modify Roos’ terminology somewhat, is the emer-gence of governing bodies, where SGB’s take responsibility for the conduct and direction ofthe school. The principal in this SGB, acts increasingly as a professional member of thisstructure and places himself/herself into the public domain for the other members to consid-er.

Troubling though, as Roos points out, are the SGB’s, particularly in ex-HOA schools, butalso in other schools, where the professionals have seized control of the schools and havebegun to dictate to the educators how they should manage their professional responsibilities.This is not acceptable and calls for urgent attention.

Relationship

100


1. A Code of Conduct is urgently needed for the SGB community. This Code ofConduct should address crucial issues, in the first instance, those concerning theRights and Responsibilities of SGB members. It is recommended, that the relevantstakeholders in school governance, the SGB associations, the PDE officials forschool governance and school governance experts, collaboratively deliberate on thecontent of such a Code, and present it to the NSGC for ratification and implemen-tation.


2. It is recommended, that advocacy and communication be used to inform educatorsabout their roles and responsibilities as SGB members, as per policies. Principalsand SGB’s need to be informed of the channels already in place to deal with edu-cator unco-operativeness or misconduct, viz the Department and/or SACE. Theyalso need to be reminded of appeal mechanisms in cases where relief is not forth-coming within a reasonable period.

3. It is recommended, that an advocacy campaign be directed at parents and learnersregarding the participation of learners in SGB’s. A simplified guideline directed atlearners in respect of their do’s and don’ts, wouldbe of help to learners and allay theconcerns of parents, e.g. it would help all concerned to establish “observermoments” and “recusal moments” for learners, as well as others, from time to time.Every effort should be made to enhance the practice of having learners (whereapplicable) in the SGB’s.

4. The poor discipline of learners has the potential of making schooling collapse,whereit is rife. It is recommended, that intervention is initiated at the highest levelconcerning the issues of discipline and behaviour. It is important, that such a dis-cussion takes place in a framework where the accountability and responsibility ofeverybody operating within the environment of the school, is made clear, to avoidthe suggestion that learners are the specific and only subject of this kind of atten-tion. A national intervention, with buy-in from the highest office in government, isrequired in the student sector to develop an implementable Code of Conduct forlearners. This initiative must give clear guidelines to implementable alternatives tocorporal punishment. Initially, the National Department could draft a generic codefor application in schools that do not have clear policies, to support their practice.

101

Relationship

It is strongly recommended, that the implementation of the Code be the responsi-bility of the principal, with assistance from staff members. The circuit/LGS shouldassist the principal in this regard. More importantly, that sustained advocacy inschools by means of curricular, co- and extra-curricular activities to promote ethi-cal learnerhood, be embarked upon. Learners must be empowered to determine thedifference between right and wrong as important, as they learn to think, create, readand write.

5. The need for skills development for parent members of the SGB’s is a recurringtheme of this report. The recommendation of the Ministerial Committee Surveyreport, i.e. “Different training strategies, such as oral presentation, posters, and sto-ryboards, could be used. These strategies could be tailored to the level of the par-ticipants and would not necessarily require that participants be able to read andwrite”, is supported. A point to be emphasised in this respect, is that parents can beskilled in democratic governance before, or as they learn to read and write. TheCommittee does not accept that literacy and numeracy are preconditions for eligi-bility in the SGB.

6. It is also recommended, that training be sustained and context-oriented. Hence,different schools would be subject to different menus and these would match theallocation of functions. SGB functions are only allocated, as the SGB develops,to deal with these functions. The principal will manage the rest with theDepartment.

7. All SGB development and support need to be co-ordinated by the structuresreferred to later on in this report.

8. It is recommended, that the Minister determines a reasonable period of ‘time-off’for members to fulfil their SGB obligations. A recommendation of ten hours perquarter seems to be reasonable. Legal provision needs to be considered to compelall employers to give paid time-off employees to do SGB work/training. It shouldbe made an offence to penelise or prevent SGB members, who wish to take timeoff for SGB duties, from doing so.

9. This report contends, that the role of the principal is both crucial and pivotal inthe successful management of schools. It is recommended that the regulationsproviding for the principal’s role are amended, to confirm his/her responsibilitiesas chief accounting officer of the public school. It is the view of this report, thatthe principal is in charge of the professional management, administration andgovernance of the school. The principal effects professional management and

Relationship

102

administration, being informed and assisted democratically by her/his staff. TheSGB oversees, approves policies for some of these and may assist in implementa-tion. In terms of governance issues, as identified in section 20 and 21 of SASA,the principal is directed by the SGB. He/she has to ensure, as representative of thedepartment, that these directions have been arrived at according to the require-ments of the relevant legislation and in the best interests of the school.

10. If the principal is not satisfied with a direction(s) or a resolution(s) made by theSGB, he/she needs to bring this/these to the attention of the SGB and report it tothe HoD via the cluster/circuit office/LGS for relief. It should be made the duty ofthe principal, to ensure that SGB decisions, directions and resolutions are effec-tively administered and he/she should report to the SGB and the HoD circuitoffice, any difficulties encountered in the implementation.

11. It is strongly suggested, that measures be taken to spell out this role to all con-cerned, especially the Principal. The Principal should also be recognised as thechief financial officer of the school. He/she may be assisted by thetreasurer/accountant of the SGB or the school where posts exist. He/she is theone, who signs off payments (or at least co-signs), contracts and agreements onbehalf of the school. Hence, in short, all agreements procurements, contracts,appointments, etc should bear his/her signature or that of his/her delegate. In asense, the Principal should be regarded as the CEO of the school.

The role set out above, should be regarded as a condition of service (as per anannexure to PAM), and negligence or omission should be treated accordingly.

The principal must strive to bring together the seven sectors identified in the diagramabove in the best way possible.

103

Core functions

CHAPTER SIX

School governance capacity and functionality with respect to core functions

6. Introduction

The South African Schools Act stipulates very clearly what the functions of a school govern-ing body are:

● Every SGB, amongst other things, has to promote the best interests of the school by provid-ing quality education for all learners.

● It has to adopt a constitution for its school. ● It has to adopt a mission statement that sets out the goals and the shared values of the school. ● It has to adopt a code of conduct for learners at the school. ● It has to assist the principal and his management team in the execution of their professional

duties. ● It has to determine the times of the school day. ● It has the responsibility of recommending to the provincial Head of Department (the

Director-General in most provinces), educators for appointment at schools.

As stated above, provisions also exist in Section 21 of the Schools Act, for SGB’s to be allo-cated additional functions, such as taking responsibility for maintaining the school’s proper-ty, paying for services, purchasing textbooks and determining the extra-mural programme ofthe school. In addition, all SGB’s have the right to supplement their school’s resources.

While the stipulations of the law clearly define what the areas of functionality are, what con-stitutes full functionality or an acceptable level of functionality, is subject to interpretation.

A school governing body’s levels of functionality are determined by a number of factors: aschool’s history, the location of the school, the access it has to expertise inside and outsidethe school, the school’s relationship with its parent community and, critically, the leadershipthat is exercised inside the school.

Historically, as this report has attempted to make clear, while schools legally fall under the sin-gle descriptor - ‘public schools’ – they are in actual fact represented by a range of differentkinds of structures and organisations, with a variety of different approaches to the challenge ofschool governance. Policy, however, cannot easily accommodate this kind of diversity. It isoften constructed around an inappropriate and often unworkable ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach.

Core functions

104

This chapter looks at functionality in the schools in terms of the major responsibilities thathave been given to schools and will analyse how schools and parents in particular, are usingtheir powers to improve their schools’ management, and performance. The next chapter looks at how well the school governing body is working from a policy-generating focuspoint of view.

6.1 Introduction

A relatively large study of 62 schools in the Western Cape, conducted in 1998 by Kruss,Sayed and Badat (2001), during the first cycle of the school governing bodies’ existence,showed that the majority of SGB’s had complied with the basic requirements set by SASA inrelation to adopting a constitution, developing a mission statement for the school and adopt-ing a code of conduct for their learners. Eighty-two comma three percent (82,3%) of theschools confirmed they had adopted a constitution, 79% that they had finalised a code ofconduct and 77,4% that they had developed their mission statements.With respect to the kind of functions they devoted most of their time to, the following wasreported:

Table 6.1: Frequency with which SGB’s deal with particular kinds of issues (%)

INFREQUENT OR FREQUENTOR RATHER RATHER

INFREQUENT FREQUENTSchool finances/budgeting (n=60) 20,0 80,0 School fees (n=59) 11,9 88,1 Code of conduct (n=57) 54,4 45,6 Maintenance of buildings/sports grounds (n=56) 26,8 73,2 Educator employment/rationalisation (n=55) 23,6 76,4 Educator selection (n=53) 18,9 81,1 Matters of school security (n=52) 32,7 67,3 Disciplinary matters (n=51) 41,0 59,0 Matters of school’s admission policy (n=48) 56,3 43,7 School celebrations/concerts (n=47) 40,5 59,5 Capacity building for governors (n=39) 51,3 48,7 Matters of the school’s language policy (n=35) 68,6 31,4 Matters of teaching and learning/classroom (n=35) 75,7 24,3 Matters of examinations (n=22) 72,8 27,2

From: Kruss, Sayed and Badat, 2001.

105

Core functions

With regard to the kinds of schools participating in the study, important differences mani-fested themselves between ex-HOA schools and ex-HOR schools with respect to schoolfinances, maintenance of school grounds and educator selection. In relation to the first two,the mean scores for ex-HOA schools were considerably higher than those for ex-HORschools. The reverse applied when it came to educator selections, where ex-HOR schoolsspent far more time on this matter than did ex-HOA schools.

These differences notwithstanding, it is clear that school finances and school fees occupied alarge part of the SGB’s’ time. Interestingly, matters of teaching and learning were consider-ably lower on the SGB’s’ scale of priorities. They did not involve themselves in classroommatters or matters of professional concern.

In the same study, school principals were asked to assess, which of the issues dealt with bySGB’s, were handled well or poorly. The study could not discern general patterns.Disciplinary matters were, it seems, handled well, 20,3% of the time, while 8,5% of thecases were dealt with poorly. The study also found that matters of school finance were notmentioned in a substantial way by principals. What did come across strongly as an achieve-ment of the SGB’s, was their ability to deal with educator selections and educator employ-ment issues.

The study also looked at SGB’s’ assessments of their effectiveness with respect to:1. Budgeting.2. Record-keeping.3. The management and conduct of meetings.

The study reported, that ex-HOA schools scored highest in all three areas. Using tests of sig-nificance, rank values between ex-DET, ex-HOR and ex-HOA schools were significantly dif-ferent, with ranks rising from the former DET end of the spectrum to the ex-HOA end.Analizing at the situation in greater detail, the study revealed the following:

● Mean rank values of items, such as ‘leadership skills’, ‘problem-solving skills’, ‘conflict-management skills’, ‘strategic planning skills’ and ‘record-keeping skills’ were not signif-icantly different between ex-DET and ex-HOR schools, but were indeed so between theformer two and ex-HOA schools.

● The mean rank value of the item ‘conducting meetings’ was only significantly differentbetween ex-HOR and ex-HOA schools.

● There were significantly different mean rank values between ex-DET, ex-HOR and ex-HOA schools with respect to budgeting skills.

● There were no significant differences between the three groups of schools in terms ofmotivational skills.

The unanimous finding to which the study came, was that there were distinctly different lev-

Core functions

106

els of competency in the different historically-structured systems. Significantly, school gov-erning bodies in the former HOR and former DET systems, were relatively disadvantaged,compared to their former HOA counterparts. The historically disadvantaged, the study con-cluded, carried their disadvantage into the new post-1994 order, when they struggled to meetthe challenges framed by the new governance dispensation.

But what is the situation into the third cycle of the school governance system? What doschools look like in the present?

6.2. The current situation

The studies carried out for the Ministerial Review Committee in 2003 provide important up-dates on the current situation. Significant continuities with the Kruss, Sayed and Badat(2001) are evident.

Most schools appear to have been able to hold two, and even three cycles of elections. SGB’s are in place in most institutions. There was only one institution in the review, wherean SGB did not exist. In terms of functionality, and on the basis of the 36 studies, it can beconcluded that most SGB’s in the study, exhibit reasonable degrees of functionality. Onlyfour of the 17 ex-DET schools studied in the case studies could not produce proof of recordkeeping, or sending-out of written notices for, and taking minutes of meetings. The rest ofthe SGB’s could produce documentary proof of their functionality.

Functionality should, however, imply more than merely paper work. What are schools actu-ally doing in relation to these designated functions? In this respect, what functionality actual-ly means to SGB’s, is of crucial significance. The report will argue below, that differentkinds of schools have a different understanding of what a functional SGB is all about.

6.2.1. SGB constitutions

As suggested above, most schools appear to have constitutions at this point in time. Of the36 schools in the case studies, only one school reportednot having a constitution. The con-tent of the constitutions in question was not examined or verified. Ninety-four percent (94%)of the total number of schools that returned the Ministerial Review Committee survey, con-firmed that their SGB’s had already formulated constitutions.

Interestingly, half of the schools that were surveyed, (50,2%), reported that their constitu-tions had been formulated during the second generation of SGB operations (2000). This is animportant development that needs to be understood. It is suggested, that the competenceand/or capacity to develop such a document, was not immediately present in the schools and

107

Core functions

had to be discovered. Unfortunately, in the research process of the review, this was not fol-lowed up.

A third (33%) of SGB’s, claimed to have used constitutions developed between 1997 and2000. Six percent of ex-DET schools did not have constitutions. Reasons provided, were thatSGB’s had been using the ‘school policy’ as their constitution. It was unclear what wasmeant by ‘school policy’. A number of the schools not having constitutions, reported thatthey were in the process of developing one. One school claimed that their SGB was not fullyactive and that the school was, therefore, finding it difficult to develop policies, due to thelack of co-operation from SGB members.

6.2.2. Managing meetings

Most SGB’s, it is clear, have learnt how to keep their structures operational and in order.Virtually every SGB in the Case studies, with the exception of one or two, sent out writtennotices of meetings and made the minutes of the previous meeting available for scrutinybefore a next meeting. In most cases, the SGB chairperson and the principal, decided togeth-er on the items on the SGB’s agendas. The Ministerial Review Committee survey datarevealed that 99% of the SGB’s held meetings in 2002 and of this number, approximatelyhalf (44%) reported meeting once a term, as required by the regulations. An average of 24%reported holding meetings more frequently than required by the Act (i.e. at least once a quar-ter). Twenty-three percent (23%) held meetings more than once a month.

Holding AGM’s and parents’ meetings falls within the ambit of SGB responsibilities. Survey returns reflected that more than a third of the schools (42%) held these once a quar-ter. The frequency of parents’ meetings for 2002 is summarised below:

Table 6.4: Frequency of AGM’s and parents’ meetings

Frequency of meetings Total % Once a month 2.2% Once a quarter 42 Once a year 21 Whenever necessary 23 Never 0.8

Core functions

108

A substantial number of schools (21%) reported holding parents’ meetings once a year, inaccordance with the regulations. While this is in keeping with the national requirements, thequestion is asked, how this frequency of interaction facilitates the SGB’s ability to developits core responsibility, namely the building of democratic cultures within the schools. Thisfunction is at the heart of the school governing process. SGB’s are required to communicatewith parents concerning school functioning and other issues pertaining to the school and itslearners. While SGB’s might use other forms of communication to reach parents, it is sug-gested that the open meeting in the “town-hall tradition” is an important one to cultivate andkeep alive.

Every school in the Case study had SGB’s that recorded their meetings and were able to pro-vide proof thereof. Virtually all the schools, in the survey, too, (98%), reported on keepingminutes of their meetings. These assertions, could not be checked in the Review Committeesurvey.

In the case studies, the principals of almost every school reported regularly to their SGB’s on what was happening in the school. Lists of issues covered by the reports, remained con-sistent (perhaps this was a function of the research instrument). Most principals reported inwriting to their SGB’s, on issues of learner performance, school fees, infrastructural devel-opment, learner absenteeism, fund-raising, and educator performance.

In a few cases, principals made it clear, through their repors, that educator performance wasa professional matter over which the SGB had no jurisdiction. At least two principals statedemphatically during their interviews, that they would not provide this kind of information tothe SGB. Most other principals, however, reported on SMT visits to classrooms and on edu-cator activities in the classroom. The survey also reported, that parents tended to confusethese two issues, which could lead to a distinct educator/parent divide. It is suggested, thatthe confusion concerning what management and what governance is, is shared by both theSGB and the school management teams.

In terms of the survey, most parents’ meetings (77%) appear to be chaired by the SGB chair-person. Twelve percent (12%) reported, that principals chaired the meetings. In some cases(7%), the SGB chairperson and the principal jointly chaired the meetings.

6.2.3. Development plans

Only three schools among the 36 case studies did not have Five-Year Development Plans.What constituted the Development Plan, varied. In some instances, the Development Planwas essentially an infrastructural plan. A number of schools had ideas about the buildingof a school hall. In more modest versions of the Development Plan, schools wanted toacquire equipment such as over-head projectors. In more considered cases, it was clear that

109

Core functions

schools and their SGB’s were seeing Development Plans in the context of the learningprocess and were looking at these Plans as opportunities for promoting learning. While fees,as the table below clearly shows, constituted the most important subject of SGB’s’ attention,significantly, School Development Plans featured as a high priority in all the ex-departments,with the exception of the ex-House of Delegates schools in the case studies. This final find-ing, however, needs to be treated with a great deal of caution, given the small number of ex-HOD schools that were studied.

Table 6.5: Issues focused on by ex-department

Ex-DET Ex-HOA Ex-HOD Ex-HOR LSEN1 Fees Fees Fees Fees Fund-raising 2 Admissions Property Staff Fund-raising Fees

management appointments3 Discipline Staff Discipline Discipline Staff

Appointments appointments4 School development School Fund-raising School School

plan development plan development plan development plan5 Examination results Discipline Security Security Property

and academic managementperformance

6 Security Fund-raising Property Property Discipline management management

7 Staff appointments Security Examination Other Security results andacademic performance

8 Curriculum Curriculum Admissions Examination results Admissionsand academic performance

9 Fund-raising Examination School development Admissions Curriculumresults andacademic planperformance

10 Property management Admissions Sport Curriculum Sport 11 Sport Sport Curriculum Staff appointments Examination

results and academic performance

12 Language Language Language Sport Language 13 Religion Religion Religion Language Religion 14 Other O ther Other Religion Other

From: Ministerial Review Committee survey

Core functions

110

While it is gratifying to see the high level at which school development features in manyschools’ priorities, it is also a matter of concern, that the understanding of school develop-ment seems to remain fixed on infrastructural and physical issues, as opposed to pedagogi-cal. This is even more so the case, given the good quality of material that emanates from theDoE regarding school development plans. These guidebooks indicate in great detail what aschool development plan could be consisting of.

6.2.4. Finance committees

Virtually all the schools in both studies have active finance committees. While the SGB’s donot regularly and consistently succeed in managing the challenge of fund-raising, mostschools’ finance committees were involved in monitoring the school-fees situation in theschool and were reasonably aware of what the school’s finances are. Most finance commit-tees submitted reports to every meeting. Some report on a need-to-know basis. The surveymade it clear, as the table above demonstrates, that the question of fees seem to preoccupySGB’s most. A number of schools reported on many parents being unable to pay school feesand this is a major cause for concern in many schools, as it influences other aspects ofschool functioning.

6.2.5. Appointment of educators and recommendation of educators for appointment

Most schools (86%), reported that they had recommended educators for appointment. Theseeducators are employed by the state and receive their salaries through state personnel alloca-tions. Most schools, according to the survey and the case studies have been going throughthe experience of making recommendations to the HoD for the appointment of educators.There have, however, especially in the poorer schools, been constant complaints by the prin-cipals and educator members of the SGB’s, of the challenge this pose for parent members ofthe SGB. Many SGB parent members, seem not to know what qualities to look for whenmaking an appointment and struggle with the procedures concerning an appointment. Theeffect is that appointments often become controversial and lead to disputes being declared.

A contentious issue is the appointment of principals. The procedure for the appointment of aprincipal is managed in exactly the same way as that of an ordinary educator. Many officialsin PDE’s and in teacher unions have expressed unhappiness about the state of affairs. Thecomment being made regularly in interviews with stakeholder groupings, is that the SGBseems to be an inappropriate structure to manage such an important appointment. The argu-ment made, is that parents lack the expertise and knowledge to determine whether a candi-date could be recommended for appointment as principal or not.

Almost half of the schools surveyed, reported that they had established educator posts during

111

Core functions

the last SGB cycle (46%). Schools were also requested to indicate the number of SGB edu-cators they had appointed during this period. From this, a mean of 4.74 has been obtained.This indicates that, on average, schools that have created educator posts, have employed fouror five teachers. The number of posts that the school can sustain, will be determined mainly-by the amount of money generated through school fees and other fund-raising initiatives.Governing bodies also have the power to create additional posts for administrative staff. Just over half of those surveyed fifty-three percent (53%), reported to having appointedadministrative staff members.

6.2.6. Leading the SGB

Chairpersons of SGB’s constitute an interesting cohort of people within the educational sys-tem. In the case studies, virtually every chairperson, with the exception of a few, indicatedthat he or she would be prepared to stand again. Where individual chairpersons indicated that they did not wish to stand, circumstances at those schools were particularly difficult.One chair, a driver, did not wish to stand again because he felt out of his depth. Anotherchairperson, a university lecturer in a school in a small town set in a rural area, suggestedthat she would not stand because the school regarded her as a threat.

Interestingly, every one of the chairpersons interviewed (two could not be interviewedbecause they could not make the interview, one because he had ‘absconded’), brought to hisor her position, strong community links. Every chairperson was also involved in other com-munity activities. Chairpersons were people who had been recognised because of their com-munity work, and were often elected because they were recognised as leaders. These leader-ship positions, of course, varied and depended on the kind of school involved.

In Afrikaans schools, it happened seldomly, that the chairperson was not someone identifiedin the reports as ‘of pioneer stock’. In the working-class African schools, it was often eitherpolitical or social visibility that propelled the leader into the chairpersonship. Membership ofa political party or union featured regularly. This was also the case with other governors.

Importantly, most schools had been able to re-elect some members of their SGB’s from onecycle to the next. There were no schools in the sample where re-elections of members hadnot taken place. Unfortunately, the number of governors that were re-elected in each casewas small, in most cases amounting to not more than three. What this means is that mostSGB’s are beginning their operational life with little or at least fragile institutional memo-ries. This is a significant reality and needs to be borne in mind when thinking about howschools are able to reproduce their capacity and to avoid the ‘re-invention-of-the-wheel’ syn-drome in school governance.

The recommendation made in Chapter three, that elections should be held in such a way that

Core functions

112

a component of the standing SGB is retained into the next cycle, is imperative at this point.

6.2.7. Differences between Section 20 and Section 21 Schools with respect to governance

Schools may apply for any or all the discretionary functions outlined by SASA (1996). Thegranting of Section 21 status to a school, is not an automatic process and is subject to theruling of the provincial Head of Department (HoD), who may refuse such an application ifthe governing body in question does not have the capacity to perform a function effectively.The decision of the HoD must be conveyed in writing to the relevant governing body, givingreasons for the refusal to grant a school’s request. In addition, the HoD may decide, on rea-sonable grounds, to withdraw a function of the governing body.

Fifty-three percent (134 out of 252) schools in the Ministerial Review Committee survey indicat-ed that they had been awarded “Section 21” status. This means that, having successfully demon-strated to the DoE that they have the necessary skills and level of functionality to handle theschool’s budget, they have been accorded some autonomy in the handling of the purchase of text-books and stationery, and in school maintenance. Twenty-one percent (21%) reported to be reg-istered as a Section 20 school with certain Section 21 functions.

The following table provides a breakdown of Section 20 and Section 21 status of schools,per province.

Table 6.6: Section 20/21 Status, by province

Section 20 Section 20 Section 21 Not Unsure of(with some (all registered statusSection 21 functions)functions)

Eastern Cape 19% 18% 56% 0% 4% Free State 22 9 68 0 0 Gauteng 0 14 86 0 0 KwaZulu-Natal 38 4 58 0 0 Limpopo 28 39 28 0 11Mpumalanga 36 32 26 0 0 Northern Cape 0 27 72 0 0 North West 42 21 32 0 0 Western Cape 25 4 54 4 4 TOTAL 25% 16% 53% 0,4% 2.3%

113

Core functions

It is important to note, that some of the figures in the table above contradict figures availableat the DoE. The Mpumalanga Department of Education, for example, awarded S21 status toall its schools in November 2002. The table suggests that 36% have continued to hold S20status. The reason for this may be the lack of clarity in these schools about their status.

Two percent of the schools in the survey, reported that they were unsure of their status. Oneschool, a rural farm school located in the Overberg region of the Western Cape, reported thatit had not been registered. It is not clear why these schools reported this data and warrantsfurther investigation.

Of the schools that were awarded Section 21 status, the following functions were allocatedmost frequently:

Table 6.7: Functions of Section 21 schools

Functions Total % Maintenance and improvement of school property 77% Determining the extra-mural curriculum of the school 71 Determining the choice of subject options offered at the school 35 Purchase of textbooks 37 Payment for services to the school 45 Other 12

Other functions listed by respondents, included determining of school fees, appointing staffmembers and determining payment, and determining the language of instruction at theschool, as well as the admissions and religious policies of the school. It should be noted, thatall these are functions devolved to all governing bodies through the provisions of SASA.These are standard functions of the SGB.

Functions over and above these primary functions, include arranging transport, and hiring ofsports equipment and musical instruments.

It is generally assumed, that schools with Section 21 status are more affluent. Of the schoolssurveyed, 46% of the Section 21 schools ranked in the upper quintiles of the poverty rankingsystem (quintiles 4 and 5), while 40% ranked as quintiles 1 and 2 (the poorest quintiles).

The most critical discussion in this part of the report, concerns the process of grantingschools responsibility for increased functions. It became apparent in the study, that manyschools were not coping with the greater responsibility thrust upon them. Schools werestruggling to fulfil all of the requirements for a S21 school. Many did not have the capacity

Core functions

114

for bookkeeping or to maintain their property properly, because they were not equipped forthe responsibility, and experienced difficulties in dealing with the process of ordering booksand so forth.

In some provinces, such as the Northern Cape, the policy of allocating S21 status graduallyto all schools has been applied. In Mpumalanga, as was mentioned earlier, all schools havealready been granted S21 status. In other provinces, despite the general poverty of the schoolcommunities, as in the Eastern Cape, more than fifty percent of the schools have been grant-ed S21 status. The reasons for this vary. Often, they start out with noble intentions, such asthe ideal of empowering schools to take more responsibility with regard to themselves. Thereality is, howver, that many of these schools are not in a position where they can success-fully manage large sums of money, and, inevitably find themselves in difficulties, which arenot always of their own making. The politics of the situation are clearly complex, becauseone can end up in a situation, where the allocation of functions could produce school cate-gories that correspond with the old apartheid categories. But the hard reality needs to be con-fronted, namely that in terms of capacity, not all schools are the same. This will requirePDE’s to play a much stronger role, as some do, as in the Education Management andDevelopment Centres in the Western Cape, where the intention is to bring the availableexpertise in the system much closer to the problem in the schools.

6.2.8. What are the experiences of special schools?

It appears that the experiences regarding school governance in LSEN schools are notmarkedly different from those in ordinary public schools, except that the LSEN school is anextremely expensive operation to keep afloat. This difference may be more significant than is generally appreciated. Parents depend a great deal more on the success of the infrastruc-ture of the school than is the case in a mainstream school. Special schools often have hugetransport costs, equipment maintenance costs and costs involving the appointment of staffwith specialised knowledge. The one LSEN school visited in the Western Cape, has the goodfortune of an extremely effective school governance body. The school has the uncompromis-ing support of the SGB. The SGB has co-opted a nursing sister, who has worked at a neigh-bouring hospital and a number of parents whose children have been at the school for a num-ber of years. Everybody works together exceedingly well. According to these respondents,the same cannot be said about all LSEN schools. Because the demands on the staff and theparents are so intense, it is important that the SGB and the SMT work together as a unit.

The information regarding governance in LSEN schools is limited in the survey and suggeststhat the issues that receiving the attention of the SGB’s in these schools, are the same asthose in ordinary schools (see table 19 of the survey report).

LSEN schools, however, offer an interesting model that could be replicated of co-option.

115

Core functions

LSEN schools are allowed to co-opt a range of experts onto the SGB, with voting rights aslong as the total number of parent members continue to be more than all the other con-stituent groups together. While, as SANASE has stated, there is the potential for unwieldi-ness in this model, it does offer the SGB a way of consolidating its capacity and its ability tosustain itself.

6.3. General – Challenges to functionality in the SGB

Having described SGB’s in general, what does functionality from the perspective of the ex-departments look like?

There are distinct differences among the SGB’s in the different communities. While it is true, and important to recognise, that no two schools are alike and are animated by very dif-ferent dynamics, it is possible to describe general trends in different kinds of schools. SGB’s, in former Afrikaans schools for example, are very different to SGB’s in townshipschools. SGB’s in more integrated English-speaking ex-HOA schools are also distinctly dif-ferent to SGB’s elsewhere.

The comment was made above, that most SGB’s are functional. They are, however, func-tional in very different kinds of ways. This functionality relates markedly to the types ofhuman resources that the different SGB’s can call upon. These differences reflect the coun-try’s divided history.

6.3.1. SGB’s in historically disadvantaged areas

SGB’s in working-class African, coloured and Indian schools (the last perhaps to a lesserdegree) have serious challenges. These challenges relate to the huge skills gap between edu-cators and the parents and the serious backlogs that schools in this context have to contendwith.

The complaint about SGB’s, made by principals in this category of schools, is that they areunder-capacitated and not effective at fund-raising.

However, many principals are applauding their SGB’s for bringing parents into a closer rela-tionship with the school. Their focus appears to be that of pulling parents slowly into becom-ing more involved with school life and school activities. Because of their understanding ofthe social circumstances and the everyday cultural practices of the learners (and the educa-tors), they are clearly able to intervene in misunderstandings and conflicts in school life.

Many studies in this review, report on the gratitude of the principals for the interventions of

Core functions

116

the SGB in resolving conflicts. It is, however, their critical role in bringing the parents intothe every-day life of the school that deserves most attention. This achievement is immenselysignificant. The next step for the SGB in poor areas, must be, how to deal with the questionof teaching and learning.

How to bring governance capacity to bear on teaching and learning is not an easy taskbecause of the immense educational backlogs that parents themselves have. Being asked ofthem, is the ability to engage with their children’s educators on a level of critical understand-ing. This will have to be an important focus in the training that PDE’s provide to SGB’s inthe future. A theme for such training could be ‘governance for learning.’

6.3.2. The ex-HOA schools

There is, according to the evidence of the case studies, a distinct approach to school gover-nance in former white schools. The way in which the SGB is composed in this category, issignificantly different to that of the poorer schools. The six ex-HOA schools in the case studies all have SGB’s made up almost entirely of professional people. On the SGB’s arebusiness people, lawyers, university lecturers, doctors and other medically-trained peopleand a range of other professionals such as accountants and educators. The schools are clearlyable to draw on, as argued in Chapter three, extraordinarily strong reserves of social and cul-tural capital.

Functionality in the ex-HOA school has a very different meaning to functionality in the for-mer DET and HOR and HOD schools. This is essentially because the former white system ishistorically so much better endowed than the other systems. It is able to draw on physicalresources, but, critically, its educator component and its parent component have had the priv-ilege of much higher levels of education.

The interests of the SGB in the former white schools, have to do with a range of issues, thatinclude issues of pedagogical excellence to a much greater extent than in the former disad-vantaged schools.

As the schools in the case studies reveal, former white schools’ functionality includes capitalimprovement schemes, and clearly to levels of ambition not possible in the historically dis-advantaged schools, but there is also a preoccupation with what is understood to be learnerperformance. This preoccupation is reflected in the anxiety of such schools, of sliding intowhat is perceived to be the mediocrity of the former black schools.

In this atmosphere, the SGB sees its major role as that of protecting standards. Standards,goes the line of thought, are protected by holding class size down. The focus of the SGB’swork then becomes that of securing additional educators that the SGB can choose itself. This

117

Core functions

often means rejecting the educators, offered to the school from the PDE’s’ preferred lists ofeducators. The comment was made explicitly in a number of hearings that schools wouldforego a PDE supplied teacher and rather appoint someone they have identified through thegoverning body process. The impact of this is essentially to preserve the racial character ofthe school. Former white SGB’s continue to appoint white educators.

Functionality in this environment is thus also about fees, as in the historically disadvantagedschools, but fundamentally about fees for maintaining the shape of the school as it had beenin the old apartheid order. While it is true that many SGB’s in former white schools also dis-cuss other things, such as equity, and have a sense of their role as public institutions servinga wider public than the apartheid imagination produced, functionality tends to be tied to thepreservation of historical advantage.

6.4. Closing remarks

Following this general discussion, it must be recognised that there are clear instances, whereSGB’s are not meeting the requirements of functionality. These, in the case of the case stud-ies of 36 schools, looked at for the Review Committee particularly, constitute, significantly,a small number. In the case studies, one school had operated without its chairperson for aperiod of 18 months with little attempt, it seemed, to replace him or to call him to account.Another school was operating with only one active SGB member. The other members hadfallen by the wayside. Most SGB’s, however, reported that governors’ attendance was regu-lar and consistent. There was enthusiasm expressed for the work of school governance.

This discussion is continued in the next chapter concerning the different kinds of policiesthat SGB’s have to develop and the ways in which SGB’s deal with problems.


1. It is recommended, that the entire framework concerning the allocation of func-tions is revised. It is specifically recommended that the practice of devolving pow-ers to all schools – to make them S21 schools – is immediately terminated andthat a new system is instituted of gradually allocating functions.

2. It is recommended, that schools that are unable to carry out what are regarded asS20 functions, not have the burden imposed on them of doing so, and that thesefunctions are managed on their behalf by the PDE, until stage has been reachedwhere they can do so independently.

Core functions

118


3. It is recommended that, SGB’s’ constitutions be made the subject of the PDE andthe Provincial School Governance Council’s scrutiny, to avoid the reproduction ofpro-forma constitutions. While it is accepted that pro-forma constitutions willassist the SGB, every effort must be made to assist SGB’s to develop constitutionsthat are in line with their practical mission and vision commitments.

4. It is recommended, that the National School Governance Council develop a set ofnational frameworks for the SGB’s constitution. These frameworks should beguided by the National Constitution and should contain one set of provisions thatspeak to the right of education for all and another that deals with the right of allchildren to a quality education.

5. It is recommended, that the sections in SASA that deal with definitions of gover-nance and professional management are amended and clarified. It is also recom-mended, that norms and standards, with examples and illustrations, are developedfor governance and management.

6. It is recommended, that Whole School Development and school developmentplans are made the subject of annual review and that these are used in evaluatingthe achievement of the SGB.

7. It is recommended, that additional resources are secured to enhance the training ofall the SGB members with respect to fund-raising and good accounting practices.

8. It is recommended, that SGB’s be provided with assistance to deal with theprocess of making educator appointments.

9. Judge Goldstone’s comment regarding different interpretations of the Act (andregulations) with respect to appointments needs to be considered. The recommen-dation seeks to find ways that lead to common interpretations. Governing bodiescan be seen to be both agents of the state as well for the community. If this isacceptable, then governing bodies should strive to adopt a balanced perspective.

The following procedure is suggested:

a. Set up dispute resolution procedures when there is a dispute between any two ofthe three parties, viz the SEG, the Department and the parents.

119

Core functions

b. The Minister, with the advice of the NSGC, sets guidelines.

c. The MEC for education, received recommendations from the LGS on the dispute.

d. The MEC rules.

e. The NSGC mediates.

f. Parties are at liberty to approach the higher court.

The SASA and EGA provisions for APT issues should be supplemented with detailedannexures that would contribute to minimise differences of interpretations. The LGScould be made one additional specific point of consideration.

11. It is recommended, that SGB’s be reminded that even government body appoint-ments are subject to the legal requirements of employment equity regulations.

Policy Making

120

CHAPTER SEVEN

The School Governing Body and Policy Making

7. Introduction

The focus of this chapter is on the specific sets of practices of the SGB that relate to its obli-gations to develop policy. The two previous chapters, looked at the issues surrounding theestablishment of the SGB and its functionality in terms of core responsibilities such as callingmeetings, dealing with its major responsibilities, of appointing educators, managing financesand so forth. While some of these issues will appear in this chapter again, the focus of the chapter is on the work of the SGB as a policy-making agency. It looks at the SGB with respectto its ability to set and draft policy.

In the earlier chapter, the extent to which SGB’s were deemed to be functioning, was judgedby the degree to which they had discharged their mandatory functions with respect to a num-ber of key tasks. Taking a similar approach, this chapter focuses on policy development.

7.1. Policy development capacity

Using the information derived from the Review Committee survey, the table below providesa perspective of which policies are being given most attention by the SGB.

Table 7.1: Overview of which school policies were developed by the SGB.

School policies Total %

School mission 94%

School vision 89

Learner Code of Conduct 94

School language policies 80

Religious observances 67

121

Policy Making

Ninety-four percent (94%) of the schools that had responded to the Review Committee sur-vey, reported having developed codes of conducts for learners, while 92% were reported tohave developed a school mission and vision. Less evident, were policies concerning schoollanguage and religious observances (substantially present, 80% and 67% respectively).Because of the nature of the survey, these documents were not perused. Documents weremade available in the Case Studies.

The Case Study findings confirmed the survey findings quite substantially. All of the ex-DET schools in the Case Studies could produce constitutions with mission and vision state-ments within those documents. But the schools were significantly weaker in the policy development area. All the ex-DET schools had finance committees, but there was little evi-dence of sub-committees established for developing policy concerning language and reli-gion. There was evidence in just over half of the 17 schools studied, of the existence of a discipline sub-committee. Itcould be presumed, that these sub-committees would have beenoperating according to some policy. There were, interestingly, regular descriptions of sub-committees for cleaning and maintenance. One out of the 17 had a sub-committee for socialgrants and another for home visits. Another school had a welfare sub-committee and occa-sionally in the 17 schools, sports and excursion sub-committees can be found. This is evidentof parental interest in school life, although they do not take parents into the heart of schoollife. These findings support that of the study by Sayed, Soudien and Carrim (2002), whichshowed that many former black schools depended for their policy guidance on departmentaldocuments. They often did not have their own policies, unlike many former white schools,where the tendency existed for the school to formulate its own policy.

Clearly, SGB’s are fulfilling only some of their most important policy obligations.

7.1.2. Policy capacity in the ex-departments

Greater variation is evident in ex-HOR schools with respect to policy development. Policieson learner conduct, school mission and school vision have been developed in the majority ofschools. Significantly, however, and this is a matter, which must raise some concern, is thatpolicies on school language and particularly religious observances, are less commonly foundacross all school types.

The table below, provides a breakdown of which school policies were developed by whichschool type.

Policy Making

122

Table 7.2: School policies, by ex-department

Ex-DET Ex-HOA Ex-HOD Ex-HOR (n=129) (n=67) (n=9) (n=21)

School mission 91% 100% 100% 86%

School vision 89 96 79 86

Learner Code of Conduct 92 99 100 91

School language policies 69 100 100 76

Religious observances 55 91 89 57

Note: Missing data was not included the analyses.

The discussion, which follows below, considers the performance of the SGB in the variousareas in greater detail and concludes with a consideration of the SGB with respect to its big-ger role.

7.2. Specific policy practices in the SGB

The most important policy development areas to which the SGB should pay attention, are:access and admission, school fees and exemptions, appointments, promotions and transfers,language and indemnity and extra-curricular activities. DoE policy (Department of Education,2000) requires schools to develop their own policies for HIV/AIDS. None of the schools in thestudy spoke of or could show evidence of having such a policy.

7.2.1. Access and admission

The Admission Policy for Ordinary Public Schools (Oct 1998) and The South African SchoolsAct (84 of 1996) section 5, clearly spell out the conditions for learners, for admission to ordi-nary public schools. Furthermore, section 5(5) of SASA (South African Schools Act) states:“Subject to this Act and any applicable provincial law, the admission policy of a public schoolis determined by the Governing Body of the school.”

A detailed study of admission policies in schools across the country, needs to be undertaken.In the absence of such a study there is, nonetheless, sufficient information available, to sug-gest that there are schools that operate in the same area, but have significantly different stu-dent profiles. Why this is so, is confusing to parents and learners. Anomalies arise whenlearners are turned away from schools having more room, to schools that are becoming more

123

Policy Making

and more overcrowded. The question can be posed, why all the schools in the samearea/cluster/district do not have the same spread of learners.

It would appear, that learners are often turned away illegally. Invalid reasons provided for notaccepting learners include the following:

● They are not accompanied by their parents or legal guardians; ● They cannot afford the school fees; ● They do not live in the school feeder zone; ● They do not have the proper documentation; ● They cannot speak the official language of the school; ● They cannot afford the uniforms, books etc.

A detailed survey of parents in this respect is required, to establish the scope and scale of theproblem. What is obvious, is that there are schools that go out of their way to admit learnersin the spirit of the constitution, to ensure that the doors of learning are opened to all. There arealso those that use subtle and less subtle methods to keep their schools exclusive. The effect isdiscrimination against poor and illiterate parents. Although they have the legal right to demandplaces and to complain to the Head of Department for relief, many go away helplessly, neverto return.This is borne out by the following comment:

“The irony is that the very decentralisation that has led to greater democratisation of school-ing has also contributed to the perpetuation of inequities among our schools. The inequalitiesare now increasingly being drawn on class rather than racial lines, although racism continuesto be an important factor limiting the opportunities of blacks seeking admission to formerlywhite schools and, at times, to their opportunities after they are admitted.” (Motala andPampallis: 2001, 177)

Another, more difficult category of problems that hinders access to schools, is poverty andignorance. Learners cannot afford to go to the school nearest to their homes as the distance istoo great. The hearings noted, that there were cases where learners had to walk 20 kilometresto get to school. At a hearing in the Free State, the story was told of a child who had to get upat one a.m. in the morning, to begin her journey to school. Many went without food for daysand had to wait until there was food again, before they could go to school.

Parents and learners are unaware that The National Policy on HIV/AIDs for Learners andEducators in public schools (August 1999), allows for schools to admit HIV/AIDsinfected/affected learners.

The net result of these problems is that poverty and ignorance bar learners from schools. Theefforts from Departments providing transport and nutrition programmes, are good initial inter-ventions. Strong and important as these campaigns may be, given the scale of the problem and

Policy Making

124

the complexity of the communities linguistically, socially and culturally, there is always room,however, for greater imagination and resourcing concerning these initiatives. These initiativeshave to be regarded in the context of the country’s great demand for ongoing public education.In closing this section, it is worth quoting the work of Sayed, Soudien and Carrim, in an unpublished report to the Department for International Development of School Inclusion inSouth Africa concerning the way in which 11 schools in three provinces were dealing withadmission and access. Talking about a detailed section of the report dealing with access theysaid:

What this section has revealed is how complex and nuanced the processes of admissionare in many schools. While no schools were overtly discriminating on the basis of ‘race’,class or gender, in practice all of these factors were in use as schools introduced languagetests through interviews and entrance examinations, consistently pushed up their fees tomaintain what they thought were ‘good’ standards and presented themselves as bastionsof one or other culture. All these, in effect, were the mechanisms of inclusion-exclusion.Open as schools had formally become, in practice they remained sites in which dominantgroups exercised their hegemony. Their approaches to access into their schools were evi-dently assimilationist. Of significance too, but to a lesser degree in poorer, working classand mainly ex-DET schools, is the predominance of an ability to pay school fees. Thecommodification of education in this regard is stark, and all schools were in one way oranother forced to market and subject themselves to market principles.

7.2.2. School fees and exemptions

The National Norms and standards for School Funding (Oct 1998) emphasises that:

Governing bodies are not required to charge fees (section 50).

The fee setting and exemption process is totally in the hands of the parents. At the parents’ gener-al meeting, any resolution that proposes fee payment must include the amount of fees to be charged,and “equitable criteria and procedures for the total, partial or conditional exemption of parents, whoare unable to pay” the fees.

The Exemption of Parents from the Payment of School Fees, Regulations 1998 (Oct 1998),clearly spell out the bases for fee exemptions. SASA demands that the budget and fees/exemp-tion policy be adopted at a parents’ meeting. This resolution then has to be implemented by theSGB. The aforegoing ensures necessary democratic protection of the rights of parents, to supplement education provisioning at schools.

However, practices, as the rest of the section attempts to illustrate, demand further interven-tion to prevent abuse within the system.

125

Policy Making

Firstly, there is great deviation in fee setting, as the following table from the report of theReview Committee survey indicates:

Table 7.3: Fee range per annum

Fee range (in Rands) Number of %Schools(n=237)

0-50 70 29%

51-100 43 18

101-300 26 11

301-500 13 5

501-1000 14 6

1001-2500 38 16

2501-4000 20 8

>4000 13 5

(From: Review Committee Survey, 2003: 24)The same survey indicates, that 41 schools out of 174 that do not have section 21 status chargefees and that more than half of these charge fees more than R1000.

An interesting fact reported in the survey, is the existence of five schools (out of 174) thatcharge more than R4 000 although they do not have section 21 status. The fact that schools thatare not deemed to be sufficiently capacitated in terms of the S21 requirements of SASA are handling large sums of money from individual learners, is a curious contradiction.

7.2.2.1. Fees by ex-Department

The following table, also from the Review Committee survey report, indicates the fee settingdistribution across the erstwhile Departments:

Policy Making

126

Table 7.4: Fee range by ex-Department per annum

Fee range (in Ex-DET Ex-HOA Ex-HOD Ex-HOR

Rands) (n=129) (n=67) (n=9) (n=21)

0-50 50% 0% 0% 14%

51-100 25 0 0 24

101-300 11 1 33 33

301-500 3 4 44 5

501-1000 2 4 11 5

1001-2500 2 48 0 10

2501-4000 2 22 0 0

>4000 0 16 0 0

Clearly, there are four types of schools indicated by the density in the ranges.

Jointly, a picture exists of a skewed and divided schooling distribution in terms of fees.Roughly put, the ex-HOA schools charge over R1 000. Sixteen percent (16%) surveyed,charge more than R4 000 and most of the previous African schools (75%) charge less thanR100. Approximately 30% of schools charge more than R1 000. That there is no upper limit,has been seen in several media reports, detailing the alarming rise in fees in suburban schools.One school, admittedly starting from a relatively modest base, increased its fees by 145%.More concretely, in the Rondebosch area of Cape Town, it is the norm that the average pri-mary school will charge fees in the R5000 to R7000 range, while secondary schools are charg-ing fees up to and beyond R10, 000 per annum.

7.2.2.2. Regulating the SGB’s ability to determine school fees?

Technically, the majority of the parents may vote for any amount - say R10 000. What are theeffects of such an unfettered system? Is there a need to bring some uniformity into the system?Clearly, there is need for a sober discussion concerning these realities. The fear about strongregulation here, is that one is faced with the very real prospect of the middle-class abandoningthe public school system if the public system is not sufficiently open to their interests. The con-sequences of such abandonment are dire, as is evident in the public systems of most LatinAmerican countries, and, perhaps more pertinently, in a country closer to South Africa, suchas India. In India, the public school system is now essentially a system for the poor and excel-

127

Policy Making

lence is no longer easily achievable within it. Having said that, it is morally unconscionablefor a public system, to have elements within it that are so much more privileged than theircounterparts, often only street blocks away from where they are. It is in this regard, that the sug-gestion is made in the recommendations, of institutionalising cluster relationships within the sys-tem. If a school is to retain the right to charge high fees, it must also be asked to develop a charterfor itself for high public service and responsibility.

Secondly, case studies, commissioned by the Review Committee, reveal that fee-paying par-ents are decreasing in number, resulting in the need for higher fees to maintain the budget. Atrend is beginning, whereby parents, who pay high fees, are moving to independent schools.This observation would support the argument, that some schools are charging excessive fees.

A third challenge that emerges, is one that came up at the Bronkhorstspruit hearing and otherhearings. In poor schools, learners fall into two camps: Those that pay fees and those that donot. In many ways, the non-fee non-paying learners are made to feel inferior and belittled by,e.g., sports exclusion. It seems that schools are inadvertently causing division instead of pro-moting unity amongst learners and are not protecting the vulnerable.

7.2.2.3. School fees and exclusion

The work of Sayed, Soudien and Carrim referred to above, strongly supports the finding aboutthe exclusionary and marginalising ways in which fees are being used. While schools are legal-ly and technically open to everyone, there are a sizeable number of schools which explicitlyuse means tests, to determine whether parents can indeed afford to send their children to theschools to which they are applying. Many parents in the study in question, testified to beingtold that they should look elsewhere for admission. Non-payment of fees is also used as anopportunity in schools, to ‘shame’ children. Some schools even publish the names of default-ing parents in newsletters.

A fourth challenge emanating from the discussion above, is fee exemptions. The Exemption ofParents from Payment of School Fees, Regulations (Oct 1998), clearly specifies guidelines forconditional, partial and total exemption of fees. However, too many parents complain aboutbeing forced to pay fees either through legal mechanisms or otherwise. Sometimes, the weak-ness lies on the part of school officials, who are overzealous and sometimes on the part of par-ents, who fail to apply for exemptions as required. An SMT member at a prominent ex-HOAschool in the Border area of the Eastern Cape, confessed that he was not aware that the schooldid not have the right to exclude learners, who could not pay their school fees. Many of thepoor parents need much more assistance to assert their rights in this regard.

The current advocacy work of the DoE around these issues, such as the Rights andResponsibilities pamphlets, are important assets in the system to develop. These documents

Policy Making

128

spell out the rights that parents have and even draw their attention to quick-turn-around facil-ities, such as ‘hot-line’ call centres. How these initiatives can be built upon and broughtmuch more clearly to the attention of the public, needs urgent consideration. It is in thisregard, that the links that exist with the printing and electronic media need to be expanded,so that more talk-shows and popular ‘soap-operas’ could be encouraged to find imaginativeways of disseminating important messages concerning governance.

7.2.2.4. School fees and ‘extras’

The fifth challenge regarding fees, is that over and above the requirement to pay fees, parentsare confronted with other costs. Many reports indicate that parents have to pay separately for:

● Excursions or sports activities;● Text books and stationery;● Transport;● Uniforms;● Boarding; and● Extra tuition.Learners, whose parents cannot afford to pay for these services or facilities, either get exclud-ed or discriminated against. All these costs need to be contained within the school fee andadditional costs could be covered by donations, fund-raising and the like.

The last challenge identified in the research, deals with the unofficial measures taken byschools against learners, who have not paid amounts owing to the school. The graph belowillustrates some of these measures:

Graph 1: Measures taken against defaulting learners

(Department of Education, 2003: 54)

Illegal marginalisation of learners by quintile (2001)

% of schools

withhold reports from the learner?

not issue books to learners?

prohibit learners to attend school?

pubnlicise names of learners who did not pay

All

5

4

3

2

1

0 5 10 15 20 25

129

Policy Making

The graph drawn from the 2001 Systemic Evaluation, indicates four examples of unofficialpractices against learners:

● Withholding reports from learners.● Not issuing books to learners.● Prohibiting learners from attending schools.● Publicising of names of learners who did not pay.

Considering that the respondents were school principals, it is likely that the numbers could behigher.

An average of 10% of schools, admitted unfair discrimination against learners. Informationavailable in the DoE makes clear that these are gross underestimations. Nonetheless, if this10% were to be extrapolated against the total number of schools in the system, almost 3 000schools countrywide are technically in breach of the law. The situation is aggravated, in amoral sense, in that even those in the lowest quintile - the poorest of the poor - who obvious-ly cannot pay - are harassed. These practices need to be outlawed.

As a result of the foregoing, many learners drop out of the schools. While not condoning theabove practices and tendencies, the situation, especially in many of the poorer schools, isunderstandable in the light of many complaints heard at hearings, that the Departments aretardy, or even neglect fulfilling their financial and provisioning functions to schools.

7.2.3. Appointments, promotions and transfers

The power to appoint, promote or transfer educators in public schools is vested in the Head ofDepartment (HOD) (of a Province) - (Section 6(1)(b) of the Employment of Educators Act 76of 1998). Many school governing bodies have an allocated function to make recommendationsto the HOD in this regard (Section 20(1)(i) - SASA). The HoD has the right to decline suchrecommendations on the grounds laid out in the EEA No. 76 of 1998. Schools also have theoptions to create additional posts for educators and non-educators above the staff establish-ment. It seems that the HoD also has to approve these appointments. This needs clarification.In specified circumstances, the schools are obliged to make appointments from a departmen-tal list. This arrangement, for appointments, promotions and transfers of educators, caters forthe promotion of interests and preferences of the community within the priorities of the state.The implementation of this arrangement has thrown up many challenges that need to beaddressed.

The following table gives a national view of racial patterns of learner and staff distributionacross the different ex-departments.

Policy Making

130

Table 7.5: Composition

Ex-DET Ex-HOA Ex-HOD Ex-HOR LSEN TOTAL

Learners Black 97% 28% 69% 19% 39% 68%

White 1.2 56 1.3 2.3 46 25

Coloured 1.5 14 1.3 73 73 14

Indian 0.05 2.1 30 0.01 2.5 0.8

Other 0 0.6 0 6 0.0 8 0.6

Staff Black 94 4 13 7 25 52

White 5 89 9 9 62 35

Coloured 1.2 3 0 78 8 9

Indian 0.3 4 77 1.8 7 5

Other 0 0 0 5 0 0.4

From: Review Committee survey: 2003: 14

On the assumption that it would be representative to have a reasonable match between theracial composition of learners in relation to staff, the table indicates a sliding scale from veryrepresentative to hardly representative. The best match, not unexpectedly, is found in the ex-DET sample followed by ex-HOD, ex-HOR and lastly ex-HOA.

A challenge that immediately arises is that, globally, staff have to become more representative(as the SGB also). The question is how this should happen and to what extent.

At a hearing (Upington) and other hearings, parents felt that principals were manipulatingthe process in favour of the appointments of those educators whom they preferred.

A number of legal proceedings indicate that the arrangement referred to above is not workingwell. Recently, a newspaper reported:

“This week the Constitutional Court upheld a decision by The Pretoria High Court thathad ruled in favour of Settlers Agricultural High School, in Limpopo. The school bodyhad objected to the unilateral appointment of a new principal by the provincial depart-ment of education.” (Sunday Times - 26/10/2003)

The same article also referred to two other cases. In May, the Northern Cape High Courtfavoured the Governing Body of Kimberley Girls’ High School in the appointment of an edu-cator.

In June last year, Settlers’ governing body recommended Gerhardus Petrus Viljoen as princi-pal. The Limpopo Education Department ignored the recommendation and appointed Dorris

131

Policy Making

Mashamaite. The school body went to court and won.

These are just three of many cases that governing bodies have mounted against the depart-ments over appointments. The cases were lost by the Department, either on technicalities orlack of thorough substantiation. In the case of Settlers School, for example, the governing bodyfavoured the appointment of a white male, mainly because of the previously white agricultur-al environment, whilst the department favoured a black female as most of the pupils in theschool were black. These cases can be seen as a conflict between the imperatives of the SGB(presumably community preferences) and those of the department (presumably informed bytransformation imperatives). A comment in a popular newspaper concerning these issues said:

“The issues are socially and legally complex. They touch on the intricate inter-relation-ship between the rights of the governing bodies to make decisions on suitable candidatesfor employment at schools, and the need for transformation to overcome racial and gen-der imbalances in education, the court ruled.” (Sunday Times: 26/10/2003)

The issue is a difficult one that requires resolution, as Judge Richard Goldstone points out:“There can be no doubt that it would be in the interests of Justice for differences in the inter-pretation of the relevant Provisions (of the Employment of Educators Act) to be Resolved thejudge ruled” (Sowetan – 3 Oct 2003).

In a submission received from The Governing Body Foundation, the following suggestion wasmade:

“It is suggested that each school identify numerical goals for employment equity purpos-es that are realistic and appropriate within its context.” (Roos: 2003, 2)

The submission went further to say

“Be prepared to identify possible staff members from designated groups and invest intheir education and development in order to make it possible for them to qualify to applyand to be appointed.”

The notion of setting targets (as against quotas) was echoed in many hearings. The time hascome, to begin matching the racial composition of a school with its staff component. Morebroadly, this could be done simultaneously with a four-way match of the demographics of thecluster/district feeder zone versus the learner population versus the staff complement versusthe governing body distribution.

The suggestion is not being made that the phenomenon highlighted is widespread. There aremany schools that do not encounter difficulties with their recommendations regarding theappointment, promotion and transfer of educators. The example that these schools are setting

Policy Making

132

needs to be identified and commended as an attempt at being representative.

The Departments have also been criticised in hearings. Some reports state that they are veryslowin processing appointments, promotions and transfers. Others indicate that there is littledialogue between the SGB and the department, resulting in confrontation. And still othersinsist that the Departments side with the principal. Schools that have no, or dysfunctionalSGB’s, have requested Departments to process promotions, transfers and appointments. Thisis the worst-case scenario, as very little happens.

Hence, there are roughly three scenarios:

1. Schools do not have the capacity to consider appointments, promotions and transfers(APT), and should request the Departments to manage the process for them. The departments are tardy.

2. Schools are moving towards equity, representivity and redress. Many go unrecognisedand unsupported regarding the accompanying difficulties of deracialisation.

3. Schools have a mismatch with learners demographics or perpetuate a monochromeethos. Most of the schools that challenge the state come from this sector.

Departments sometimes deal with appointment, promotion and transfer (APT) issues in aheavy-handed and unsupportive manner. It would seem that Departments do not pay sufficientattention to potential problems.

7.2.4. Language

SASA (6(2), 6(3)) states that:

(2) The governing body of a public school may determine the language policy of theschool subject to the Constitution, this Act and provincial applicable law.

(3) No form of racial discrimination may be practised in implementing policy deter-mined under this section.

The determination of language rests with the Minister. The Minister, accordingly, determinedNorms and Standards for Language Policy in Public Schools (Dec 1997). The policy protectsthe rights of individual learners.

The learner must choose the language of instruction upon application for admission to a par-ticular school (B2 - SASA).

133

Policy Making

It further places an obligation on SGB’s regarding the promotion of multilingualism (C1 -SASA). An additional obligation is placed on the Department to ensure that those learnersrequiring a specific language of instruction, be accommodated. Schools have the right todecline admission where minimum stipulated class members cannot be made up.

The Pan South African Language Board submits that:

“By being conscious of the needs of communities they serve, the SGB’s should act as mon-itors of the linguistic human rights of learners within their schools.” (PANSALB submis-sion 2.2.4 d)

and:

“The promotion and success of multilingualism rest with the SGB’s. This can be achievedby the use of both formal and informal initiatives, such as the use of interpreters and trans-lators.” (Ibid: 2.2.4 (e))

In summary, the language policy is based on additive bilingualism i.e. promotion and use ofhome language alongside an additional language. Although the law, policy and guidelines suf-ficiently inform the imperatives of school language policies, a series of difficulties have aris-en.

It has been reported in hearings, that many learners are being turned away from schoolsbecause the school cannot make up the minimum stipulated number for a class of second-lan-guage instruction, for example, 40 learners in grade 1. This, admittedly, is a real problem inthe system as a whole. There are logistical and planning difficulties confronting everybody.Clearly the schools, SGB’s and even the PDE’s, are not paying sufficient attention to the com-plexity surrounding these difficulties. Unless the problem is seen in the context of it being aproblem for a wider community rather than an individual school, the individual school willalways find it difficult to fulfil its obligations towards satisfying the rights of the child. In thecurrent financial climate in the country, a school, realistically, cannot motivate for additionalteachers when it only has a handful of, or even worse, a single learner for a particular language.But a district can.

The result of these language problems is, that many parents are forced to opt for the languageof instruction offered by the school. Although this is a convenient way to avoid being exclud-ed, it compromises the educational principle, that learners learn more easily in the first fewyears at school in their home language, before switching to another language of instruction.

Another complication, is that those who are turned away on the grounds of language, do notknow how to seek help from the authorities. It is said that, even if they do turn to the authori-ties, nothing happens. The system, in its application, discriminates racially and abrogates lin-

Policy Making

134

guistic human rights. If this trend is not checked immediately, it is likely that only certain offi-cial languages would be sustained and other would become marginalised and fall into disuse.The killing-off of indigenous and other unofficial languages would be an indictment againstboth the SGB’s and the Department. This would be tantamount to a denial of people’s cultur-al rights - a “colonisation” of another kind.

Many good stories regarding the promotion of language in schools have been related to theCommittee. For example, an English language-medium school has devised a programme,compelling all learners and educators to attend an African-language class twice a week afterschool hours.

In other cases, where schools do have a second language medium besides the one traditionalto the school, there seems to be a lack of conviction to promote the second language.Knowingly or not, schools are fostering the hegemony of the dominant language, English, andto a lesser degree, that of Afrikaans. Assemblies, communication, interactions with parents andofficials and advertisements are mainly being transacted through the traditional language of the school. Few attempts are being made to promote the second language, e.g. by way of inter-preters or translation, etc. Learners who cannot communicate adequately in the dominant lan-guage, are not given the opportunity to communicate in the language of their choice.

7.2.5 Extracurricular activities (ECA)

The term extracurricular is used to cover those activities of learners, which fall outside of thedirect requirements of school subject activities. These refer to sports, hobbies, excursions,and pursuits not specific to the school curriculum. Art, music, dance, culture, additional sub-jects not covered in the curriculum, are also included.

It is not clear what roles SGB’s play in regard to ECA, even though S21 schools have the power todetermine their own policies in this regard. While the right to formulate ECA policy is provided tocertain schools, the legislative and policy framework does not give clear direction in this importantaspect of learners’ lives. Some SGB’s are very active in promoting a variety of ECA’s for learners.Others promote only certain kinds of ECA’s to groups of learners, e.g. those that pay extra fees, donot have travel difficulties, are fluent in the traditional language of its school, etc. Other SGB’s areeither apathetic, dysfunctional or incapacitated, in which case the school management and/or indi-vidual educators only do what is convenient to them.

To complicate matters, parents are called upon to sign indemnity forms, either upon admissionof their children to a school, or before their participation in ECA’s (as submitted in hearings).

Recent pronouncements by the DoE have confused the situation, as according to a recent courtjudgement, which found the school and the PDE to be responsible for an injury sustained by a

135

Policy Making

child while attempting to scale a fence in a Cape Flats school, schools cannot evade their lia-bility while the child is on the school’s premises. Schools and Departments are liable for neg-ligence and omission. But it is so, that the indemnity process tends to frighten away parents,thus causing unfair discrimination, albeit unintentionally. Only those parents who are moreconfident, literate or with a better grasp of their rights by law, insist on their children havingaccess to extracurricular activities.

In more than one hearing, the plea was made, that schools consider some safeguards whenlearners engage in extracurricular activities; a suggestion was, for example, made that schoolsor the department insure learners against eventualities associated with ECA’s. Financial andinsurance agencies with an understanding of the issues concerned now exist. It is important,that schools and their parents, through the SGB, take the trouble of exploring the implications,if comprehensive policies in this regard are not being developed.

A different kind of problem experienced in respect of ECA’s, is their uneven distribution in and between schools. In a given district or school cluster, some schools offer elaborate andexpensive ECA’s. Generally, these schools attract substantial sponsorships and donations,whilst others languish under deprived conditions in the same cluster/district. A way has to befound that would sustain the high levels of ECA provision and donor network whilst openingup more ECA opportunities for the rest of the learners in the relevant district/cluster/circuit.

7.3. Conclusion

SASA stipulates the following:

“The governing body of a public school must promote the best interests of the school and

(a) strive to ensure its development through the provision of quality education for all learn-ers at the school.” (SASA – 20 (1) (a))

It is the view of this report, that this is the most important role of SGB’s. It is the intention ofthis section, to illustrate that SGB’s, despite the best of intentions, are in general focussing toomuch of their energies on administrative and micro management issues and very little, if noattention to the kind of policy that would contribute to the building of a learning environmentin the school. Instead of playing a parliamentary-type of overseeing role, the SGB becomesembroiled in executive and judiciary issues and misses the opportunity of refining its role as agovernance for learning agency. The contention is made, that the main role of the SGB oughtto be one of custodianship of educational policies and promotion of the interest of the com-munity. This could be a possible interpretation of the above injunction.

The following table illustrates the ranking priority of issues in SGB’s:

Policy Making

136

Table 7.6: Issues discussed by the SGB

TOPIC

1 Fees

2 Discipline

3 School development plan

4 Admissions

5 Staff appointments

6 Fund-raising

7 Property management

8 Security

9 Examination results and academic performance

10 Curriculum

11 Sports

12 Language

13 Religion

14 Other

From: Review Committee survey.

The ranking of issues discussed, changed slightly, depending on ex-department. The tablebelow shows the ranking of issues among schools of the four former education authoritiesand LSEN schools.

137

Policy MakingTa

ble

7.7:

Issu

es f

ocus

ed o

n,by

ex-

depa

rtm

ent

Ex-

DE

T

Ex-

HO

A

Ex-

HO

D

Ex-

HO

R

LSE

N

1 Fe

es

Fees

Fe

es

Fees

Fu

nd-r

aisi

ng

2 A

dmis

sion

s Pr

oper

ty m

anag

emen

tSt

aff

appo

intm

ents

Fu

nd-r

aisi

ng

Fees

3 D

isci

plin

e St

aff

appo

intm

ents

D

isci

plin

e D

isci

plin

e St

aff

appo

intm

ents

4 Sc

hool

dev

elop

men

t pla

n Sc

hool

dev

elop

men

t pla

n Fu

nd-r

aisi

ng

Scho

ol d

evel

opm

ent

Scho

ol d

evel

opm

ent

plan

pl

an

5 E

xam

inat

ion

resu

lts a

nd

Dis

cipl

ine

Secu

rity

Secu

rity

Prop

erty

man

agem

ent

acad

emic

per

form

ance

6 Se

curi

ty

Fund

-rai

sing

Pr

oper

ty m

anag

emen

t Pr

oper

ty m

anag

emen

tD

isci

plin

e

7 St

aff

appo

intm

ents

Secu

rity

E

xam

inat

ion

resu

lts a

nd

Oth

erSe

curi

ty

acad

emic

per

form

ance

8 C

urri

culu

m

Cur

ricu

lum

A

dmis

sion

s E

xam

inat

ion

resu

lts a

ndA

dmis

sion

s

acad

emic

per

form

ance

9 Fu

nd-r

aisi

ng

Exa

min

atio

n re

sults

and

Sc

hool

dev

elop

men

tA

dmis

sion

s C

urri

culu

m

acad

emic

per

form

ance

pl

an

10

Prop

erty

man

agem

ent

Adm

issi

ons

Spor

ts

Cur

ricu

lum

Sp

orts

11

Spor

ts

Spor

ts

Cur

ricu

lum

St

aff

appo

intm

ents

E

xam

inat

ion

resu

lts

and

acad

emic

perf

orm

ance

12

Lan

guag

e L

angu

age

Lan

guag

e Sp

orts

L

angu

age

13

Rel

igio

n R

elig

ion

Rel

igio

n L

angu

age

Rel

igio

n

14

Oth

er

Oth

er

Oth

er

Rel

igio

n O

ther

Policy Making

138

Fees, discipline and school development plan discussions and efforts take up most of the timeof the SGB in general, and religion, language, sports and curriculum, least. The question isasked, whether this hierarchy do justice to the imperatives of “promoting the best interests ofthe school” and “provision of quality education”?

A maker from the Soul City Institute for Health and Development Communication had the fol-lowing to say regarding the role of SGB’s:

“Apart from striving to be people children know they can confide in, teachers can be conduits for information, which can help improve children’s quality of life. For example,educators can assist with applications for child support grants. Together with social workers, they can also help youngsters receive food parcels or vouchers once they haveapplied for the grant.

However, many children qualify for exemption even without the grant. Educators shouldtherefore, along with school governing bodies and school management, assist children ingetting exemption instead of drawing attention to their inability to pay.” (Sunday Times –31/08/2003,19)

The discussion of socio-economic issues is missing from the table of priorities. HIV/AIDS-affected learners, poor learners without grants and strategies for alleviating this, and othersocio-economic issues that impact on learners’ well-being, should be placed higher on the listof priorities for SGB’s. Are they addressing other barriers to learning?

Issues, such as ‘language’, ‘religion’, ‘culture’ are at least as important as ‘admissions’ and‘fundraising’. The school curriculum seems to be taken as given. This is an area that shouldbe of concern to the SGB’s. The choice of the curriculum, needs to be informed by the needsof the community. Its management and delivery is the business of professional staff.

There have been complaints (e.g. at the Kimberley hearing), about educators and principalsabusing the school’s nutrition programme. A good opportunity exists here, for SGB’s to takemore responsibility for overseeing and monitoring this kind of activity.

At a hearing in Upington, reports were heard of the high rate of adolescent suicide. It was sug-gested, that the governing bodies looked into the matter with a view to making recommenda-tions, via the principal, to the relevant authorities, as this would be “in the best interests of theschool”.

Inputs have been received, that SGB’s were wasting their time on issues, such as setting timesfor tests, and perks for educators, instead of attending to the more serious problems facingschools.

139

Policy Making

Negligible input has been received on SGB efforts in respect of:

■ Promotion of human rights and democracy in schools;■ Maximising the utilisation of physical resources (educators, books, stationery);■ Minimising wastage of resources (such as water and electricity).

It must be stressed, that a case is not being made that SGB’s are wilfully subverting schoolagendas or their primary function, as set out at the beginning of this section. They seem to bedoing their best, albeit, often, without direction or a sense of what is possible educationally.

There is evidence, of insufficient understanding, of the role of the SGB in promoting objec-tives for making the school a deep learning organisation. The conception of the school thatappears to be most dominant, is that of a place of containment, or more benignly, as a place ofwelfare. While this conception is understandable, given the massive social inequalities theschool has to deal with, every effort must be made, to ensure that the school prioritises educa-tion and learning. Often in the public hearings, people complained that they did not have suf-ficient understanding of the educational policies or current debates affecting learners and edu-cators. SGB’s need to be given direction on reprioritising of their duties, of the level on whichto deal with issues and how to balance their efforts.

The key question to ask, is how do we measure the success of an SGB?

Efficiency, efficacy, high pass-rates, cost -efficiency, preparing learners for life, promotion ofnational priorities, socio-economic assistance for learners or defence of community interests,are some yardsticks. The Committee suggests that the recipe for success of an SGB and aschool should consist of many elements, the main being, how the school is meeting its policycommitments and objectives in key-areas of its educational life. Much more discussion con-cerning this area, is needed. Schools and their SGB’s have to be assisted towards developingtheir capacity to promote the kind of governance that will turn schools into healthy and pro-ductive learning environments.

The understanding should not gain ground, that a reduction in the powers of the SGB is beingcalled for. SASA and allied policies have laid excellent bases for school transformation. Whatis suggested, however, is that the exercising of powers in an unfettered and unchannelled man-ner, has to some extent compromise the ability of the SGB’s, to fulfil its historic mission offacilitating social transformation and capacity-building of parents. In order to re-instate andenhance the value of SGB’s, it is necessary to supplement policy, guidelines and structures thatwill ensure smooth and sustained SGB development and school transformation.

Policy Making

140


1. A common admission policy for all schools that is consistent with the NationalConstitution should be drafted, circulated and implemented.

2. Sections 33 and 34 of the Admission Policy for Ordinary Public Schools (Oct 1998), suggests that “Departments may determine feeder zones for schools.” Thisshould be made compulsory. Instead of demarcating a zone per school, schools needto be clustered (in a way, for example, as suggested later) and the feeder zoneshould be described for the whole cluster. This cluster could ideally come under theLGS overseeing it. Important, is to ensure that learners are accommodated withinthe cluster.

3. It is recommended, that a system is developed for managing, and even limiting,the increase in school fees that an SGB may set. A system would be required,whereby all the relevant stakeholders can negotiate, as in bargaining forums, suchas the ELRC, what a “reasonable” increase would constitute. This task could bedevolved to the NSGC. It is suggested, that such a system would protect both thepoor and the well-to-do. Schools would still be able to raise funds, over andabove the fees they collect.

4. It is proposed, that the cluster concept is institutionalised more concretely. Schools should be required, to institutionalise the practice of co-operative plan-ning concerning key areas of their operations. The most important, should be thatof educator appointments, as well as the sharing of resources. It is not necessaryto have all the schools in a single zone or cluster, in order to have and duplicateexpensive facilities and equipment.


5. Parameters for the use of fees need to be demarcated, e.g. X% for sport, Y% forexcursions, Z% for additional learning materials, etc. These parameters should befashioned in a way that would promote the sense of a common national publicschool system. (The NGS could propose, and the LGS monitor).

6. It is recommended, that the SGB and the principal (whose role is to be clarified),be required to take reasonable steps, to alleviate the in-school effects of povertyon learners. It should be the duty of the school principal in particular, to link upthe relevant authorities with familiesexperiencing hardship, e.g. Welfare, Health,

141

Policy Making

Safety, etc. Where there is no intervention in deserving cases, the principal shouldbring this to the attention of a higher authority, e.g. the LGB, District Official, etc.The complaint channel suggested in 2 above, could be followed.

7. A systematised and incentivised plan should be developed and managed, to channelcorporate and large donations to poorer schools.

The fee exemption process needs to be simplified and explained. Exemption formsshould be standardised, in order to ascertain the quintile of the learner’s household.

8. The only requirement for non-exempt parents, is to pay the maximum prescribedlimit of fees for the school. The practice of allowing only those, who pay for addi-tional services, e.g. excursions, boarding, etc, to benefit, must be outlawed, as it isunfair discrimination. Withholding reports, publicising names refusing entry, etc,regarding learners, who have not paid fees, should also be outlawed. The well-beingof learners in respect of uniform costs, transport, food, shelter, health, etc, should bereferred to a higher structure for intervention where the school cannot provide suf-ficient relief. It should be the duty of the principal, for example, to take these mat-ters to the LGS/Circuit Official as the next point of reference, before referral to theHead of the Department.

9. Immediate steps should be taken, to identify schools where APT functions are beingneglected or subverted through incapacity or narrow interests. The Departmentshould take over these functions.

10. Departments should develop programmes and advocacy initiatives encouraging,supporting and recognising schools that take steps towards redress, equity and rep-resentivity in APT and other governance issues.

11. It is recommended, that the National School Governing Council develops and con-sequently assists all schools, regarding a simple target-table for achieving equity. Amodel to match staff and learners could be constructed along the following lines:

(a) Target period of say, five years, or up to the end of the next SGB term.(b) Racial composition of staff to be brought within a 20% deviation to racial com-

position of learners.

The following simple numerical construct may serve to illustrate the point:

Suppose a school has 300 learners, of who 150 are African, with a staff compo-

Policy Making

142

nent of 10 educators. The recommendation suggests a target of three to sevenAfrican educators by the determined period.

(c) Representation of other designated groups, e.g. females, disabled, etc, could alsobe suggested.

(d) The Circuit Office/LGS to monitor and review at target date and deal with themaccording to the agreed-upon procedures.

(e) Procedures to deal with non-achievement of targets to be developed by theMinister on advice of the NSGC. The Minister would similarly set a new set oftargets in due course if necessary on the advice of the NSGC.

(f) A similar approach could be used to set targets for management posts in a clus-ter/circuit supervised by the LGS, say, on behalf of the HoD.

(g) If acceptable, the model could be expanded to cater for a desired four-way matchamong learners in a cluster, learners in a school, members of staff, members ofa school governing body.

13. While the normal rule should apply that, should there be more than 40 children ina grade who require instruction in particular, an educator should be supplied forthose children. If, e.g. a school’s medium of instruction is English, and there aremore than the determined threshold number of learners, whose home language isAfrikaans (say 30%), then the school should offer at least one class of Afrikaans-medium instruction in the relevant grades. Learners should still have the choice toattend classes in the medium they prefer. Where the obvious does not apply, forexample, when there are fewer than the required number of children of a particularlanguage in a single school, schools should be clustered for the purposes of deter-mining the language needs of the children within their cluster. School admissionpolicies should be adjusted, to accommodate these classes within the staff estab-lishment recognised by the Department. At least one post and one class in a cluster,should be reserved to avoid the dilemma of ‘not enough space’ or ‘not enough edu-cators’. Where these additional classes in the cluster have fewer learners than theminimum stipulated, the HoD, in consultation with the Circuit Office and the LGS,if and when it exists, as well as the school in question, would determine. This sec-ond language would be determined by the HoD for different circuits, in consulta-tion with the Circuit Office and the LGS.

The Minister, at the advice of the NGS, should amend/supplement existing policy/leg-islation in this regard, in consultation with the NGS, and review and adjust as required.The HoD, via the Circuit Office/LGS should monitor implementation.

143

Policy Making

14. All public schools should vigorously promote the usage and status of a second lan-guage, in order to be fully bilingual (at least) by a date determined by the Minister.

15. There is a dire need for a comprehensive ECA policy for schools. It is recom-mended, that a task team is established, to develop an ECA policy that wouldembrace, inter alia, national policies on sport, art, culture, etc, guidelines on thechoice and scope of ECA’s, the specific roles and responsibilities of SGB’s and principals in regard to ECA’s, clear advocacy for non-exclusion of learners in aschool from an activity on the basis of non-affordability, transport, language, etc., andempowering Circuits, Districts/LGS to oversee ECA in the schools in their care, witha view to encouraging the sharing of resources and sponsorships, as well as cama-raderie.

16. It is recommended, that PDE’s conduct a performance audit of a random number ofSGB’s on an annual basis. The audit needs to be conducted in relation to the SGB’sMission and Vision and School Development Objectives.

17. It is recommended, that the PDE’s conduct regular needs assessments amongSGB’s, to determine the nature of support an SGB should receive from the PDE. Aset of guidelines should also be provided for principals, to assist them in deliveringon-site training for SGB’s. This is particularly necessary in rural areas.

Improving

144

CHAPTER EIGHT

Improving the System of School Governance

8. Introduction

This chapter examines the vagaries and challenges of the present system of school governanceand makes recommendations with respect to possible forms of systemic correction. The chap-ter begins with an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current system. Againstthe backdrop of this assessment, the report considers how particular issues may be addressed.

8.1. The strengths and weaknesses of the current system.

The broad tenor of this report thus far, has essentially been, that South Africa has developeda system of governance, of which it can be justifiably proud. At the same time, the report has tried to show how much higher the country has to climb, to bring the system to a point,where it is operating with a reasonable degree of confidence in itself, confidence that it notonly has the essentials in place, but that everybody knows what is expected of them. So,what can one say about the strengths and weaknesses of the system?

8.1.1. Strengths

When the Ministerial Review survey asked the schools what they thought the strengths of the system were, they mentioned the following six themes:

1. Infusing positive values to the technical leadership and executive management of theschool.

2. Improving representivity (gender, racial and other) and widening participation in allfacets of the school’s decision-making and functioning.

3. Helping to promote co-ownership of and co-responsibility for the school’s challenges. 4. Bringing professional expertise to bear on the technical leadership and executive man-

agement of the school, without any costs.5. Promoting teamwork.6. Introducing a business orientation to the functioning of the school.

145

Improving

Statistical evidence was brought to bear on these conclusions. It would seem, however, withthe benefit of a somewhat broader view of the range of information available to the ReviewCommittee, that these strengths could be prioritised and adjusted somewhat.

8.1.1.1. Infusing positive values

Almost half of the principals or SGB members (45%), who completed the questionnaire,reported that SGB’s were infusing the values of honesty, loyalty, enthusiasm, willingness,wisdom, insight, commitment, interest and dedication into the management and leadership ofthe school.

This, it could be argued with some qualification of the survey’s conclusions, is one of twogreat achievements of the new system. Even though the experience is uneven, in the sensethat not all SGB’s are equally good, the system has acquired thousands of men and women,who have invested large portions of themselves and their lives in the system. As an experiment in public participation, the system has achieved impressive results. Theaim of the system, that of instituting the form of democratic participation in governance, hasclearly been achieved, but, and this is the greater achievement, which is being pointed to, themen and women coming into the system, are coming in with purpose. There is no turningback now.

8.1.1.2. Development of a strong sense of co-ownership and co-responsibility

The second great achievement of school governance is that of co-ownership and co-responsi-bility. While there are, justifiably, questions raised about the ways in which state responsibil-ities are being shifted to parents, the reality is that the modern state, at least for the next fewgenerations, is not going to be able, by itself, to support all the needs of the modern family.The issue is profoundly controversial, and draws attention to the question, what the nature ofthe society would be, that South Africans wish to have in place in future.

However, in the short to medium term, it is unavoidable, that the state would have to work in partnership relations with civil society structures in servicing the basic needs and interestsof the public. For the moment, the public good and what it constitutes, is a matter that wouldhave to be deliberated on in collaborative forums. Furthermore, as a way of bringing into thepublic system alienated and disaffected people of colour, who were deliberately shut out byapartheid, the collaborative forum of the SGB would be a critical space.

Taking this line of thought, in the short period of seven years, the country has developed andentrenched as already established tradition, a culture of school governance. It will be diffi-cult for the country to retreat from this newly-shared governance culture.

Improving

146

8.1.1.3. Systemic arrangements

The third great achievement of the new governance reforms, is that the country now not onlyhas the architecture for a system in place, but also the practices, structures and regulations.From virtually nothing, a whole new apparatus (in the best sense of the word) has come intobeing in South Africa. School governance has at the apex of the system and at its base, anarticulated set of structures and regulations that deliver, regardless at this point what one’sopinion of its quality might be, governance outputs. Parents are nominated for elections,elections take place, officials are appointed in PDE’s, SGB’s liaise (however imperfectly)with officials, a directorate is being set up in the DoE, and a highly functional organisationserves the interests of governance across the length and breadth of the system.

8.1.1.4. Bringing on board specialist professional expertise

A significant strength of the new system, and linking with paragraph 8.1.1.3. above, is that ithas brought considerable expertise into the field of education. Many commentators, in talk-ing about the features of the new globalised order, talk about ‘joined-up’ solutions to ‘joined-up’ problems. Education is a ‘joint-up’ site. It is a social space in which the ‘every-day’ – the home conditions children bring to school, the social mood of the township or thesuburb, popular tastes and fashions, political trends, and most critically, people’s socio-eco-nomic welfare - is always present. Nothing in the school happens independently of thebroader context in which it takes place. Solving the problems of the school requires thejoined-up expertise of a range of professions, disciplines and people with an understandingof complexity.

What one is seeing in the school governance system that is developing in the country now,are the beginnings of this new joined-up approach. A significant number of respondents tothe survey (35%), drew attention to the professional expertise, such as financial managementand legal advice, offered to the technical leadership and executive management of the school, available to the modern school. They could easily have added to this, another expert-ise that many respondents in the different research methodologies frequently made mentionof, namely the SGB members’ understanding of the communities they were serving. Whilethe survey made mention of the fact that service was being provided at no financial cost tothe school, the real achievement, it seems, is that the ‘joined-up’ paradigm is being institu-tionalised within the system.

8.1.1.5. Improving representivity

More than one-third of the respondents (37%), indicated that their SGB’s were making sig-nificant contributions to improving a wider degree of participation in all facets of their

147

Improving

school’s decision-making and functioning. Interesting comments in this respect, included thefollowing:

- There was a strong promotion of parental involvement, particularly the parentsfrom disadvantaged backgrounds. Some schools reported, that the educator andprincipal seem to play a supportive role – they serve as mentors.

- SGB’s also seem to be able to harness community support (parents, educators,learners) for schools, particularly in communities that have been previously mar-ginalised in respect of having an input in the running of the schools their childrenattend.

- A small percentage (6%), indicated that SGB’s help to depoliticise and depolariseissues, while schools grapple with challenges of integration and transformation.This was reported mainly in ex-HOA and ex-HOD schools .

While this is an important gain that has been made, it seems, as is argued below, that it canalso be seen as the Achilles heel of the system. It may be that the model holds potential inthis regard, but this potential is a long way from having been realised.

8.1.2. Weaknesses

Five common themes emerged from the open-ended responses with respect to respondents’views about SGB weaknesses:

1. Skills deficits among SGB members2. Contextual limitations3. Apathy4. Lack of teamwork5. Under-representation

The graph below shows the percentage of schools that indicated these weaknesses. Theseweaknesses were expected to be more prominent in certain types of schools than others. Forthis reason, the graph also illustrates the percentage of schools that reported weaknesses asper the school status, i.e. Section 20, Section 20 with some Section 21 functions, and Section21.

Improving

148

Graph 1: Weaknesses

Note: * Missing data was not included in the analyses.* Number of schools classified as Section 20 = 63* Number of schools classified as Section 20, with some Section 21

functions = 41* Number of schools classified as Section 21 = 134* Total n =251

Again, as with the discussion about strengths above, it is possible to present the question ofweaknesses differently, and in a somewhat different order.

There are, one can argue, two great weaknesses in the current system, the first, is that theadministration is not yet structured in such a way that governance touches what RichardElmore calls, the technical heart of the system of education. The second, is the issue of con-textual difficulties highlighted in the survey.

8.1.2.1. Dislocation from the heart of the system

The most critical issue about any administrative, management or governance system, and this will be returned to frequently in the remainder of this report, is how well it engages withthe core business of the system it is supposed to serve. Great as the potential of the currentsystem may be, it does not yet have a deep articulation with the business of education, that is

149

Improving

teaching and learning. This is possibly the major reason, in some senses, why the system isso often locked in conflict concerning the meaning of management and governance.

Debates concerning management and governance, are a reflection of the different under-standings of what this core business ought to consist of. It could be said that the scale of theconflict reflects the beleaguered state of the teaching profession, and the suspicion withwhich the profession is regarded. Fair or unfair as this comment might be, the problem isthat governance is not yet engaged with teaching and learning.

It is acknowledged and recognised that the EMGD directorate, in the course of 2003, spent agreat deal of its time and person-power resources in dealing with the governance implica-tions of the New Curriculum Statement (NCS). This reflects an understanding in the DoE, ofthe interlocked nature of the reform and change process. A strength of the DoE, is its high-level person-power capacity. There are individuals in the DoE, who have deep insight intothe system. Its weakness, however, is its inability to translate these strengths into sustainableand durable processes and structures.

It remains a matter of concern that one of the strongest instruments, and sites, available foreffecting site-based and systemic reform in the system, the school development plan, is sopoorly utilised. It will be remembered that the observation was made in Chapter six, in thediscussion on functionality, that very few SGB’s understood their school development plansin relation to the core business of the school. Instead, those plans were often focused oninfrastructural development.

8.1.2.2. Contextual limitations

One-third of the survey’s respondents (31%), attributed deficient SGB functioning to contex-tual limitations, such as a lack of public transport, the distance between place of residenceand the school, and time of meetings. To this could also easily have been added the fraughtsocial climate in which many schools operate with vandalism, school safety and gangsterisminhibiting parents’ ability to make their contributions easily and with a sense of security (seeAppendix I).

These explanations are correct, but they do not cut deeply enough. The majority of parents inthis country, have not had a prolonged exposure to schooling and much less to a higher edu-cation. Schools are pre-eminently sites of a kind of socialisation that is deeply inscribed inwhat one might, somewhat unsatisfactorily, present as middle-class values, namely reading,collecting books, cultivating specialist interests and so forth. The majority of people in thiscountry, have been denied access to or have not had the opportunity of acquiring these expe-riences. Understandings of education, as a result, are relatively under-developed. Educationis often equated with simple credentialism. The significance of this for governance work is

Improving

150

profound, because governance has to be seen to be harnessed around the school project –that of cultivating school dispositions, the discipline of reading and writing, the love oflearning and so forth. It is therefore, not that people are ignorant, they are not, but they lackthe kinds of understandings important for achievement in the school setting.

8.1.2.3. Skills deficits among SGB members

This was the weakness noted most frequently by schools. Forty-four percent (44%) felt thatskills deficits among SGB members, weaken the effective functioning of SGB’s. This wasmost frequently reported by Section 21 schools. These observations carry substance, but theyhave often been reported by parents in decontextualised ways. The skills deficit that is sup-posed to characterise parents in the SGB, arise entirely from their contextual realities.

Of the total number of 44%, almost 15% mentioned financial management skills as a weak-ness. This deficit was reported mainly by ex-HOR schools and ex-DET schools and some ex-HOA schools.

Of the 44%, 10% stated that they lacked legal expertise. Interestingly, Section 21 schoolsreported this slightly more frequently than schools with Section 20 status. This problem wasmentioned often by ex-HOR schools.

Interestingly fewer than 10% of the respondents, addressed the issue of their members’understanding of educational issues. This small number spoke of the difficulty parent mem-bers had in making appropriate educator appointments. This was reported mainly by Section21 schools. Section 20 schools did not make this claim.

A number of school principals (15%), attribute the skills deficits to the fact that many of theSGB members, particularly among the parents, have high levels of illiteracy, limited profi-ciency in English or very little formal education. Some schools reported, that SGB membersare still chosen on account of their popularity in the township or community and not on thebasis of their technical or professional skills.

8.1.2.4. Apathy

Twenty-five per cent of the schools, mentioned parental apathy as an issue. This manifesteditself in non-attendance or poor attendance of meetings and workshops, low participation atthese forums even if members did attend, and/or lack of implementation orientation withregard to decisions taken by the SGB. As with the point about the skills deficit of parents,this point cannot be understood separately from the reality of where people in South Africahave come from and still find themselves.

151

Improving

This latter statement was more evident among the poverty-stricken communities with verylittle economic activity and productivity, i.e. the lower-quintile schools.

8.1.2.5. Lack of teamwork

A lack of teamwork emerged as a critical weakness in 22% of the schools surveyed. Insome cases (6%), particularly those of Section 21 schools, the issue of role-blurring betweenthe SGB, principal, SMT and educators, presented a problem.

A related problem, was the dominance of particular members in SGB decision making andimplementing those decisions. Others reported as a problem, the promotion by some mem-bers, of their own interests, and the resultant conflict. One school reported, that members aredistrustful of the principal, because of this very issue. In other instances, where consensuswas not reached, this was usually claimed to be due to “pride and ignorance”.

Some schools indicated that some SGB’s are not functional because members are not remu-nerated for their work and services. This was most frequently reported by Section 20schools.

8.1.2.6. Lack of representivity

The issue of representation was a problem in almost one fifth (15%) of the schools. In somecases, this was attributed to the fact that not enough black parents were serving on the SGB,particularly in schools located in suburban areas.

A lack of commitment from parents of learners, who felt that their interests were not beingrepresented at the level of the SGB, was reported in 12% of these.

8.2. Getting to grips with the problems in the system

It is suggested here, that ‘getting-to-grips’ with the system, is going to require significant inputfrom both the ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ ends of the system. The DoE itself, is going to have a freshlook at its role in and approach to school governance. This ‘look’ will essentially have to be anoperations ‘look’ that deals with issues of implementation.

The ‘bottom-end’ stakeholders too, will have to consider what contribution they might make.Such a ‘bottom-end’ will consist of the SGB’s themselves, their associations, allied organisa-tions, such as trade unions, student organisations, principals’ associations and other civil soci-ety structures.

Improving

152

The nature of this input is discussed below.

8.2.1. SGB interaction/tensions

The question of schools’ S20 and S21 status is a useful point of entry at which to start think-ing about how the system could be improved. It is concerning the functions that schools arerequired to perform, that one should be thinking in terms of how corrections could be madeand changes effected. Most schools have either section 20 or section 21 status, with some amixture of both.

The following graph illustrates the distinction across the provinces:

Graph 2: S20/21 Distribution across provinces

From: Case study report – page 37

Information available in the DoE and also obtained from other sources during the course of theReview, suggest that this table is incorrect. The proportion of S21 schools in the NorthernCape, for example, is far greater. Likewise, it is not entirely accurate, that the great majority of schools in the Eastern Cape have S21 status.

Nonetheless, it is true that the distribution of Section 20 and 21 schools is uneven across theprovinces. Just about two-thirds of schools have either full or partial Section 21 status.Indications are that the percentage is set to grow. It is desirable that all schools, in the long run,be empowered to attain full Section 20 and 21 status. However, this would turn out to be a hol-low victory, if the queries that have arisen about how the department relates to the schools, arenot sorted out.

153

Improving

8.2.1.1. The role of the Department

The case study report made clear that:

“The members of the SGB feel that they are victims of a PED that fails to supply itemsordered legitimately. They complain of endless red tape. Forms need to be completed atthe whim and fancy of middle-management officials in the PEDs.” (Case-study report –page 8)

The bureaucracy needs to be streamlined to resource schools efficiently. No modern educa-tional system can operate efficiently and correctly, without a facilitating bureaucracy that bothlistens and leads. The administrative structures within the system, must always be operating atfull capacity. They must show, by example, the capacity to deliver on time, fulfil their prom-ises, imaginatively and constructively offer guidance, and where necessary, apply sanctions.Many complaints were made in provinces, such as the Eastern Cape, about S21 schools notreceiving their allowances. In some schools, this relationship has deteriorated to the pointwhere schools now operate independently of this allowance. They raise funds to make goodthis unallocated money. The danger of this problem is in the reciprocation. Many such schoolsalso begin to develop the argument, that if you are not going to give me what is my due, I willwithdraw my accountability to you. The consequent problem here, is the diminution of thestanding of the department in those schools and the entrenchment of an ‘independent’ dis-course.

The same report referenced above, went on to state:

“Circuit managers must play a more active role in attending SGB meetings and setting upa forum of SGB chairpersons and the PED where mutual issues can be resolved. SGBchairpersons resent principals informing them of developments.”

Governing body members need ready access to knowledgeable and reliable sources of infor-mation. PDE’s should ensure that relevant information is collected and disseminated, so thatpeople are kept up-to-date with development and issues, so that they are in a better position tomake informed decisions. (Case-study report – page 11)

The Review of Financing, Resourcing and Costs of Education in Public Schools (Feb 2003)observed that non-Section 21 schools (mainly the poorer schools) were not getting theirrollovers from the previous financial year. The unspent monies that were due to the schools fora financial year, were lost to them. The Review went on to observe, that running available bal-ances for schools, were not available. This paralysed attempts by schools to conserve resourcesas well as to secure procurements. A view was expressed that, where SGB’s are unable tosecure procurements, this function ought to be delegated to the principal.

Improving

154

In the hearings, it was mentioned that some schools were not sure of their status. Others (at theKimberley hearing) complained that PDE’s were not consulting/informing schools of the clo-sure of schools, conversion of schools (Upington) and mergers of schools. There also werecomplaints of slow “feedback loops”, for example, on educator appointments. This point isappositely captured by McPherson and Naicker (2002 - 18, 19) who say:

“However, reports from some schools indicated that SGB’s were still plagued with com-munication problems. Mention was made of members lacking confidence and commit-ment, and of communicating selectively with stakeholders. Respondents at schools werehoping that district training would remedy these maladies and create stronger SGB’s.”

Departments themselves, on the other hand, had substantial concerns about how SGB’s weremanaging their responsibilities:

“Department officials observed that while many facilities have been created to deal withSGB’s’ queries, requests and support, these offers have not been taken up. The re-locationof the centrality of the school principal, as mentioned earlier in the report could resolve thisimpasse. Officials also complained that many of the better resourced schools were movingvery slowly on transformation pertaining to equity, redress and representativity as evi-denced in learner enrolment patterns, composition of staff and SGB’s, school language andadmission policies. They argued that many schools resist departmental input in this regardto the extent of challenging HoD directions, using school resources.”

8.2.1.2. Departmental support

The support by departments to capacitate and empower SGB’s, is acknowledged. The fol-lowing graphs indicate the commitment of departments.

155

Improving

Graph 3: Services provided to SGB’s

Ministerial Committee survey – Pages 17/18)

One-third of the schools (35%), reported to have received training from the PDE’s.Principals and other SGB members, indicated that training was helpful in many areas, andthat it helped them to understand the roles and responsibilities of SGB’s. Many principals,indicated that they had received training on financial management. Training on team-build-ing, conflict management and holding of meetings has also been received by a number ofSGB’s.

A number of schools, reported that SGB’s also received training on other issues, includingstrategic planning, school property management, staff appointments and problem-solving.

The following table indicates the typical training received by schools, disaggregated by for-mer education authority.

Improving

156

Table 8.1: Training received, disaggregated by ex-department

ex-DET ex-HOA ex-HOD ex-HOR Total

Roles and responsibilities of the SGB 85% 61% 89% 71% 77%

Financial management 80 52 78 62 71

Team-building 41 28 11 14 33

Conflict management 47 24 22 29 37

Holding of meetings 47 43 56 29 45

Other 11 13 44 14 12

The table showsa general trend among former education authorities. All schools reported that the training received, was mainly for coaching SGB members on their roles and respon-sibilities. This was followed by training on financial management and then on the holding ofmeetings.

The observation may be made that the type of training that is provided, depends critically onwho the service providers are and what they can do. In this respect, it may often be that theservice that is provided, is not what is most urgently needed. It is, therefore, important toconsider who the training providers were. In most instances, the provincial DoE’s wereresponsible for providing training to SGB members (71%). Non-governmental organisations(NGO’s), private providers (paid by school) and SGB associations provided training to 13%to 14% of the SGB’s.

Graph 4: Service providers that provided training

157

Improving

However, in spite of the best intentions of the departments, the dissatisfaction in the schoolsmust be noted. The report from the survey commented:

“The inability to speak and understand English was felt to impact negatively on some par-ents’ abilities to benefit from training, particularly where training material is in English oris in written form. (Page 35.)

and

It was noted that where parents are employed or self-employed a number experience diffi-culty in attending meetings held during the day. It is also difficult for shift workers toattend evening meetings. Although respondents did not state this explicitly one can assumethat this type of problem affects workers in lower wage earning jobs or in occupationswhere time at work is more closely monitored. Some respondents indicated that parents inthese types of occupations have to seek permission from their employers in order to be ableto attend, or they have to take time off.” (Ministerial Committee survey – page 36)

Highlighting contextual factors preventing participation in SGB activities, the MinisterialReview Committee survey report suggested:

“Different training strategies, such as oral presentations, posters and storyboards, could beused. These strategies could be tailored to the level of the participants and would not nec-essarily require that participants be able to read and write.” (Ministerial Committee survey– page 51.)

It was also suggested that whole parent communities need education on what an SGB is andwhat it is supposed to do. Training, as an immediate means of support, is therefore an urgentissue in thinking through, how the PDE’s will relate to the SGB’s.

8.2.1.3. Reinforcing the strengths of the system

In view of the discussion above, while there is currently a great deal of capacity in the systemconcerning its governance responsibilities, there are also serious difficulties. Systems andprocesses currently exist in the system for overview and monitoring and the ability to movequickly to where difficulties lie. Liaison between the EMDG Directorate and the PDE’s andtheir officers in the districts, is reasonably strong. Regular meetings and forums take placewhere all the governance role-players in the country come together to talk about and plan fordealing with the issues of the field.

The governance directorates, branches and divisions, particularly in the DoE, but also in the

Improving

158

PDE’s, have through administrative processes and arrangements, working relationships withother administrative arms of the system. This is important and necessary, because the work ofgovernance must be understood in relation to the other functions of the PDE’s and DoE.

Critically, however, an argument can be made that governance is not yet positioned centrallyin these administrations. This is partially the result of the kind of decentralisation that hasdeveloped within the system. With provinces having concurrent responsibility for many func-tions, they are able to develop in relatively autonomous forms. One is seeing, as a result, dis-tinct, and sometimes strange, arrangements being made at provincial level for the field of gov-ernance.

A strong argument can be made, for the elevation of the governance operation at the DoE to a higher level. Even more importantly, it is known that governance functions are inappropriatelyplaced in many PDE’s, where the senior official responsible for governance is also responsible fora range of other functions that often distract him or her from her task, ending up, as in one of thelargest provinces, with a relatively junior official effectively having to take responsibility for thearea. In other provinces aspects of the governance responsibility, are distributed across the admin-istration, so that there is not a consolidated governance division.

Resourcing of governance is also critical. While resources have been mobilised by the gov-ernment, it seems that a great deal more needs to be done. To make the governance ambitionsof the system realisable, what is needed, is an injection of resources into the system that will,even for a limited period, support provinces even at the lowest levels of delivery. It will be necessary here, in the decentralised framework that currently operates, to find ways of ensur-ing that funds are deployed at levels of the system that are effectively outside of the control ofthe DoE. To this end, the forums that are instituted, need to consider the mechanisms andbureaucratic strategies that will guarantee the deployment of additional resources where theyare intended.

The questionaddressed here, is essentially that of bureaucratic alignment. It seems that a majorreview will be necessary, of the configuration of organisational structures of governance.Driving such a review, should be the question, of what organisational form will most effec-tively support the achievement of a governance programme for the country.

This question will, of necessity, have to consider the organisational dynamics of the system,including its current decentralisation imperatives. While the current system makes allowancefor provinces to carve their own ways forward, as they see, contextually, what is in their bestinterests, and it is important to preserve the right of provinces to do so, at the same time, theneeds of the macro-system must be given much more prominence. It is necessary that a viewand a plan emerges that confronts the ways that decentralisation is able, currently, to impedeor obstruct the achievement of systemic goals.

159

Improving

It is necessary always, also, for the system to know what its limitations are, and to develop pol-icy that is commensurate with the capacity it has. It is absolutely no good, to have policies thatcan never be implemented, or programmes that do not have the organisational resources tofully realise what the policies seek to achieve. Such approaches only demoralise everybodyand install in the system a climate of distrust. The credibility of anybody who has any mean-ingful role to play, is thus always under suspicion.

Suggestions for a programme are made in the Recommendations section.

8.2.2. Other stakeholders

There is a range of critical players that will have to be brought into the discussion about, andthe agenda for, action for improving the system. Following the discussion above concerningthe partnership tradition that the country has been able to achieve in the last seven years, it isclear that no change in the system is going to take place, without the significant support ofstructures outside of government. While it is the role of government to lead and facilitate development, little of substance will happen without the co-operation – the ‘buy-in’ – of organisations, such as SGB associations, educator trade unions, student organisations andother civil society structures.

As things stand, while many role-players have regularly and consistently pointed to the largegains made in the governance arena in the last seven years and have come to feel a sense ofownership of the system, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among some about their roleand relationships:

● Unions complained of marginalisation by SGB’s.

● SGB’s complained of interference by unions and sometimes by student organisations(“They want to run our schools”).

● SGB’s did not know how or whether to relate to traditional leaders.

● The SGB associations and the SGB’s were not clear on the kind of relationship they shouldhave.

● Some SGB’s complained of political interference and/or domination by political group-ings.

In summary, it becomes clear that, as schools move towards Section 21 status, the tensionshighlighted above, need to be resolved and a harmonious working relationship to be estab-lished between SGB’s and all other educational parties.

Improving

160

Critically, SGB’s need to have a clear idea of how they legally relate to and talk to government.Currently, liaison for the SGB with government is through the principal. There needs to be a much clearer line of communication established between the SGB and the PDE’s.

8.2.2.1. SGB associations (see Appendix F)

It is in reflecting upon allied associations, that a discussion about school governing bodyassociations is appropriate at this point. School governing body associations are among themost crucial resource and representational structures available to SGB’s. They provideSGB’s with the opportunity of inserting their voice into the wider public domain.

There are a large number of SGB associations in the country. The Review Committee surveyencountered 20, but informed opinion suggests that there may be up to 100 such structures.Four of these, have a national reach, namely, NASGB, FEDSAS, the Governing BodyFoundation and SANASE (See Appendix A). The last is an association that caters for LSENschools.

While it is true that there is a multiplicity of associations in the country, many of the smallerones are, in fact, either members of, or associated with one of the four larger national organi-sations. The table below, provides some indication of the associations brought to light by the Ministerial Review survey. More than one-third of the schools (35%), reported that theywere members of an SGB association. Many reported an alliance to FEDSAS, NASGB andSANASE. The table below, also provides a list of SGB associations, schools reported tobelong to:

161

Improving

Table 8.2: SGB associations

Name of association Number of %schools (n=88)

(n=88)

Association of SGB’s of KZN 1 1

Bakwena-Bapo Circuit SGB Association 1 1

Bizana SGB Association 1 1

Duncan Village SGB Association 1 1

Engcobo District SGB 3 3

FEDSAS 40 45

Governing Body Foundation 7 8

Kgotsong SGB’s Association 1 1

Konekwena 1 1

Lejweleputswa District SGB Association 1 1

Limpopo Province Association 1 1

Magakala SGB Association 1 1

Mdantsane Association of School Governing Bodies 2 2

National Association of School Governing Bodies 5 6

Paarl SGB Association 1 1

Piet Retief SGB Association 1 1

SENABO 1 1

SANASE 4 5

Umhlontlo SGB Association 1 1

Western Cape Association of SGB’s 1 1

The reasons for being a member of an association, are varied. Clearly, however, as the tablebelow makes clear, membership has much to do with the guidance an association can pro-vide. In this respect, legal advice and policy information and guidance are critical to SGBmembers. The more general reasons are tabulated below:

Improving

162

Table 8.3: Perceived benefits of belonging to an SGB association

Benefits Total %

Provide legal advice 72%

Provide policy information, knowledge and guidelines on SGB functioning 84

Collective bargaining 63

Represent parents’ views 55

Provide mutual support, advice and assistance 51

Training of SGB members in SGB roles, responsibilities and Functions 30

Provide a link to the district and province and

opportunity to network with other schools 7

Significantly, of the schools who responded to the survey, only eight percent (8%) felt that they would derive no benefit from being members of an SGB association. As participation inthe public hearings revealed, this membership is crucial. Members feel strongly about whatthey are deriving and the improved position, particularly in relation to the PDE’s, that mem-bership gives them. Strenuous efforts should be made, to build the reach of these organisationsand indeed to unify them. Many of the organisations, as Appendix F suggests, continue to bestructured on the historically demarcated grounds of race.

The most important initiative that needs to be taken, one can argue, is for the SGB associationsto put their own house in order. As matters currently stand, working relationships betweenSGB associations and between particular associations and the government are not optimal.Even without the proposed NSGC that is recommended in this report, SGB associations couldbe seeding more value into the system as a whole. While SGB associations have made animpact on the current legislation and on rules and regulations and, correctly, defended theirindividual member schools’ interests, the interests of the larger system have not always beenat the forefront of their work.

Towards becoming more effective, SGB’s have to consider the following two-pronged strate-gy: working towards a non-racial and non-partisan SGB association and secondly, significant-ly increasing their reach in the approximately 27,000 schools that exist in the public schoolsystem.

In terms of the point about non-racialism, while all the associations that currently operate, havenon-racial commitments in their constitutions, they effectively serve sectional interests. In afree and democratic system it is, of course, people’s right to choose the organisations, to whichthey wish to belong. At the same time, it needs to be acknowledged that almost all the organ-

163

Improving

isations that are currently operating, emerged out of or in relation to apartheid. Some are con-tinuations of organisations that emerged to serve the interests of parents during that period. Itis difficult for many, as a result, to think outside of the imperatives of those trajectories. Manycontinue to hark back to a supposedly ‘golden’ period. It is in this respect that dialogue acrosspeople’s experiences is necessary. In the interests of the larger system, it is necessary for asso-ciations, to have an understanding and a sympathy for traditions other than their own and todevelop a basic set of agreements across the organisations, about what the priorities for gov-ernance in the country ought to be.

In terms of the discussion in Chapter two concerning the basic models of governance that areemerging, it is important to forestall the entrenchment of models that are self-serving. Modelsneed to be cultivated, which are oriented to questions of the public good. This will be difficultfor a few SGB’s, but it is in the development of the common good, apart from the individual,and a language to articulate what this common good is, that the SGB associations presentthemselves as worthy interlocutors of the public, in relation to government. When this under-standing is presented clearly and inclusively, a meaningful engagement with the state will takeplace.

Secondly, it would appear that only about a third of all schools inside the public schooling sys-tem, are currently members of SGB associations. This is not satisfactory. It is critical that every SGB is affiliated, in one way or another, to an association that will assist it with a rangeof developmental tasks, such as providing on-going governance education that the state itselfis unable to, such as building bargaining skills, skills to present an argument, access to currentand relevant information and research, and a whole range of professionalised services.

The field of governance will become increasingly professionalised. As in the United States,where election to the school board of a district is often the first step in one’s political career,so too, in South Africa, the possibility is strong that many will get their first real taste of pub-lic office through the SGB. In these terms, SGB associations that are independent of the state,are crucial. They will model for their members forms of behaviour and deportment, providethem with the rules of etiquette that are appropriate in dealing with other stakeholders, such aseducators and the government, and position them to make a proper contribution to the arena ofschool governance.

If the school governance system is to be robust, it is important that the SGB associations areas strong as they could be.

8.2.2.2. Trade Unions

As the Ministerial Review Committee’s engagement with the trade unions revealed, thesestructures are critical for supporting educator members of the SGB. They support educator

Improving

164

SGB members with respect to decisions taken at the SGB, which have an influence or animpact on the educator corps. Examples of these kinds of issues, include disputes concerningappointments, promotions and transfers, issues in the SGB that have a bearing on educators’rights, such as extramural duties, extra classes and so forth. They are therefore, often placed inan adversarial relationship with the SGB.

From the SGB’s perspective, the complaint has also been made, that often trade unions enjoya privileged relationship with the government and that union-government forums, such as theELRC, often take decisions that effectively require SGB input.

Clearly, unions must continue to have the right to defend their members’ interests in the SGBand the SGB arena. But there is need for some degree of rationalisation here, about the prop-er place for the most appropriate issues to be resolved. It is recommended, that trade unionsshould have representational rights, as members, in the provincial governing body councils andin the NSGC, and that reciprocal rights are accorded to the NSGC, in the ELRC, when matters concerning SGB’s arise.

This discussion, as it is presented by many, especially those in the trade union movement, neg-lects one important and indispensable element. Important as the unions are in protecting edu-cators’ rights, they also have to be vigilant about protecting the work that educators do. Someunions present themselves as professional organisations. It is critical that they bring the pro-fessional dimension of education and learning right into the SGB itself. When the HunterCommission first made its recommendations about the composition of the SGB, it deliberate-ly, in the face of a great deal of criticism, came down against the idea of educators constitut-ing the majority in the SGB. It is now conventional wisdom that the SGB is a parent-majorityforum. But the challenge remains that of how educators mediate the challenges of educationand learning. This, it seems, is the major unaddressed challenge that confronts the trade unions.How do the unions protect the professional identities of educators? This is a problem that hasto be made central to the discussion about an agenda for school governance.

8.2.2.3. Student structures

Student structures constitute the weakest link in the governance arrangements in the system.This is an unsatisfactory situation. It is not appropriate that learners’ input into the delibera-tions of the SGB, is structurally downgraded.

Efforts must be made, to constitute forums where RCL’s in districts and in provinces, and alsoat a national level, can be brought together. These forums must deal with student voice andlearners’ interests. Learners must regain a sense of what is in their best pedagogical interestsand what kinds of interventions are necessary to preserve and enhance the quality of educationthey receive. They must have opinions about the quality of the curriculum, the quality of the

165

Improving

educator corps, and critically, for the purposes of this terrain of work, of the governance struc-tures in which they participate. In most parts of the country, when hearings took place, stu-dents and learners were absent.

8.3. The current system

In the discussion that follows, the current organogram locating the relationship of SGB’s toother educational stakeholder groupings, is presented and evaluated:

Figure: SGB and related structures

The diagram attempts to make the point that the SGB is operating in a somewhat unsystema-tised way. The only structured relationship it enjoys, is with the parents and with the principal.Enquiries regarding SGB directorates and/or SGB co-ordinators, revealed a diverse arrange-ment across the provinces. Some provinces had SGB directorates, in other cases these wereattached to existing directorate functions, others had SGB co-ordinators, who reported at dif-ferent levels. Generally, SGB co-ordination and support service has been accorded a lower sta-

PARENTS RCL

STAKEHOLDERGROUPS

PRINCIPALS

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

CIRCUITSIUPPORT STAFF

LEARNERSREGION

SGB CO-ORDINATORS

MEC

DOE MINISTRY

SGB DIRECTORATE

HOD

Improving

166

tus than it deserves. Now that SGB’s are an integral part of the schooling system, a better struc-ture, clearly defining roles, supporting and accounting lines, need to be devised.

Education statistics in South Africa at a glance in 2000 (Department of Education 2002)indicates:

Table 8.1: Number of schools in SA

Provinces Public schools

Eastern Cape 6 178

Free state 2 538

Gauteng 1 905

Kwazulu-Natal 5 693

Limpopo 4 138

Mpumalanga 2 053

North West 2 294

Northern Cape 486

Western Cape 1 504

Total 26 789

The country’s schools are divided into 91 districts. It has not been possible, to establishwhether each of these districts have identified School Governance District Co-ordinators. It isimportant, that this is considered and planned for in every PDE. Structurally, this is a first step.

More comprehensively, though, many inputs point to the necessity of having a national bodyto deal with governance issues, e.g.

1) Measures that could improve governing, include an independent national body toprovide a compulsory, accredited educational programme, addressed precisely to theneeds of governance, plus ongoing support and guidance. (Submission - IndependentOrganisation for School Governors)

2) We suggest that a National Academy be formed whose primary role would be thedevelopment of Governance material, training procedures and support for SGB’s.(Submission: Catholic Institute of Education)

167

Improving

Such an Academy could be incorporated into the National Institute of EducationalManagement and Governance.

3) FEDSAS proposed the idea of a “National Consultative forum on Governing bodies”.

4) SAOU mooted the idea of formal structures, to facilitate dialogue between departmentsand SGB’s. There was a strong feeling in interviews, favouring a local governancestructure covering a defined cluster of schools. It was felt that common issues across amanageable of schools could be discussed at this forum, involving the relevant stake-holders. The structure could also play a monitoring, reporting mediating and commu-nication role. Officials also suggested that local councils and other sectors need tobecome involved in school governance issues.

Key to the discussion about the way forward, has to be a suggestion that the system is recon-figured, to place governance very much closer to its heart. Nobody wishes to say that gover-nance is the core business of education, just as it cannot be the core business of any deliveryservice. It is the service that is delivered that must always feature most prominently. The ques-tion remains, however, how can the system be structured so that it gets down to its core busi-ness? It is suggested here that a refinement of the existing structure, to ensure that it reachesfurther and deeper into the system and articulates with the system optimally, is the establish-ment of a new school governing council at the national level. While such a council by no means guarantees anything, it structurally provides a mechanism for institutionally engagingwith many questions that currently fall between the administrative cracks.


1. It is recommended that a governance programme, called, e.g. ‘EducationalGovernance for Learning’, is developed. This programme could be developedaround a systematic set of short-to-medium objectives, for instance for a five-yearduration, and a longer-term range of objectives, for the next 10 to 15 years, aroundmajor systemic targets. Targets could be developed within such a programme, con-cerning training objectives, the development of essential structural protocols link-ing schools and PDE’s, such as an annual governance forum in a province, involv-ing principals, SGB’s and PDE’s, and performance audits for SGB’s. The develop-ment also, of online resources for SGB’s, could be part of such a programme, ascould the development of a professional but accessible journal for SGB’s.

2. It is recommended that a systemic review is undertaken, of the organisational form

Improving

168

that will best support governance functions within the DoE and the PDE’s. Towardssuch a suggestion, the following offices could be established and sustained in theDepartments:

a) Directorate for School Governance (SG) b) District offices for SG c) Circuit office for SG

It is desirable that these offices be exclusively for SG, although practicalities maydictate sharing of portfolios, and that the contact details for these offices, be madeavailable as soon as possible, to all schools in the province and updated regularly.

3. It is also strongly suggested that the School Governance be democratised at anational level. It seems appropriate that a statutory National School GovernanceCouncil (NSGC), comprising all the relevant stakeholders, be constituted.Thisstructure could have the status of a Council or Commission, whose functions couldbe advisory and prescriptive.

Functions, duties and powers: (inter alia)

● To advise the Minister on matters of school governance.

● To draft proposals, guidelines and specific policy on the various matters raisedthroughout this report

● To receive reports from all concerned parties, regarding challenges in school gov-ernance, and to make proposals.

● To be the custodians of an advocacy and information campaign that empowersSGB’s, via LGS regarding all matters pertaining to governance.

● To mediate and adjudicate on disputes unresolved in provinces, before these arereferred to the courts; the actual powers (whether to recommend or finalise) restswith the Ministry.

● To review the school governance system periodically, to sustain and enhance dem-ocratic governance with a view to safeguard the best interests of the school, qualitypublic education and the imperatives of the constitution.

169

Improving

● To take measures, to educate the whole parent community, learner formations andeducator unions about governance issues; and other roles as per mandate of theMinister.

Composition:

It is suggested that the following constituencies (among others), be represented:

● The Department of Education/Ministerial representatives;● 9 Provincial directorates;● National Governing Body Collectives;● National student organisations;● National educator unions;● Department of Safety and Security;● Department of Health;● Department of Culture;● Department of Welfare;● Department of Public Works;● Others

The Minister would have to make a determination of the modalities regarding chair-personship, legal powers, staff and jurisdiction.

Funding:

It is suggested that an appropriate percentage of the national/provincial provision forgovernance, be directed to the NGS. A portion of this amount could be redirected toNational Governing Collectives, recognised by the Minister as per a formula based onmembership, whilst the rest is used to fund the commission/council.

Process:

Depending on the legal status desired for such a formation, the Minister shall decide onappropriate legislation/policy/proclamation.

Improving

170

A schematic diagram of the envisaged structure could be visualised as follows:

SchoolGoverning

Bodies

RCL

Providers/Sponsors

Other Stakeholders

PrincipalSMT

Professional staff

Supportstaff

Parents

Learners

LGS Circuit

District Office

Directorate for SG

HOD

MEC

DOE

Ministry

NSGC

171

Improving

4. A Local School Governance Structure (LGS) for each district should be established.

Composition: All school principals, union representatives, circuit office, districtoffice, SGB associations, the local councillor(s), business representatives, tradition-al leaders, SAPS, Department of Health, Public works, learner organisations etc.

Convenor: The circuit official who shall also provide venue, subsistence and trans-port.

Chairperson: To be appointed on a rotation basis.Functions, duties and powers: To deal with all issues of governance affecting theschools, learners, parents and educators in the area. Its main function would be, tomonitor schools in the area, facilitate support and submit progress reports to theDirector. Its secondary function would be, to mediate difficulties experienced inschools. The LGS would make every attempt, to promote concepts of equity,redress, representivity, access and sharing. It would strive, to develop an ethos oflarger communality in the schools under its jurisdiction.


5. A matter that requires urgent attention, is the schools that are experiencing problemsbeyond their control, viz:

– Gangsterism, violence, vandalism.– Resource shortage, human, infrastructural and consumables.– Dire socio-economic conditions that act as barriers to learning.– Difficulty in effecting other Section 20 and/or Section 21 functions.

Departments are strongly advised to identify all these schools, or all quintile schools fora start, and develop and implement some kind of emergency plan.

6. A suggested annual (min) calendar for SGB meeting (activities, obligations).

7. More use of non-written communication and development.

8. Governance directorates linking up with National Budget monitoring and supportoffice.

Improving

172

9. Harmonising recommendations with other national initiatives, e.g. school financ-ing; nutrition, HIV/Aids, etc.

10. Development of criteria for recognition of SGB associations nationally and provin-cially.

– Setting-up of ETT targets for SGB’s.

– Determining alternative routes, other than legal, to resolve disputes between SGB’s and HOD’s, e.g. NGS.

173

Conclusion

CHAPTER NINE

A conclusion: An agenda for enhancing the SGB’s chances of succeeding

School governance in South Africa is now almost eight years old. In these eight years, muchhas been achieved. Almost every single one of the country’s 27,000 schools, has in place, aschool governing body. In only a few isolated exceptions, have school governing bodies notbeen established. A question that framed this enquiry, was that of the status of school gov-erning bodies. The answer has to be, that school governing bodies constitute a reasonablysuccessful story on the country’s public participation landscape. The 27000 schools on thislandscape, are accommodating between 100,000 and 200,000 volunteer citizens, who havebrought to the school their passion, expertise and commitment. Of course, as the report hasrepeatedly shown, in terms of representivity, especially that of women and of people ofcolour in mixed schools, there is much that remains to be done, but if one is talking aboutscale and size, the country’s experiment in building democratic capacity through school gov-ernance, is as significant an initiative as anywhere in the world.

Not unexpectedly, however, considering where the broad mass of South African parentscome from, school governance is still finding its feet as a practice. As a practice, its outlinesare still not clearly defined. The understanding parents have of what they are doing, is domi-nated by notions of form. Form in this explanation, is essentially that of role taking. Mostparents see themselves entering a new discursive space and taking a role that is about deci-sion-making.

This development, concerning form, is critical in and of itself. Critically, from never havingdone this before, parents, by taking on the identity of the governor, are entering a zone ofpower. This identity is an important one to appropriate. Within it, are key characteristics thatthey are being socialised into, and having to practise. These characteristics include those ofdebate, argument, compromise, decision-making, and importantly, also accountability – allthe hallmarks of civic identity and good citizenship. Again, the point needs to be empha-sised, for the large mass of South Africans, these experiences were denied them by apartheid. They were socialised into positions of subordination and subservience. Theyserved the tea and cleaned the offices of the decision-makers. Now they sit in those officesthemselves and are having to make the decisions. The transition into this new space, is ofprofound significance.

Form and identity, therefore, are important features that the new system is cultivating.

Conclusion

174

The need now, is to move beyond the form of the position, and to invest it with the contentof the specialised field of school governance. The specificity of the field now calls out forattention. What needs to be made clear to all the role-players concerned, is that their terrainof engagement is not the corporate world, not the world of political negotiations, not theworld of collective bargaining, not the world of cultural production, but the specific field ofeducation and learning. Of course, all these other fields of engagement bear on educationand learning, but they do so on the terms of education and learning. The cry must now be forgovernors, to develop a better understanding of what it is they are governing.

There are problems in calling for school governors to become better informed about educa-tion, and teaching and learning in particular. These problems pivot around the already fragilestatus of teachers and educators, who find themselves constantly at the receiving-end ofadvice and instruction from others, whose only knowledge of schools is that they were oncelearners themselves. The temptation for governors to dictate and prescribe to educators isgreat. There is already very strong evidence in the system, of the existence of the ‘controlboard’ SGB – the control board that instructs the professional staff.

An agenda for strengthening the terrain of school governance must, in some senses, begin withthe assertion that a specialised body of knowledge constitutes the core of the schooling experi-ence. This agenda requires educators and teachers to assert their professional identities con-cerning this specialised knowledge, through placing it into the public domain, such as no otherprofession has had to,admittedly. But the stakes are high. Everyone wants the school to suc-ceed. Parents want their children to pass well, to learn with accomplishment and become suc-cessful. Governments want to know that the investments they are making, particularly in coun-tries, such as South Africa, where this investment is higher than in any other social field, areyielding strong and positive returns. Those, who transact and work with the specialised knowl-edge of the school and around the school, the educators and their interlocutors, the educationalpsychologists, the educational sociologists, the curriculum specialists, and others, all need toaccount, so that parents can begin to engage critically with what they have to say.

It is out of an awareness of what the school’s core business is, that SGB’s can begin tobecome meaningful partners in school governance. If they do not know the challenge theeducator is confronting in facilitating learning, whether it is a cognitive difficulty, or a socialdifficulty that the child brings from his or her home, or a difficulty that is resulting from thenature of the curriculum, or indeed even a difficulty in the educator’s preparation for his orher job, they will not be able to contribute as effectively as they can. Once they have a graspof what the problems, the issues and the challenges are all about, they will become ‘criticalfriends’ in the governance partnership.

At the top of an agenda for action, therefore, as suggested, must be the challenge of makingthe SGB a motor force for school improvement. This force will have to be harnessed in dif-ferent ways in the system. While its objectives must always be the same, irrespective of

175

Conclusion

where it finds itself, namely, that of school improvement, it is going to have to arrive at thispoint in different ways.

What school improvement means, before the discussion is taken further, needs to be clari-fied. School improvement is not located solely in the domain of examination performance. Ithas to encompass a whole range of dimensions in which improvement can be registered, bet-ter reading and writing scores, improved ability to work with information, an enhancedcapacity for making judgements, better learning for civic responsibility, better responsive-ness to social diversity and the strengths that social diversity bring to the challenge of learn-ing, a greater respect for difference, and so forth.

9.1. Adding value in the schools of the poor

Adding value in schools consisting largely of working-class African, coloured and Indianchildren, and now even working-class white children, will be a different challenge to addingvalue in richer schools. The challenge in the schools of the poor is multifaceted and wouldhave to consist of two phases: Firstly, it would require an affirmation of the school governorand the contribution he or she is making. Parents need to be told, as many principals havesaid, that the contribution they are making, is valued. Their central role currently appears tobe that of moving their constituency – the parent body – into a stronger relationship with theschool and the educational authorities. They clearly, because of their understanding of thesocial circumstances and the everyday cultural practices of the learners (and the educators),are able to intervene in misunderstandings and conflicts in school life.

The reality is, however, that they are under-capacitated and not sufficiently effective inengaging with the business of education and learning.

School in this new space is a terrain for development, and communities need to be broughtinto a productive discussion about how the schools of their children can contribute to thisdevelopment. This is an issue that goes to the heart of the original intentions of the SchoolsAct. As many schools are operating at the moment, they are not fully democratic in the sensethat was intended. For the best part, they are spaces where there is a potential for this democracy to take root. They remain, for the timebeing, places in which more educated andmore influential members of the community are able to dominate and often even determinethe direction a school might take. But it is clear, that SGB’s are moving into the space ofpublic accountability and becoming places where matters can be deliberated. This is a criti-cal new dimension in the school governance process and must not be underestimated.Given the nature of this discussion, the relationship between the principal and the SGB inpoorer schools, is a critical one. At present, that relationship is defined in dependent terms.The principal continues to be the pivot of the school’s future. In many of the studies, the factis very evident that plans have been worked out by the staff and the principal and are

Conclusion

176

brought to the SGB for ratification. This is especially the case with educational programmesand infrastructural development. In the poorer schools, SGB’s are not substantially involvedin the initial planning sessions where these issues are discussed.

Many principals in this study report, and this is revealing, ‘that the SGB understands ourmission and vision’. This is clearly an area where a great deal of capacity development willhave to take place. Efforts will have to be made to find ways of involving the SGB’s in dis-cussions much lower and earlier in the conceptual development process. The opportunitiesfor this are particularly great, when schools make decisions about language and the curricu-lum. Currently, many poorer schools do not have worked-out policies for language develop-ment and instructional development. Few schools have policies independent of their PDE’spolicy. It seems that opportunities can be found for working with parents through the SGB,to build their capacity in relation to mother-tongue use in and out of the school.

The question of building capacity among the more complex areas of school life, is more dif-ficult. Many poorer schools do not yet have Section 21 status and are not heavily committedto dealing with procurement, extensive fund-raising and so forth. This is a matter thatrequires specific intervention and may call for particular kinds of enskilling programmes.

9.2. Adding value in the schools of the rich

School governance in the richer schools – mainly former white schools – is a different mat-ter. SGB’s in these schools, consist of much more capacitated people, who are able tomobilise and bring to bear on the school, significant personal, cultural and social capital.What this accumulated capital means in the schools, is that SGB’s have access to high-levelinformation and high-level skills. Within the immediate reach of such SGB’s, is expertadvice and counsel. SGB’s have a strong command of issues, a detailed understanding ofSASA, and the PDE provisions concerning school governance.

The presence and availability of this social and cultural capital, is an enormous resource thathas to be nurtured. Parents who are giving of their time and effort, must be encouraged tostay in the system.

But care needs to be taken too, that the SGB is not used as a vehicle for the preservation ofsectional and exclusive interests. There is considerable danger of the SGB becoming the pro-tector of a particular past, a particular history and a particular set of accomplishments.

Many SGB’s in privileged schools, have moved great distances in the way that they havereconceptualised their schools, to be inclusive and tolerant. There are good examples ofschools affirming diversity in the SGB and in the curriculum, and exploiting the benefits ofdiversity.

177

Conclusion

There are equally many too, however, who believe that they have nothing to learn, and thatthey are fine as they are, and wish to stay as they are. For these SGB’s, continuity is theirburden of protecting their exclusive past. Many SGB’s in this category, believe that they arealready as capacitated as they can be and already operating optimally. They see themselvesas centres and examples of administrative, managerial and governance excellence. Manyhave come to see themselves as representing, in managerial and governance terms, the idealof what the system is intended to achieve. They present themselves as a resource outside of,and as an alternative to, the PDE’s of professional experience and advice.

The considerable challenge in some ex-HOA SGB’s is the brittle relationship that has oftendeveloped with PDE’s. Many SGB’s have begun to see themselves as adversaries of the state and so have taken positions that are indifferent, and on occasion, in opposition to thestate in terms of questions of rights, responsibilities and, not insignificantly, affiliations. Theschool’s identification, increasingly, is with its local community and less with that of abroader identity, such as that of South Africa.How school governance can add value in this climate, is clearly a challenge. But the chal-lenge is that of how privileged schools, and this must now also include those relatively privi-leged schools that are not mainly white, can be encouraged to see the benefit of participatingin a governance framework, which is driven by a wider sense of the public good, rather thannarrow school-based interests only.

9.3. Constructing the value chain

How South Africa develops a framework for yoking school governance behind the schoolimprovement cart, will clearly require a great deal more discussion. Towards that discussion,the framework developed by Cara and Ranson (quoted in an unpublished report by S Ransonin the United Kingdom, 2003), is offered here as a point of departure. The framework is con-structed as follows:

Conclusion

178

Table 9.1: The value chain of governance and improvement

Inputs Processes Outputs Outcomes

Practices Presence Representing Recognition/ Inclusion/meaning Motivation

Voice Scrutiny/questions/ Policy analysis Leadershipdeliberation

Development TrustKnowledge: Strategy/targets plans accountabilityCulturalcapital Monitoring and Evaluation

review

Structures Networks Resource/ Partnerships Civic capitalsocial knowledgecapital generation

Codes (of Connectedness Reflexivity/ Co-configuration Authority andbehaviour) Communicative legitimacy

action

Central to this framework, which applies to the environments of both the richer and the poorer schools, are clear guidelines. Inputs are about having governors, who will speak andbring their diverse bodies of knowledge to bear on their schools. In the schools of the poor,presence and voice will have to be supplemented with programmes that will enhance theirability to speak. In many poorer schools, the reality is that schools remain locked in the posi-tion of finding voice. They are unable to move to the more demanding position of addingknowledge.

In the schools of the rich, it is about adding different kinds of cultural capital and knowledgeto what is already there. Here it is important to stress the importance of diverse knowledgeand diverse cultural capitals. In terms of processes, the same applies for both the poor andthe rich. The poor and the rich need to build their diversity in as many ways as they can. Inthe poorer schools, it might mean bringing on to the SGB more women. In the schools of therich, this may mean deliberately mobilising parents of colour. For all, an atmosphere of criti-cal scrutiny is vital. Both the poor and the rich, in their different ways, need to engage withthe challenge of scrutiny. In the poorer schools, it is about finding the skills to scrutinise theexpert knowledge of the educator. In the schools of the rich, it is about developing the skillsto scrutinise their own knowledge-base critically.

179

Conclusion

In both kinds of environments, recognition and affirmation are crucial. This should be aimedat building the capacity to engage with the core business of education and learning andspecifically developing plans that are about the school’s core interests. Out of all this, oughtto emanate inclusion, trust and goodwill and also accountability.

9.4. Governance for learning

Taking the country towards this path, is simply asking it, to build on the considerableachievements it has already made. Substantial as the problems are, it must be emphasisedthat there are ways in which the difficulties can be confronted.

A two-step strategy in the short-term is suggested. It is suggested, in the first instance, thatlegislation is enacted that will bring into life, a statutory structure for the school governancecommunity. It is suggested that such a structure would galvanise the governance communityand make a contribution, simply in collecting the many unco-ordinated matters that prolifer-ate around the question of school governance. Operating alongside, and in support of, not inplace of governance structures in the DoE and the PDE’s, the structure will have the task ofclosing communication feedback loops, of defusing tensions within the governance commu-nity, instead of resolving them in adversarial litigatory processes, and will give a voice to thegovernance community, equal in standing, to that of the other role-players in education.

This statutory structure, preferably the National School Governance Council, could beentrusted with the enormous task, in the second instance, of developing the framework forshort, medium and long-term objectives for governance practice in South Africa. Theseframeworks would focus primarily on target- setting for the SGB community with respect tolearning and education and then on the social conditions for facilitating learning and educa-tion.

Out of a process such as this, ought to emerge a mandate for action for the DoE and thePDE’s. In the process, many gains will be consolidated and strengthened. In the firstinstance, the country should see a visible impact on its children’s learning. Structures oughtto come into being in schools that have the development of the country’s children as its pri-mary interest. This development, in the course of time, ought to make itself felt in the widersociety into which the children will move as adults. And parents would have benefited too.For them would be the benefit of learning skills of engagement and participation, skills thatwill make them better citizens.

Appendix A

180

Appendix A

Socio-Economic Status of Parents in South Africa

3. Social and economic poverty

The following table provides an indication of what the labour market status is, of people ofworking age (15-65) in the country:

Table Appendix A.1: Labour market status of population of persons of working age (15-65)

From: Census 2001:51* Labour force survey

Especially worth noting, are the large numbers of unemployed and/or economically inactivepeople in the country, particularly in provinces, such as the Eastern Cape. Only two provinces,Gauteng and the Western Cape, have the majority of the population in employment.

Labour E. Free Gauteng KZN Limpopo Mpuma- N. North W. Total Market Cape State langa Cape West CapeStatus

LF survey*, Sept 2001

Employed 31,4 42,9 50,4 35,2 27,4 38,6 40,8 36,0 53,6 39,6

Unemployed 14,8 17,6 19,9 17,7 15,5 16,5 14,4 15,3 12,1 16,5

Not economic-

ally active 53,8 39,5 29,7 47,1 57,1 45,0 44,7 48,7 34,3 43,9

TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Census 2001

Employed 20,4 33,7 45,0 27,8 22,7 33,0 39,4 31,8 48,5 33,7

Unemployed 24,6 25,5 25,8 21,6 21,6 23,0 19,7 24,8 17,1 24,0

Not econonomic-

ally active 55,0 40,8 29,2 45,7 55,7 43,9 40,9 43,4 34,4 42,3

TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

181

Appendix B

Appendix B

Income profile of households in South Africa

According to the South African Institute of Race Relations annual survey for 1997/1998(1998:409), real income had dropped by 1,3% nationally in 1997. Forecasts suggested that thisincome would drop from R4208 in 1997 to R4150 in 1998, before recovering to R4210 in1999. The following two tables provide more detailed overviews of household income by raceand province and the distribution of the population in each province by level of annual income.

Table Appendix B.1: Average income by race and province, 1995

African Coloured Indian White Average African Africanincome as income as proportion proportion of of white provincial incomeaverage

Province R R R R R % %

E. Cape 17,000 24,000 58,000 90,000 24,000 70,8 18,9

Free State 14,000 16,000 - 72,000 25,000 56,0 19,4

Gauteng 37,000 53,000 111,000 118,000 71,000 52,1 31,4

KZN 24,000 41,000 61,000 98,000 37,000 64,9 24,5

Limpopo 26,000 43,000 - 140,000 31,000 83,9 18,6

Mpumalanga 20,000 30,000 78,000 82,000 30,000 66,7 24,4

North West 21,000 25,000 - 93,000 30,000 70,0 22,6

N. Cape 13,000 18,000 34,000 79,000 31,000 41,9 16,5

W. Cape 22,000 33,000 54,000 98,000 53,000 41,5 22,4

From: Annual survey, 1997/1998, SAIRR: 276

What these statistics bear out, even though they may be ten years out of date, are the dire cir-cumstances in which the majority of the country’s people find themselves. These are the households out of which the country’s learners and parents come. The following table, also for1995, shows the distribution of the population by level of income for each province.

Appendix B

182

Table Appendix B2: Proportional (%) distribution of the population in each province by levelof annual income, 1995

R400 to R6869 to R12661 to R23941 to R52801 +R6868 R12660 R23940 R52,800

E. Cape 32 27 17 13 11

Free State 31 25 17 14 13

Gauteng 5 10 18 26 42

KZN 12 20 25 24 19

Limpopo 26 23 19 18 15

Mpumalanga 17 22 28 19 12

North West 24 25 20 17 14

N. Cape 23 23 22 17 14

W. Cape 6 14 23 27 30

From: Annual survey, 1997/1998, SAIRR, 1998:277.

Important to note about the figures, are the differences between the provinces. They suggestthat families, and therefore parents, are positioned very differently with respect to the kinds ofresources they have at their disposal. Only in Gauteng and the Western Cape are there sub-stantial numbers of individuals, who earn an annual income that places them in the top incomequintile (42% for Gauteng and 30% for the Western Cape). Interesting about the figures forthese two provinces, however, is that households in Gauteng earned 134% more than theircounterparts in the Western Cape, where the second highest average incomes were reported inthe country.

183

Appendix C

Appendix C

Parental levels of education in South Africa

Table: Highest level of education by province amongst those aged 20 and older

Level of E. Free Gauteng KZN Limpopo Mpuma- N. North W. Total

education Cape State langa Cape West Cape

None 743700 251408 504619 110029 1835485 456747 88680 423787 162781 4567497

Some 643921 340753 673283 849144 352437 264548 101934 426025 431698 4083742

primary

Completed 240337 122345 328519 287070 137839 98331 40319 144181 224529 1623467

primary

Some 963428 482224 2055955 1447674 653487 440640 145344 619263 1083110 7846125

secondary

Grade 12 459190 274843 1678906 955616 351250 301490 80357 393809 665141 5200602

Higher 204687 99047 756706 348744 170841 97664 29667 124850 319129 2151336

TOTAL 3255262 1570620 5997987 5028538 2501338 1659421 486301 2131914 2841388 25472769

From: Census 2001:41.

Appendix D

184

Appendix D

List of Public Hearings

12 May, 2003, Modimolle, 25 delegates13 May, 2003, Venda, 33 delegates15 May, 2003, Durban, 120 delegates19 May, 2003, Port Shepstone, 100 delegates21 May, 2003, Ulundi, 10 delegates22 May, 2003, Newcastle, 80 delegates23 May, 2003, Kimberley, 120 delegates24 May, 2003, Upington, 50 delegates7 June, 2003, Johannesburg, 70 delegates8 June, 2003, Soweto, 30 delegates23 June, 2003, George, 120 delegates23 June, 2003, Malelane, 96 delegates24 June, 2003, Bisho, 8 delegates25 June, 2003, Port Elizabeth, 15 delegates25 June, 2003, Cape Town, 50 delegates26 June, 2003, Paarl, 80 delegates28 June, 2003, Lusikisiki, 36 delegates30 June, 2003, Rustenberg, 29 delegates30 June, 2003, Mafikeng, 10 delegates01 July, 2003, Moretele, 99 delegates02 July, 2003, Nelspruit, 36 delegates19 July, 2003, Bronkhorstspruit, 60 delegates25 July, 2003, Mafikeng, 120 delegates26 July, 2003, Zeerust, 30 delegates31 July, 2003, Port Elizabeth, 40 delegates03 August, 2003, Bloemfontein, 45 delegates16 August, 2003, Harrismith, 50 delegates

185

Appendix E

Appendix E

Return rates for Ministerial Review Committee survey

In the survey questionnaire, schools were asked to describe their location (selecting frompredetermined options). The table below, provides a breakdown of responses. Almost a quar-ter of the schools are located in rural areas, while a total of 20% reported that they are locat-ed in a township, informal settlement or inner-city area.

Table Appendix D.1: Location

Location Number of %schools a

Rural village 72 27%

Farm 18 7

Town (non-residential area) 19 8

Suburb in town (residential area) 87 35

Inner-city 3 1

Township 42 17

Informal settlement 6 2

a DoE’s not add up to 251 and there is missing data (data not provided).

In analysing the data, the research agency also looked at whether or not schools had beenawarded Section 21 status. The following table (Table 1.3) indicates the number of respon-dents that had been allocated full Section 21 status and those that had been awarded someSection 21 functions.

Appendix E

186

Table Appendix D.2: Status

Status Number of % schools

Section 20 63 25%

Section 20 with some Section 21 41 16

functions

Section 21 134 53

The fact that 69% of schools had been awarded either full or partial Section 21 status, sug-gests that they are schools with more functional governing bodies, because, before beingawarded Section 21 functions, they would have had to prove capacity to their provincialDoE. This fact may skew the data in the report and indicates that SGB’s in the survey arefunctioning at a higher level than may actually be the case with the majority of SGB’s in thecountry.

187

Appendix F

Appendix F

National School Governing Body Associations

Background to National SGB Associations

There are three nationally recognised organisations: the National Association of SchoolGoverning Bodies (NASGB), the Federation of Associations of Governing Bodies of SouthAfrican Schools (FEDSAS), and the youngest organisation, the Governing BodiesFoundation. There are also a significant number of local and regional structures. All theseorganisations have their distinct characters based on their historical and/or sectional identi-ties. Although not all schools are affiliated to an association, 35% of the schools surveyed,responded that they are either members or support the idea of an association.

Profiles of nationally recognised organisations are briefly provided hereunder.

1. The Federation of Associations of Governing Bodies of South African Schools

Historical background

The Federation, formerly known as the Federation of State Aided Schools, was founded in1993, following a move by the then Nationalist government to declare certain schools asState Aided Schools (mainly Afrikaans-speaking ‘whites only’ schools). The legislativechanges that led to the establishment of SGB’s in public schools, prompted the organisationto change its name to the Federation of South Africa Schools Governing Bodies, hence theretention of the acronym FEDSAS.

The organisation is popular among urban communities and represents mainly SGB’s in pub-lic schools, mainly former ‘model C’ schools. Individual schools affiliate to provincial FED-SAS structures where they exist. The organisation claims to have a membership base ofabout 1200 schools and levies a fee of between R1, 50 to R3, 50 per learner per school.According to an official interviewed, the Federation has no other source of revenue.

Activities

While the Federation does not see itself as a training agency and while the position has been

Appendix F

188

put that its constituencies have the necessary skills to cope with the challenges of schoolgovernance, the organisation does conduct information seminars on emerging developments.The organisation’s strength resides in the legal knowledge of its leadership. It has made reg-ular submissions on governance policy and governance-related questions to both provincialand national government. It has also provided important counsel in the relatively large cor-pus of litigation concerning school governance in the last few years.

Relationships

While the organisation does not have formal relations with the NASGB, the lines of commu-nication have always been open between the two recognised bodies. The official inter-viewed, stressed that the organisation exists in all provinces but the Western Cape, and has ahealthy relationship with the Department of Education, both at national and provincial levels.This view was corroborated by the national chairperson of the organisation. A reservationwas, however, expressed about the hostile attitude of some provincial officialstowardsFEDSAS. She impressed upon the interviewer that her organisation has only onerecorded court case with the Gauteng Department Education involving the closure of ECDcentres in the province. However, some departmental officials in provinces have expressedtheir concern about the invisibility of the Federation in their respective provinces, especiallyin the Eastern Cape and Limpopo. An official in Limpopo, confirmed that the departmenthad never had a formal meeting with the Federation, although he was aware of the organisa-tion’s existence.

2. The National Association of School Governing Bodies


The Association was established in 1997 and launched officially in 2001. It is registered as anon-profit organisation with the Department of Social Development. Its establishment wasinformed by SASA no 84 of 96, sub-section 23, which provides for SGB’s to join anAssociation of their choice. At the time, only one organisation existed, namely FEDSAS,and the perception was created, that FEDSAS organised mainly in the former white schoolsand that the voice of the majority of school communities, particularly in the historically dis-advantaged schools, would not be represented in an organisation like FEDSAS. It was in thiscontext that SGB’s in mainly black schools, decided to establish an organisation they feltwould articulate their interests more clearly.

Historically, the NASGB has its roots in the broad democratic movement. Broadly, theorganisation takes its direction from the struggle, for broad and inclusive participation ineducation and for quality public education for all South Africans. Its vision and mission are

189

Appendix F

informed by the education struggles of the mid-eighties’ Peoples’ Education movement andthe commitment of People’s Education to a society free from race oppression and classexploitation.

The NASGB’s membership is national, but is strongly evident in rural and township schools.It draws its members largely from SGB’s of former DET schools and HOR.

With a reach into all the provinces in the country and a co-ordination of provincially basedschools, the NASGB is a unitary formation, with one constitution governing all its memberSGB’s. The Association boasts 460 paid-up members, who are in good standing.Membership fees are determined in two ways: a school fee of R100 is levied as a capitationfee of 50 cents per learner per school. The majority of the paid-up members have beenexempted from paying subscription fees because of financial constraints in those schools.Although no longer very effective, a significant number of local/regional structures havebeen established. The Association does not have a reliable source of revenue and is currentlyhosted by the Centre for Education Policy Development, Evaluation and Management(CEPD).

Activities

Despite resource limitations, the Association has provided support to SGB’s in various local-ities, even for schools that are not necessarily paid-up members or in good financial standingwith the organisation. Support is often provided through the medium of forums and advicesessions in provinces. These forums are used by parents. The kind of advice provided, oftenon a one-to-one basis, is mainly legal, and concerns the rights of parents and their children.In some instances, the Association has used the local media, to communicate with the SGBcommunity.

Recently, the Association played an active role in many provinces in mobilising communi-ties to participate in the 2000/3 election of SGB. These would involve joint planning andadvocacy with officials in some of the departments. Gauteng further undertook a road show,and visited regions.

At the time of the investigation, the Association was conducting training of SGB’s and com-munity leaders, as well as learners on human rights, particularly the right of ‘Girl Child’, aproject funded by Unicef. However, the project was restricted to three provinces, due tofinancial limitations.

Appendix F

190

Relationships

The NASGB, according to an official, has a good working relationship with all the provin-cial departments, with the exception of the KwaZulu-Natal and the Western Cape provinces.Governance Coordinators in the provinces also expressed their profound appreciation for thegrowing relationship between the two parties. According to an official in Limpopo, “theNASGB has become an important partner and I am aware that an exploratory meeting withthe Portfolio Committee (provincial legislature) has already taken place, to explore proce-dures and protocols in establishing a working order with the provincial government.”

In addition, the Association has managed to establish a network with a cross-section oforganisations that share similar interests. These include, among others, the South AfricanCongress for Early Childhood Development, the Adult Learners Network, SADTU andrecently, though at a slow pace, with international organisations.

3. The Governing Body Foundation


The Governing Body Foundation was established to represent Governing Bodies in publicschools in South Africa, consistent with the aims of the South African Schools Act.

According to the organisation’s public documents, its aims are as follows:

● To maintain and promote the quality, non-racial education in public schools

● To uphold and promote the rights and interests of parents in the governance of publicschools

● To uphold and promote the rights of SGB’s in public school education

● To assist SGB’s of public schools in exercising their rights and performing their obliga-tions

● To act as a resource centre for SGB’s of public schools and in particular to provide guid-ance and information on all aspects of education, management and governance of publicschools

● To promote equity and learner-centred approach in the delivery of public school educa-tion and the redress of imbalances in public school education, and to uphold and promotethe Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and its values, including those pertain-ing to education

191

Appendix F

● To represent its members in consultation and negotiations with any other stakeholder(s)in the educational arena

● Generally to publicise and promote the above objectives

● To raise funds with which to finance the pursuit of the above objectives

Activities

The organisation currently has a membership of 150 schools distributed over four provinces.Its membership is mainly, but not exclusively, drawn from former white, English-speakingschools. It is managed by a board of trustees led by an executive officer and a full-timetrustee. Its membership fee is based on a subscription of R3000 for 2003. The organisationhas, however, as a result of sponsorship, been able to provide a discount to schools, depend-ing on their size and circumstances.

The work of the organisation is mediated and publicised through regular circulars thataddress its key objectives. The organisations’ objectives include the following:

● Monitoring, evaluating and commenting upon all draft policies and legislation, which canimpact upon the various roles of the SGB’s.

● Lobbying relevant authorities about concerns raised by SGB’s.

● Keeping member SGB’s informed of developments in education through means of regu-lar newsletters and ad hoc communication.

● Providing advice to SGB’s concerning the implementation of policies and the executionof their roles and responsibilities.

● Providing examples of documents required by SGB’s, such as employment contracts.

● Assisting SGB’s with their individual difficulties, including their interactions with the relevant provincial education departments.

● Commissioning and providing workshops on aspects of SGB responsibilities.

● Representing its member schools on the Gauteng Education and Training Council(GETC), a body that advises the MEC on policy matters and draft legislation, and onother Provincial Departmental bodies.

In terms of the organisation’s documents, it seeks to make clear that it is not the role of theGBF, to involve itself in the functions of educator trade unions (for example, in disputesabout conditions of service), unless these impact powers, responsibilities and effectiveness ofGoverning Bodies. The organisation is actively involved in SGB training.

Appendix F

192

Relationships

The aim of the GBF, is to develop constructive relationships with the Department ofEducation. The GBF has a good relationship with the other governing body associations,particularly with FEDSAS.

193

Appendix G

Appendix G

COURT CASES

Hester Leoni Stroop v Die Voorsitter van die Bestuursliggaam en andere, 1995,Nywerheidshof van Suid Afrika, Pretoria, Saak Nr. 24/2/00002

Die Transvaalse Onderwysvereniging and andere v Die LUR vir Onderwys, MpumalangaProvinsie en ‘n ander, 1997, Hooggereregshof, Transvaalse Afdeling, Saak Nr. 5281/97

Grove Primary School v Minister of Education and others, 1997 (4) SA 982 (C)

Douglas Hoërskool en ‘n ander v Premier, Noord-Kaap en ‘n ander, 1999 (4) SA 1131 (NC)

Adriaan Jacobus Botha and another v MEC for Education, Arts, Culture and Sport, NorthernCape Province, 2002, Labour Court of South Africa, Braamfontein, Case No. J3797/98

Gordon Harrison and another v Minister of Education and Training and another, 2002, HighCourt, Pietermaritzburg, Case No. 4295/98

Peter Wynkwart v Minister of Education and another, 2002, High Court, Cape of Good HopeProvincial Division, Case No. 4168/1999

Danielle Antonie v Governing Body, The Settlers High School and others, 2002, High Court,Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division, Case No. 3791/2000

Willem Sternberg Schoonbee and 17 others v the MEC for Education and the Head ofDepartment for Education of the Mpumalanga Province, 2002, High Court, TransvaalProvincial Division, Case No. 33750/01

Laerskool Gaffie Maree and another v MEC for Education, Training, Arts and Culture:Northern Cape Province and others, 2002, High Court, Northern Cape Division, Case No.1240/01

Nozuko Amanda Mahlasela and others v The Head: Western Cape Education Department,2002, High Court, Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division, Case No. 2446/01

Appendix G

194

Settlers Agricultural High School and another v Head of Department: Department ofEducation, Limpopo Province and others, 2002, High Court, Transvaal Provincial Division,Case No. 16395/02

Die Laerskool Middelburg en ‘n ander v Die Departementshoof: Mpumalanga seDepartement van Onderwys en andere, 2002, Hooggereregshof, Transvaalse Afdeling, SaakNr. 10246/2002

Destinata School and another v Head of Department: Department of Education, Gauteng andothers, 2003, High Court, Case No. 10207/2003

Elsburg High School v Gauteng Department of Education, 2003 – referred to in a letter tothe Director of Legal Services from the Acting Head of Legal Services and described in anaccompanying memorandum (document supplied to the author by the Department ofEducation)

195

Appendix H

Appendix H

Options for restructuring elections

An immediate change that could be instituted, could be that of changing the time of the elec-tion and members’ term of office. With respect to the latter, it is proposed that the member’sterm of office terminates at the end of the third year of office, and not when the election forthe new SGB takes place. A variation of the time of the election is that it take place at leastthree months prior to the end of the outgoing officers’ term, so that some period of overlapbetween the old and the new officers is achieved, This approach will also obviate the prob-lem of having unnecessary by-elections and having the possibility of three different gover-nors in office.

Option oneInstead of having elections every three years, elections could be held annually, with one-third of the parent body coming up for renewal each year. The advantages of this proposalare that it contains possibilities for mentoring and continuity of the institutional memory ofthe SGB. The disadvantages are that it removes the opportunities for advocacy that comewith an election every three years. The school will also have to deal with the managerial andinfastructural complication of a new election each year.

Option twoAn alternative to the overhauling of the entire SGB at each election, it may be advisable tohave the different constituent parts of the SGB elected into office at different times. Theadvantage of such a system, is that the entire SGB is not changed. The disadvantage, as withoption one, is the logistical challenge of organising a number of events instead of only one.

Option threeWhile retaining the three-year cycle for elected members, non-elected members, who havevoting rights, might be retained for a longer period. The advantage of this is maintaininginstitutional memory and capacity and holding a degree of continuity in place. The disadvan-tage is endowing what many would consider, to be the least important constituent of theSGB with the most protection.

Option fourThe fourth option could be, to have two types of community members, parents, who are

Appendix H

196

elected on a three-year term and members of the broader community, who are elected on afour or five-year term. The advantage again would be that of having continuity and institu-tional memory, while the disadvantage may be that of diluting the power of the parent con-stituency.

197

Appendix I

Appendix I

Problems of safety

Violence, vandalism, safety

Some schools are becoming battlefields. Gang violence, murder and criminal elements have

“reduced school grounds to a state of anarchy, leading educators to propose that they cometo work armed. But the problem is not unique to township schools, as a Johannesburgweekend newspaper yesterday reported that a gang called The West was terrorizing edu-cators and pupils at Northview High in Highlands North. The West, states the report, is agroup of uncontrollable learners who have assaulted three educators, bunk classes at will,play dice and smoke dagga on the premises during school hours.” (City Press - 24/08/2003)

Another article elaborates that

“During these attacks, shots were fired in the air on school premises, and educators wereforced into the staff room – where they were stripped of their jewellery, cellphones, andcash. Molotoane says schools need to sit down with their governing bodies and plan whatneeds to be done.” (Citizen - 25/08/2003 – page 3)

The problem of physical violence is exacerbated by rampant vandalism and theft of state prop-erty:

“The management of schools’ physical resources also presents difficulties for someSGB’s, especially ex-HOD and ex-DET schools, as many find it challenging trying tomaintain existing infrastructure in the light of high levels of vandalism ensured by theseschools. In fact, safety and protection of existing infrastructure was reported quite fre-quently by schools as a problem, particularly in ex-HOR (20 %), ex-DET (15 %) and ex-HOD (12 %) schools.” (Ministerial Committee survey – page 30)

Safety of learners and educators and violation of school property are turning schools into no-go areas. To dwell on issues of school governance in these contexts, is a distraction. The fol-lowing extract emphasises the gravity of the problem:

“Effective teaching and learning has ground to a halt at seven schools at Waaihoek and

Appendix I

198

Wasbank, near Ladysmith, following what educators allege is a reign of terror by crimi-nals in the area. The reign of terror has continued despite an initiative by EducationMinister Kader Asmal to ensure the safety of pupils and educators through the launch ofthe Safe Schools campaign in 1999. Some of the educators, who asked not to be namedfor fear of reprisals, told Sowetan they had been accosted at gunpoint, robbed of jew-ellery, cellphones and handbags and threatened with murder if they resisted.” (Sowetan18/09/2993 – page 1)

199

Appendix J

Appendix J

School Governance Review Committee

Mr Rej BrijrajMr Nhlanganiso DladlaMr Victor MathonsiProfessor Rejoice NgcongoProfessor Crain Soudien (Chairperson)

Appendix K

200

Appendix K

Reference Group

Mr Corn Booyens SAOUMr G Abrahams SADTUMr ME Maseko NASGBMr J Pampallis CEPDMr A Hendricks NAPTOSAMr P Colditz FEDSASHans Maletzki SANASEMs S Motala Wits EPUDr T Tshabalala SAPAMr C Roos Governing Body FoundationMr G Khosa HSRCMs J Roberts JET

201

Bibliography

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY RE-SCHOOL

GOVERNANCE

Absolute CRD. 1998. Report of the Task Team on Vryburg High School: Executive Summary.(Report to MEC of Education Z. Tolo, North West Province). Unpublished report in posses-sion of the author.

Ajam, T. 2001. Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in South Africa. In IntergovernmentalRelations in South Africa, eds. N. Levy and C. Tapscott. Belville: IDASA and School ofGovernment, UWC.

Barron, C. 1998. Monument to Misunderstanding. Sunday Times, 22nd March 1998.

Bray, M. 1985. Decentralisation and Equality of Educational Opportunity in Papua NewGuinea. In Lauglo, J and McLean, M. (eds.) The Control of Education. London: Heinemman.

Buckland, P. and Hofmeyr, J. 1993. Education and Governance in South Africa. Johannesburg: The Urban Foundation.

Broadfoot, P. 1985. Towards Conformity: Educational Control and the Growth of CorporateManagement in England and France. In Lauglo, J and McLean, M. (eds). The Control ofEducation. London: Heinemann.

Caillods, F. 1999. Preface. In McGinn, N. and Welsh, T. Decentralisation of Education: Why,When, What and How. Paris: UNESCO.

Carr, W. and Hartnett, A. 1996. Education and the Struggle for Democracy: The Politics ofEducational Ideas. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Carrim, N. 2001. Democratic Participation, Decentralisation and Educational Reform. InSayed, Y. and Jansen, J. Implementing Education Policies: the South African Experience. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Centre for Education Policy Development, Evaluation and Management (CEPD). 2001. Report on the Second Elections of School Governing Bodies. Pretoria: Department ofEducation.

Chapman J.D. et al (eds.). The Reconstruction of Education: Quality, Equality and Control.London: Cassell.

Bibliography

202

Chisholm, L. 1997. The Restructuring of South African Education and Training inComparative Context. In Kallaway, P., Kruss, G., Fataar, A., and Donn, A. Education AfterApartheid: South African Education in Transition. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Chossudovsky, D. 1997. The Globalization of Poverty: Impacts of World and IMF Reforms.London: Zed.Coleman

Christie, P. 1991. The Right to Learn. Johannesburg: Sached Trust/Raven Press.

Chubb and Moe

Cishe, E.N. and Jadezeweni, M.M. 2002. Paper presented to the Conference on Education andDecentralisation: African Experiences and Comparative Analysis, Johannesburg, 11-14 June2002.

Coleman,Daun, H. 2003. Changing Governance and Educational Outcomes. case studies in Nicaraguaand South Africa. Unpublished research proposal in possession of the author.

Davies, L. 1990. Equity and Efficiency: School Management in an International Context.Lewes, UK: Falmer.

Department of National Education. 1992. Education Renewal Strategy: Management Solutionsfor Education in South Africa. Pretoria: DNE.

Department of Education (DoE). 1995a. Report of the Committee to Review the Organisation,Governance and Funding of Schools. Pretoria: Department of Education.

Department of Education (DoE). 1995b. White Paper on Education and Training in aDemocratic South Africa: First Steps to Develop a New System. Government Gazette, No.16312, 15 March 1995.

Department of Education (DoE). 1996a. The Organisation, Governance and Funding ofSchools: A Draft Policy Document for Discussion. Education White Paper 2. GovernmentGazette, 368(16987).

Department of Education (DoE). 1996b.

Department of Education (DoE). 1998a. An Educator Post Provisioning (Distribution) Modelfor Education Institutions with Annexure A comprising Resolution No. 5 of 1998, Resolution

203

Bibliography

No. 6 of 1998, Resolution No. 7 of 1998, and Resolution No. 8 of 1998.

Department of Education (DoE). 1998b. National Norms and Standards for School Funding.Notice 2362 of 1998. Government Gazette, 400(19347).

Department of Education (DoE). 1999. Admissions Policy for Ordinary Public Schools.Government Gazette, 400(19377).

Department of Education (DoE) 1999. The National Policy on HIV/AIDS for Learners andEducators in Public Schools, and Students and Educators in Further Education and TrainingInstitutions of the DoE. Government Gazette, 10 August 1999, Government Notice, No. 20372.

Department of Education (DoE). 2003. Report to the Minister: Review of the Financing,Resourcing and Costs of Education in Public Schools. Government Gazette, 453(25031).

Dieltiens, V. and Enslin, P. 2002. Democracy in Education or Education for Democracy: TheLimits of Participation in South African School Governance. Journal of Education. No. 28:5-24

Education Policy Unit (Natal). 1998. Democratic Governance of Public Education in SouthAfrica. Durban: EPU (Natal).

Fleisch, B. 2002. Managing Educational Change: the State and School Reform in SouthAfrica. Sandown: Heinemann.

Gardiner, M. 1990. Efforts at Creating Alternative Curricula: Conceptual and PracticalConsiderations, in Nkomo, M. Pedagogy of Domination: Towards a Democratic Education inSouth Africa. Trenton, New Jersey: Africa World Press, pp 199-216.

Gauteng Department of Education (GDE). 2001. School Governance Policy. Report preparedfor the GDE by CASE and the Wits EPU. Johannesburg.

Govinda, R. 1997. Decentralization of Educational Management: Experiences from SouthAsia. Paris: UNESCO.

Govender, L. 2001. Participation in the Education Sector: Fallacies and Challenges ofRepresentative Democracy in South Africa. Paper presented at a joint SA-French conferencein Bordeaux, France in September 2001. Unpublished.

Grant Lewis, S. and Motala, S. 2003. Educational De/Centralisation and the Quest for Equity,Democracy and Quality. Publication forthcoming in Chisholm, L. Ten Years After: Education

Bibliography

204

and Social Change in South Africa. Pretoria: HSRC.

Hartshorne, K. 1992. Crisis and Challenge: Black Education 1910-1990. Cape Town: OxfordUniversity Press.

Jansen, J. 1998. Grove Primary: Power, Privilege and the Law in South African Education.Journal of Education, No. 23:5-30.

Jansen, J.D. 2000. Education after Apartheid: Intersections of Politics and Policy in the SouthAfrican Transition 1990-2000. Durban: Centre for Research, Evaluation and Policy, UDW.

Kallaway, P., Kruss, G., Fataar, A., and Donn, A. 1997. Education After Apartheid: SouthAfrican Education in Transition. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Karis, T., Carter, G. and Gerhart, G. 1977. From Protest to Challenge: A Documentary Historyof African Politics in South Africa 1882-1964, Volume 3. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.

Karlsson, J. 2002. The Role of Democratic Governing Bodies in South African Schools.Comparative Education, 38(3):327-336.

Karlsson, J., Pampallis, J. and Sithole, S. 1996. Restructuring Educational Governance at Sub-National Levels in South Africa. Durban: Education Policy Unit (Natal).

Karlsson, J., McPherson, G. and Pampallis, J. 2001. A Critical Examination of theDevelopment of School Governance Policy and its Implications for Achieving Equity. InMotala, E. and Pampallis, J. Education and Equity: The Impact of State Policies on SouthAfrican Education. Sandown: Heinemann.

Karodia, Y.M. 1996. Effective School Leaders in South Africa: the Challenges ofReconstruction and Development. Paper presented at the Conference on Global Perspectiveson School Leadership, Uppsala, Sweden, 21-27 July.

Khulisa Management Services and Lifelong Learning Services. 1999. Final Impact Study:School Governance Programme – Gauteng Department of Education. Johannesburg: GDE.

Kruss, G, Sayed, Y., and Badat, S. (2001). Implementing New Education Policy at the SchoolLevel in the Western Cape. Unpublished Report to the NRF.

Lauglo, J. and McLean, M. (eds). 1985. The Control of Education. London: Heinemann.

Lauglo, J. 1996. Forms of Decentralisation and Their Implications for Education. In Chapman,

205

Bibliography

J.D. et al. The Reconstruction of Education: Quality, Equality and Control. London: Cassell.

Lodge, T. 1983. Black Politics in South Africa. London and New York: Longman.

Makaula, N; Karodia, Y.M; Persad, B & Ensor, D. 1994. Management skills for educationistsin a changing South Africa. Unpublished workbook, Durban.

Maphumulo, M and Sheehy, C. 1998. Town Officials’ In-Fighting Stoked the Fire at Vryburg.Sunday Times, 22nd March 1998.

Maree, M. and Lowenherz, A. 1998. Grove Primary: Power, Privilege and the Law in SouthAfrican Education. Journal of Education, No. 23:30-40.

McGinn, N. and Welsh, T. 1999. Decentralisation of Education: Why, When, What and How.Paris: UNESCO.

McLennan, A.C. 2000. Educational Governance and Management in South Africa. Thesis sub-mitted for a PhD degree, University of Liverpool.

McPherson, G. and Naicker, S. 2002. Governing Schools in an Era of Democracy.Johannesburg: CEPD.

McPherson, G., and Dlamini, M. 1998. Democratic School Governing Bodies in the Provinceof KwaZulu-Natal: the First Elections. Durban: Education Policy Unit (Natal).

Millar, C,. Raynham, S., and Schaffer, A, 1991. Breaking the Formal Frame: Readings inSouth African Education in the Eighties. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Miron, G. Undated. The Swedish Educational Reform Concerning Choice and Market Forcesin Schooling. Unpublished paper prepared for the Stockholm University Institute forInternational Education.

Mohammed, N & Johnson, D. 1992: A survey of institutions and NGO’s offering training ineducational management : training for democratic governance. Paper prepared for the NEPIGovernance and administration research group, October.

Motala, E. and Pampallis, J. (eds) 2001. Education and Equity: The Impact of State Policieson South African Education. Sandown: Heinemann.

Motala, S. 2003. Literature Review on Equity. Written for EPC research project, InvestigatingGovernance and Equity in the South African Schools Act at School Level within the context of Democracy, Social Justice, and Human Rights.

Bibliography

206

Nkomo, M. 1990. Pedagogy of Domination: Towards a Democratic Education in South Africa.Trenton, New Jersey: Africa World Press.

National Education Policy Investigation (NEPI). 1992. Governance and Administration. CapeTown: Oxford University Press.

Nzimande, B., Pampallis, J., Dlamini, T., Ntuli, L., and Berger, M. 1993. Towards a NewStructure for the Governance of Schooling. In Education Policy Unit (Natal). 1998.Democratic Governance of Public Education in South Africa. Durban: EPU (Natal).

Nzimande, B. 1993. ‘Civil Society’ and the Role of the National Education CoordinatingCommittee. In Education Policy Unit (Natal). 1998. Democratic Governance of PublicEducation in South Africa. Durban: EPU (Natal).

Nzimande, B. 1997. Foreword. In Education After Apartheid, edited by Kallaway et al. CapeTown. University of Cape Town Press.

Nzimande, B. 2001. Inside Parliament: Making Laws and Contesting Policy in South AfricanEducation, in Implementing Education Policies: The South African Experience, edited by Y.Sayed and J. Jansen. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Oldfield, S. 2001. The South African State in Transition: A Question of Form, Function andFragmentation. In Motala, E. and Pampallis, J. (eds.) Education and Equity: the Impact ofState Policies on South African Education. Sandown: Heinemann.

Pampallis, J. 1993. School Ownership in South Africa. In Education Policy Unit (Natal). 1998.Democratic Governance of Public Education in South Africa. Durban: EPU (Natal).

Pampallis, J. 2002. ‘The Nature of Educational Decentralisation in South Africa.’ Paper pre-sented to the Conference on Education and Decentralisation: African Experiences andComparative Analysis, Johannesburg, 11-14 June 2002.

Pampallis, J. 2003. Education Reform and School Choice in South Africa. In Plank, D. andSykes, G. Choosing Choice: School Choice in International Perspective. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Patel, F. 2001. Autonomous Districts for Enhanced Educational Delivery. Paper presented toGauteng Department of Education conference on District Development, October 2001.

Patel, F. 2002. “Putting our Money Where our Mouth Lies” – Norms and Standards for PublicSchool Funding in South Africa – Empowered Decentralization! Paper presented to theDecentralisation and Education Conference, Johannesburg, 11-14 June 2002.

207

Bibliography

Plank, D. and Sykes, G. 2003. Choosing Choice: School Choice in International Perspective.New York: Teachers College Press.

Prinsloo, J.G. and Beckman, J.L. 1988. Education and the Rights and Duties of Parents,Teachers and Children: an Introductory Orientation. Johannesburg and Cape Town: LexPatria.

Ranson, S 2003. “The Report: The Participation of Volunteer Citizens in School Governance”,unpublished document obtained from Professor Michael Young.

Renschler, R. 2000. New Patterns of School Governance. ERIC Digest Number 141.(Downloaded on 20-02-2003 from http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed446346.html)

Republic of South Africa (RSA). 1993. Interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.Act 200 of 1993.

Republic of South Africa (RSA). 1996a. National Education Policy Act. Act. 27 of 1996.

Republic of South Africa (RSA). 1996b. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Act108 of 1996.

Republic of South Africa (RSA). 1996c. The South African Schools Act. Act 84 of 1996.

Republic of South Africa (RSA). 1997. Education Laws Amendment Act. Act 100 of 1997.

Republic of South Africa (RSA). 2002. Education Laws Amendment Act. Act 50 of 2002.

Republic of South Africa (RSA). 2003. Education Laws Amendment Bill, 2003.

Rodinelli, D.A., Nelson, J.R. and Cheema, G.S. 1984. Decentralization in DevelopingCountries: a review of recent experience. Washington, DC: World Bank, Staff Working PaperNo. 581.

Sayed, Y. and Carrim, N. 1997. Democracy, Participation and Equity in EducationalGovernance. South African Journal of Education, 17(3):91-100.

Sayed, Y. and Jansen, J. 2001. Implementing Education Policies: the South AfricanExperience. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Sayed, Y. 2002. Democratising Education in a Decentralised System: South African Policy and Practice. Compare, 32(1)35-46.

Bibliography

208

Sayed, Y and Soudien, C. 2003. “Integrating South African Schools: Some PreliminaryFindings”, IDS Bulletin, 34 (1)29-43.

Sheehy, C. and Maphumulo, M. 1998. Simmering Conflict Involves Whole Community.Sunday Times, 22nd March 1998.

Sithole, S. 1994. ‘Parent-Teacher-Student Associations (PTSAs): Present State and FutureProspects’ in Education Policy Unit (Natal). 1998. Democratic Governance of PublicEducation in South Africa. Durban: EPU (Natal).

South African Democratic Teachers Union (SADTU). September 1996. Response to the SouthAfrican Schools Bill. Cited in Govender, 2001.

Squelch, J. 1999. Governance of education. In Lemmer, E (ed). Contemporary education:global issues and trends, Johannesburg: Heinemann, pp 137-146.

Stevens, L.K. 1996. Education Policy in the New South Africa. Policy Formation andDecentralisation: Opportunities and Obstacles to Restructuring the Education System.Unpublished M.Phil Dissertation, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.

Strange, S. 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tikly, Leon. 1997. Changing South African Schools? An Analysis and Critique of Post-elec-tion Government Policy. Journal of Education Policy, 12(3):177-188.

Tolo, Z. 1998. Report on the Situation at Vryburg School. (Prepared for the national Ministerof Education, Minister Bengu). Unpublished Report.

Thurlow, M. 1996. Reconceptualising a university’s role in the provision of education man-agement development for school managers: a case study. Paper presented at a colloquium onthe role of tertiary institutions in education management development, August, SparklingWaters, South Africa.

Tladi, B. and Mulaudzi, M. 2003. School Governing Bodies in Limpopo Province: Challenges,Strengths and Weaknesses. In District Development Support Programme. Improving theQuality of Primary Education: Good Practices and Emerging Models of District Development.Pretoria: DDSP.

Vally, S. and Dalamba, Y. 1999. Racism, ‘Racial Integration’ and Desegregation in SouthAfrican Public Secondary Schools. A report on a study by the South African Human RightsCommission. Johannesburg: SAHRC.

209

Bibliography

Venter, D.J. 1998. Report on the Situation at Vryburg High School. Unpublished report in pos-session of the author.

Winkler, D. 1989. Decentralization in Education: An Economic Perspective. Washington DC:Population and Human Resources Department, World Bank.

210