It is significant that our schools are still classified as ‘former Model C”, ‘urban”, ‘rural” and ‘farm” schools. The national policies and laws for school governance have very different implications, depending on the type of school in which they are operating.
A culture of school governance among parents in rural and farm schools is mostly still in its infancy because of a lack of information, experience and expertise. In rural and farm schools where illiteracy is high, some parents become school governing body (SGB) members under pressure and without understanding the role they are expected to play.
Attending meetings is often a challenge — because of issues such as transport, but also because parents don’t read and understand English, the language in which most SGB matters are written.
This often leaves the principal with no option other than to take control of activities that should belong to all on the SGB, such as drawing up budgets and the school’s constitution.
Also, as these parents are not paid for their positions of responsibility, they apparently don’t take them seriously.
In urban and former Model C schools, the challenges in the composition of SGBs have other dimensions. Better-educated and more economically stable parents are the ones elected to serve on SGBs and there is little working-class representation. Although former Model C schools admit black learners, their SGBs are still predominantly white — a fact confirmed by a ministerial review committee in 2004. In meetings, racial issues emerge as members are from different cultural backgrounds. Tensions are sometimes so high that SGBs are dissolved before the end of their term.
Among many types of schools, there is also an ongoing tension between powers legally given to SGBs, those of the Department of Education, and practical realities. For example, education law states that those who can’t afford school fees be exempted. However, in rural areas, 80% of a school’s learners would be exempted. As a result, SGBs do not encourage it — and this is a violation of education law.
Another example is that of teacher appointments. Especially in rural areas, SGBs recommend a son of the soil for a post, who is often not supported by the department. And so more conflict with the authorities arises.
I believe that parents are no longer interested in participating in SGBs. In 2003, when parents were called for SGB elections, there was a painfully low turn-out. In some schools, principals called multiple meetings, yet elections had to be carried out with a consistently low parent attendance.
To improve the situation, I recommend that:
– SGB members be paid;
– SGB parents be able to read and write in English, as most information about SGB matters is in English;
– Educators from other schools should not serve on the executive committees of SGBs, even if their children attend those schools. These educators sometimes want the schools in which they are serving as parents to function like the schools where they teach; and
– Provinces should appoint educators from managerial positions to become SGB trainers, as they are the ones who understand managerial issues in schools.
Willie Chabalala is the president of the South African Principal’s Association