Cuestiones procesales

A number of factors that affect the culture of teaching and learning and which impact negatively on the senior certificate examinations (SCE) is the end result of the provision of quality education within an inclusive environment.

105 4.7.1.1 Previously classified educational departments and dysfunctional

schools

Apartheid education segregated race groups through the control of different departments where inequity was prevalent and clearly visible in the quality of education provided to each race group. White education was administered under the House of Assembly, the House of Delegates dealt with the Indian education, Coloured education was governed by the House of Representatives and the Department of Education and Training (DET) represented Black education (Kershni, 2002).

In addition, inspectorate domination resulted in educators working in isolation thus limiting their capacity to develop their teaching and learning through discussions with other educators; an important concept enforced today by Wenger (1998), working in communities of practices. Furthermore, the unequal distribution of funding to schools especially, disadvantaged schools and rural schools resulted in poor infrastructure, lack of resources, including unskilled educators, poor management and governance resulting in a low morale of educational stakeholders and an absence of a culture of teaching and learning (Christie, 1998; Kershni, 2002; Fleisch, 2006: De Villiers, 2010, Pennington, 2011). This is the result of the vast number of dysfunctional schools prevalent in South Africa today (Fleisch, 2006; Pennington, 2011; Taylor, 2011).

4.7.1.2 Poor socio-economic backgrounds, poor performances

The government places great emphasis on learner outcomes because it is a long term investment for economic development (Amino, 2009; Watkins, 2010; Westraad, 2011). Learner outcomes or learner achievement rates averaging below 20% are a demarcation of dysfunctionality in schools (Fleisch, 2006; Democratic Alliance, 2012) where there is a breakdown in organisational structure and process (Shepherd, 2011). Schools housing groups of educators and learners of low socio-economic status impede teaching and learning (UNICEF, 2000) because of apartheid policies and practices (Christie, 1998) and misguided perceptions of classroom realities which result in decreased educator morale (Bayona & Sadiki, 1999; Harley, Barasa, Bertram, Mattson & Pillay, 2000) which impacts negatively on the quality of education provided for all learners. These schools have a high drop-out rates and student absenteeism because of the barriers preventing them attending school. However, schools where learners and educators are from high socio-economic backgrounds attend top

106

performing schools or effective schools produce high achievement rates because of an embedded and sustained culture of teaching and learning (Wolkron, 1998).

However, there are schools from low socio-economic backgrounds which survive and produce high achievement rates despite a lack of resources (Christie & Potterton, 1997; Coleman, Hoffer & Kilgore, 1982).

4.7.1.3 District / departmental visits and dysfunctional schools

District-based support teams offer professional support services at district level, while support providers retained by the DoE assist educational institutions to ascertain and attend to learning challenges and advance quality teaching and learning (DoE, 2005). Service providers provide assistance with classroom and organisational support, specialised learner and educator support, administrative support as well as curriculum development and institutional support which include management and governance of the school (DoE, 2005).

Schools that sustain transformation had sufficient district support during the implementation of intervention strategies to improve teaching and learning which had a positive impact on schools (Fleisch, 2006). However, a lack of district support and a lack of continued support from district offices impact negatively on the schools ability to sustain themselves (Datnow & Springfield 2000) Despite the fact that the South African framework adopts a culture of support (Guest, 2008) at the meso level and macro level, the support offered to schools by district offices is minimal or inadequate and schools are left to execute their own development initiatives but lack the capacity to do so (Fullan, 2001; De Villiers, 2010).

The aims of WSD are, amongst other things, to develop strategies to improve teaching and learning, engage in teacher development, improve leadership and management capacity, and assist schools with strategic planning (Motala, 2001).

4.7.1.4 Governance and dysfunctional schools

South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 gave authority to the SGB to govern schools (Guest, 2008) in order to establish self-governing, power sharing relationships and joint partnerships with parents, the government and educators (Beckman & Prinsloo,

107

2009; Karlsson, 1983 cited by Smit & Oosthuizen, 2011). The SGB has a legal function to perform and fulfil their affiliated legal duties as well their additional roles which are to plan, control and to authorise the school‘s budget in conjunction with the needs of the school (Radoni, (n.d.).

The SGB‘s roles and functions have been aligned with the democratic model of organisation, governance and funding of schools (Radoni, n.d.) with increased responsibilities that have a significant influence on the management of schools (Radoni, n.d.; Kershni, 2002). The influx of dysfunctional schools queries the usefulness of local school governance in dysfunctional schools (Smit & Oosthuizen, 2011) and whether they have the capacity in terms of knowledge, skills and competence to deal with the challenges faced in dysfunctional schools (Radoni, n.d.). Therefore, SGBs need to enhance their skills to ensure that their role performance can allow them to govern schools effectively by identifying the skills they need so that the Provincial DoE can provide the SGBs with training (Motimele, 2005).

4.7.1.5 School management and dysfunctional schools

Effective leadership and management is crucial to restoring equilibrium in dysfunctional schools (Taylor and Prinsloo, 2005; Salazar, 2007; Msila, 2007) and to facilitate a culture of teaching and learning that will enable an environment conducive to best educational practice. Leadership and management should enforce institutional control with accountability measures in place so that educators and other educational stakeholders within the internal school environment can fulfil their mandate which would guarantee school improvement rather than to constrain it (Motala, 2001). For example, Education Labour Relations Council (ELRC) is concluding assessment processes for principals, deputy principals and members of the SMT in terms of Education Management Services (EMS). The SMT team will have to sign performance agreements as a measure to strengthen accountability (DBE, 2012).

The function of the SMT is to promote the knowledge and skills that the school requires through adopting a shared vision and culture, develop and grow educators and learners as well as enable a culture of teaching and learning in a school (Fullan, 2001). The SMT also provides an integrative function enabling productive relationships with interacting and interdependent stakeholders within the internal environment of the

108

school who are accountable for their specific role and functions to developing the whole school (Elmore, 2000 cited by Fullan, 2001).

The factors identified above affect dysfunctional schools. Christie (1998) provides a list of factors that affect dysfunctional schools. These factors are listed in table 4.2 below aligned with the various school functionalities discussed above.