Abstract
The existence of a field of tension between the Department of Education and school governing bodies of public schools in South-Africa is of great concern to all partners in the education system, especially taking into consideration that these parents’ bodies were established by the government of the day as equal partners in the management of their children’s schools. Although there will always be differences amongst role-players regarding the running of schools, it can be harmful and to the disadvantage of the learners if these differences are not handled in a professional and transparent way.
Against this background, the aim of this research was to investigate the existence of a possible field of tension between the Department of Education and school governing bodies of public schools in the Free State where Afrikaans is being offered as medium of instruction. The purpose of the study was to identify the origin of the field of tension in an effort to describe and analyze different aspects thereof. Special emphasis was also placed on the revised policy on religion in education as an example of possible tension.
The introductory chapters explain the background of the empirical investigation. In these chapters attention was given to:
• The Department of Education as instrument of the state and its responsibilities towards governing bodies.
• The role of the school governing body as partner of the Department of Education in a democratic educational dispensation. Special reference was made to the duties and responsibilities of school governing bodies according to the South-African Schools’ Act.
• The manifestation of the field of tension between the Department of Education and school governing bodies in real life situations. A variety of recently documented examples were looked at.
• The application of the revised policy regarding religion in education on school level was evaluated.
An empirical investigation was undertaken on the basis of the theoretical framework mentioned. The views of respondents from school governing bodies and the Department of Education were tested by making use of a structured empirical-quantitative questionnaire. The aim with the questionnaire was to determine whether there is indeed a field of tension, and if so, what the nature and scope of such a field of tension entails. A further aim with the questionnaire was to identify additional fields of tension which were not necessarily found in the literature previously studied.
The respondents eventually confirmed the existence of a field of tension between school governing bodies and the Department of Education in an overwhelming way, which only emphasized to the researcher the necessity to intervene in an effort to defuse this dangerous situation.
The validity and reliability of the empirical component of the research was ensured by making use of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Test, the Bartlet Test as well as the Cronbach ∞ - coeffisient. A factor analysis was also done on the data to ensure that the findings were as reliable as possible.
An evaluation of the findings, reveals the following core problems between school governing bodies and the Department of Education in the Free Sate that have to be dealt with before a sound mutual relationship between these two partners can again be developed:
• Mutual mistrust in one another’s motives,
• A lack of knowledge regarding the content and regulations of SASA,
• A lack of communication and misinterpretation of education policy,
• A lack of transparency and irresponsible action taken by the Department of Education,
• A lack of support to school governing bodies,
• Applications of educational policy in practice that do not comply with the regulations of SASA,
• School governing bodies fearing the department’s infringement in their powers;
• Refusal by school governing bodies to adapt to changes in the educational system.
Recommendations for defusing the unhealthy field of tension between two of the most important partners in the education system includes the organizing of a provincial indaba on the initiative of the education department as soon as possible. It was found that the single most important factor that leads to a field of tension between school governing bodies and the Department of Education is a mutual feeling of mistrust between the two partners. On such an indaba the partners will have to assure one another of their support, good faith and willingness to work together towards a common goal. It will also be necessary to agree on the application of the regulations of SASA in practice.
It is important that the Free State Department of Education would consider the establishment of a functional Directorate: School governance and –management or a PCF (Provincial Consultative Forum) on provincial level to ensure a body that is visible on school level and which can communicate with school governing bodies to advise them on matters of mutual interest.
It is of the utmost importance that all members of school governing bodies as well as School Management Developers should undergo compulsory training by professional facilitators about the content and regulations of SASA and the application thereof in practice. Such training should be of a very high standard and should allow for the differentiation between groups of parents on the grounds of differences in language, skills, knowledge, experience, etc. It is also advised that departmental officials should be trained together with the school governing bodies under their control.
It is also of critical importance to emphasize to school governing bodies the necessity to review the different ways of communication between themselves and the parent communities they represent. They owe it to them as their representatives and it will assist them in defusing potential fields of tension that might occur.
If both partners are willing to take ownership of these recommendations in good faith and put in an honest effort to make them work, it will lead to the defusion of potential unhealthy problem areas. Only in this way will these role-players be able to create a mutual understanding and respect for one another’s point of view in the interest of the most important partner in the education process - the learner.
Prof. J.C. Kok