Bomba Poker con tratamiento químico

In the twentieth century, there has been a major shift to self-governance for schools with the aim of giving schools greater powers to manage their affairs within clearly defined national frameworks (Bush & Gamage, 2001:39). This shift resulted in changes in the structure of governing bodies. Nyandoro et al. (2013:255) identified countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand who decentralised the

financial management in their schools. According to Nyandoro et al. (2013:256), Zimbabwe adopted centralisation of education after its independence, which created considerable challenges for the country until they also decided to decentralise the education system in 1992.

Governing bodies in most countries comprise parents, teachers, community representatives, teaching and non-teaching staff as well as principals of schools (Bush & Heystek, 2003:131). This composition matches governing bodies in South African schools. Bush and Heystek (2003:131) identified the following four major differences between the South African education system and systems in other countries:

• South Africa provides for learner membership in secondary schools;

• just like in South Africa, parents constitute a majority in Australian school councils (Bush & Gamage, 2001:42). In Lesotho, a school board consists of nine members (Lesotho, 2010:180): two members nominated by a proprietor, three members nominated by parents, one teacher, a chief under whose jurisdiction the school falls, a member of a local council under whose jurisdiction the school falls, and the principal of the school (Lesotho Government, 2010:180);

• the governing body chair must be a parent governor in South Africa while in Lesotho, the school board is chaired by a member nominated by a proprietor, and a parent nominee may serve as a deputy chairperson (Lesotho Government, 2010:180); and

• Co-opted members have voting rights in England but not in South Africa.

SGBs in England and Wales are entrusted with responsibilities, some of which are to provide a statement of curriculum aims; modifications or exemptions to curriculum policies; giving a detailed report on educational needs, sex education and arrangements by the school for collective worship; providing a prospectus and an annual report; financial responsibility for decisions relating to school expenditure, and keeping appropriate accounts (Farrell & Law, 1999:6). According to Farrell and Law (1999:6), governing bodies in England and Wales have legal responsibilities to the local education authorities (LEAs), inspection authorities, the public and the parents. The SGBs in England, as in South Africa and other countries, are representatives of various stakeholders, who include staff, parents, the local authority, the local community and religious affiliations (James, Brammer, Connolly, Spicer, James & Jones, 2013:84).

According to the responsibilities listed above, it is clear that SGBs of most countries are entrusted with financial responsibilities, which include financial management and reporting on behalf of the schools. In Lesotho, however, the financial responsibilities are given to the

principal of the school. According to section, 21 of Lesotho Government’s education act (Act Number 3 of 2010), other financial responsibilities of the principal include control and use of school funds, maintenance of records of income and expenditure, and preparation of a budget and submission of financial statements to the school board for approval. It is clear that the financial responsibilities of the school boards in Lesotho are only approval of budget, approval of financial statements, and auditing of financial statements (Lesotho Government, 2010:180).

According to James, Brammer, Connolly, Fertig, James and Jones (2010:14), at the time of their research, 83% of governors in England were in professional and managerial occupations; one third were graduates; one in eight had higher degrees and about a quarter of chairpersons were professionally qualified. They also found that the schools in England were effectively governed. People were appointed to the governing body only if it was believed that they had skills to contribute to the effective governance and success of the school (England, 2016:8). Decisions to appoint members of the SGBs are informed by interviews and references.

As mentioned in Chapter 1 of this thesis, South African SGBs have challenges such as illiteracy of SGB members and their lack of skills. Furthermore, when electing members of the SGB, skills are not considered. Consideration is only made to section 23 of the SASA, that an elected member must be parent of a learner, educator at the school, member of staff who are not educators, and learners in the eighth grade or higher. James et al. (2010:56) mentioned in their study that in England, one primary school had recruited an accountant who also served as the chair of the finance committee. The researcher is of the opinion that schools in South Africa should also appoint skilled people in order to enhance and improve the financial management of the schools. The researcher is also of the opinion that lack of skills might be the cause of ineffective functioning of the South African SGBs (see section 1.3, above).

The term of office of the governors in England is four years (see England, 2016:16) as opposed to three years in South Africa (RSA, 1996c: section, 31). In New Zealand, like other countries, transformation also took place, which affected different sectors of the economy. Prior to the transformation taking place, schools in New Zealand were classified as SOEs (also known as ‘crown entities’) and they had to comply with the State Sector Act, 1988, the State Owned Enterprises Act, 1986, and the Public Finance Act, 1989 (Broadbent, Jacobs & Laughlin, 1999:346). In terms of the Public Finance Act (1989), each department and crown entity were required to prepare audited annual and half-yearly financial and non-financial performance reports to be presented to parliament and also be released to the general public. Schools were

then decentralised, and the Education Act, 1989 as well as the Education Amendment Act (2015) were revised.

Broadbent et al. (1999:347) established that, at the time of their research, the schools in New Zealand had to comply with the Education Act 1989 as well as the Public Finance Act, 1989. In terms of these Acts, the schools are required to prepare annual financial statements which, together with the school financial management systems were subject to audit by Audit New Zealand at the time. According to Broadbent et al. (1999:347), in England, it was not different. Management of English schools was delegated to the governing bodies.

In Florida, in the United States, additional financial reporting requirements were introduced in 2006 to help financially struggling charter schools. This was done by strengthening financial auditing and reporting standards (Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability [OPPAGA], 2008).

In section 1.3, challenges facing South African SGBs were discussed. As is the case in South Africa, schools in Kenya and Zimbabwe also experience challenges regarding financial mismanagement. According to Mobegi (2015:215), about 47 cases of financial mismanagement were reported in Gucha District (Kenya) between 2008 and 2010. School principals (referred to as schools’ heads in Zimbabwe) in Mashonaland East Province in Zimbabwe were also accused of financial mismanagement as well as abuse of teacher incentives (Munge et al., 2016:93) which, according to Nyandoro et al. (2013:265), were caused by the lack of knowledge and understanding of their roles as outlined in the statutory instrument.

2.6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In this chapter, the researcher indicated how important the stakeholders are and that their information needs should be satisfied. The researcher emphasised the importance of the reliability of financial information given to stakeholders. The King Code of Corporate Governance (2016) was referred to when discussing different kinds of stakeholders and from whom to claim accountability. The argument also involved who the schools’ stakeholders are. It is clear from the FEDSAS point of view that schools should also adhere to the code of corporate governance. Although the SASA and other school legislations do not prescribe the King Code of Corporate Governance, the researcher agrees with FEDSAS in this regard. In the introductory section, a clear comparison between companies and schools was made. It is clear that the composition of schools’ stakeholders fits the one discussed by FEDSAS based on the King Code of Corporate Governance.

Accountability was also discussed. The discussion included the definitions of accountability by various researchers. The researcher agrees with the King Code of Corporate Governance that accountability includes transparency and responsibility. It is also clear that the separation of management of the entity from shareholders and other stakeholders is to enforce accountability. From the schools’ point of view, the SASA has entrusted the SGBs with the management and running of schools. This therefore makes the SGBs accountable to the stakeholders. The SGBs should therefore be able to supply the government, learners, donors, parents, researchers and other interested parties with relevant and reliable information, whether financial or non-financial. A comparison with other countries, such as England, New Zealand, Australia, the United States (specifically Florida), Lesotho, Kenya and Zimbabwe was made. The researcher identified similarities in terms of the composition of the SGBs which included all stakeholders, such as parents, state representatives, teachers, non-teaching staff, principals and learners. In all these countries, school functions were decentralised and decisions are taken at school level with most taken by the governing bodies. Even though the composition of governing bodies is similar in some of the above-mentioned countries, governing bodies in other countries, such as England, perform much better compared to governing bodies in countries such as South Africa. This is caused by the fact that in England, skills and educational background are considered when choosing members of the governing body, especially in terms of the parents component, while in South Africa, the only qualifying criterion for a parent to be in the SGB is that such parent must have a child attending that school. The skills and education consideration make it easy for SGBs in England to function more effectively. It also contributes to good financial management and reporting. Most schools in England recruit accountants to serve as treasurers in their governing bodies. This promotes good accountability and transparency by SGBs to the various stakeholders.

Composition and financial responsibilities of governing bodies in Lesotho, Zimbabwe and Kenya are not similar to those of South African SGBs. However, the researcher identified similarities in terms of challenges between these countries. All these countries experienced considerable challenges in terms of mismanagement of school funds.

In the next chapter, the researcher will discuss the legislative framework, financial accountability for schools, financial management for schools, various accounting standards, the type of information required by schools’ stakeholders, as well as the financial reporting by schools in other countries.