With the imminent elections of school governing bodies, it is apposite to pose the question whether these structures are a boon or a bane to the provision of quality education.
The bodies were established under section 18(1) of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996. Section 20(1) of the same act lists the functions of all governing bodies which include to promote the interests of the school and strive to ensure its development through the provision of quality education for all pupils at the school. Some of the functions are to adopt a constitution; support the principal, educators and other staff in the performance of their professional functions; and to recommend to the head of department the appointment of educators at the school.
These functions also include that of purchasing textbooks, educational materials or equipment for the school and to pay for services to the schools. It is clear that the bodies are meant to add value to the institution and enhance democratic decision-making at institutional level. This democratic element is given effect through its composition which comprises all the stakeholders at the school in the form of parents, teachers, support staff and pupils in the case of secondary schools.
What is also clear is that members of the governing bodies participate on a voluntary basis with no expectation of financial remuneration.
On an annual basis, the state provides funding to public schools in accordance with their quintile status ranging from 1 to 5, which represent non-fee to fee-paying schools. Quintile 1 are township schools and quintile 5 former model C schools. Section 36 states that “a governing body of a public school must take all reasonable measures within its means to supplement the resources supplied by the state in order to improve the quality of education provided by the school to all pupils.
What becomes clear is that the professional management of the school rests with the school management team under the leadership of the principal, who is the accounting officer, while governance issues are a competence of the bodies in its entire composition.
It must be said that the issue of school funding has in many instances become a source of conflict which has rendered some schools completely dysfunctional in terms of governance. This is particularly so in township schools which are almost entirely under quintile 1 and thereby receive the largest share of state funding.
It must also be borne in mind that it is within the township communities that the sting of poverty and unemployment is felt the most. For some parents, election into the governing body is perceived as an escape route from their less-than-desirable positions. Along this line, parents view the bodies as a vehicle for self-enrichment.
In some schools, one finds a clamour for governing body membership to the extent that some community members would manipulate systems and “adopt” children in an effort to become members. They will go to police stations to fill in affidavits to back up their spurious claims of being legal guardians.
It is not unusual in some circumstances to find a person who has been a member of the governing body for 15 years. These “parents” with dodgy credentials will then hijack the bodies for their own nefarious purposes and wreak untold havoc in the process.
The source of the friction in most schools is almost invariably linked with the purchasing of learning materials. In an effort to cash in on the arrangement, some parent members will seek to force through their preferred suppliers, without complying with the required process of assessing three different quotations.
Should the principal then attempt to resist these wicked manoeuvres of these “parents”, a vilification campaign will ensue accompanied by demands for his or her removal from the school. They will then beef up their campaign with conniving teachers and other staff members. These plotters will then use their political connections to elevate their campaign and escalate it to the level of the MEC.
The principal will then be placed in a precarious position to discharge his or her professional duties. The effective management of the school will then be bruised in the bargain. The natural consequence of all this infighting will be institutional instability with poor pupil performance a direct result.
The gist of the governing bodies' challenge is that of parents who do not see themselves as working as part of a team, but as an exclusive entity with unique powers and privileges. This challenge is exacerbated by the fact that in most instances, districts and provinces cave in to their demands with principals rendered as sacrificial lambs at the altar of political expedience.
As for the bodies' function prescribed by section 20(1) of recommending the appointment of educators at the school, some parents have been reported to have conspired with one teacher union notorious for its manipulation of the process of filling of posts.
Amounts ranging up to R30,000 have reportedly changed hands to secure principals’ posts for candidates lacking management expertise.
The situation of schools being held hostage by governing body hijackers sullies the noble intentions which these structures were formed. It is time that districts and provinces act fearlessly and decisively to put a stop to these debilitating practices and thus rescue our schools from calamity. The pursuit of quality education for the black child is an ideal that cannot be postponed, negotiated or compromised.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.