School governing bodies’ election year brings up fresh debate
IT’S election year again, as the three years of service for those on school governing bodies (SGBs) comes to an end, and new representatives have to be voted in.
Posters encouraging parents to become more involved in their children’s schools were in evidence at a conference on school governance, held in Gauteng late last month.
While elections were a central focus of the conference, there was also critical debate about just how effectively the education system is structured. What clearly emerged was that there are complex relationships between education authorities, principals and SGBs which can become a hindrance to effective schooling.
One example that highlights this is the appointment of principals. One of the responsibilities of SGBs is to recommend the appointment of eductors. While the head of department has the power to appoint principals, it is very difficult not to accept the recommendation made by the SGB.
Speaking at the conference, Western Cape head of education Brian O’Connoll compared the process of appointing principals to ”playing Russian roulette, but with five bullets in the chamber, not one”. He added that, when faced with no alternative other than to appoint someone he knows is not suited to the job of principal, ”I say God forgive me for what I’m about to do to the school and the community for the next 20 years”.
This issue was just one that highlighted exactly the complexity of the relationships between the various role players. Power struggles between the SGB and principal can be a major threat to the effective running of a school, given the delicate balancing act that needs to be achieved between their various roles and authorities. There is also a difficult distinction to be negotiated between ”governance” and ”management”, which, as O’Connoll points out, is one of the reasons that getting it right needs ”skills of the highest order” — skills that most SGBs lack.
Another area of concern was that the parent component of SGBs in particular has not received enough training — which, given the high levels of illiteracy among our adult population, is crucial. Some of the duties of SGBs include creating a school’s code of conduct and dealing with budgets and legal matters, and it is debatable whether the majority of SGBs are equipped to carry out these duties effectively.
Another debate that arose fundamentally questioned the function of SGBs: by handing over certain key responsibilities to SGBs, is the government in fact abdicating its own responsibility for providing quality education? Is this an exercise in democracy, or is it in effect making communities take over duties that are actually the state’s? O’Connoll’s response to this was that the reality of limited resources left the government no choice: ”The country has in effect said to its schools, ‘We can’t give you what we’d like to give you — it’s just not possible. We’re giving it over to schools and saying, ‘Supplement what we have given you.”’
He concedes that ”the process [of creating SGBs] has been very valuable at the level of nation-building … but in terms of of the mandate of learning, it hasn’t been so valuable”.
— The Teacher/Mail & Guardian, May 2, 2000.
M&G Supplements