Derecho NATURAL: conceptos, analogias y distinciones:

6.6.1 Areas of concern

Staff, principals, parents and school boards highlighted several areas of grave concern. These areas have affected the effective and efficient functioning of the school boards in SDA schools in the Western Cape. What was experienced and clearly voiced by the various respondents has clearly shown that, unless all schools move towards well-articulated democratic practices in all boards, the schools will not prosper and grow. There is no doubt that there is an urgent need for deliberative practices, coupled with citizenship. Voices that have been excluded, particularly those of parents in all schools and learners in high schools, must be given their democratic right to participate. The only way in which democratic practices can be enhanced in our SDA

schools is if all role players are given the opportunity to participate in educational governance.

If there is to be genuine nation building through education it will constitute a complete break with the past, and then all must be given a chance to participate in the governance structures of our schools. Of course we understand that this will be done through representation, and that a democratic process would be followed in electing the representatives. We need to give the marginalised an opportunity to participate. Failing that we will never be democratically strong

131

and our school will slump to below the mediocre. With governance at an all-time low, SDA schools cannot afford to leave the situation as business as usual, hence the solutions and recommendations. Many areas of concern were identified. I would like to highlight what I see as the most important areas. These are: representation; functions and responsibilities; training;

communication; conference and pastoral support; method of election; relationships;

involvement; documentation; policies, constitution, roles and responsibilities; transparency;

and co-opting expertise.

I have discussed the above concerns at length, including solutions and recommendations offered by the various stakeholders in the SDA schools in the Western Cape. However, since the SDA church is a worldwide organisation and has schools, colleges and universities all over the world, I would like to refer to similar problems experienced by some of the SDA schools in three different parts of the USA. Our school system is particularly strong in the USA in a division known as the North American Division. I referred to the world divisions earlier in this dissertation. Whilst looking at our schools in the Western Cape, I thought I would do some investigating further afield to see if any of our other schools, in other parts of the world, experience the same problems with school governance. I would like to refer to three specific parts of the USA where our SDA schools experienced the same problems.

6.6.2 Potomac Conference, Virginia

Dr Clarence Dunbedin, Associate Superintendent of Education for the Potomac Conference of SDA in Stanton, Virginia, conducted an open-ended survey on what teachers thought about how their boards functioned. According to Dr Dunbedin, information and ideas were shared by a random group of teachers, principals, superintendents, board members and one conference president. He states that “suggestions came directly from teachers’ experiences” (Dunbedin, 1999, 10). The most frequently listed concerns were as follows:

a. Poor communication skills that affect interaction between board members and education employees;

b. Inaccurate understanding of their board member role;

c. Poor selection process; and

d. Lack of in-service education for board members (Dunbedin 1999, 11).

The above concerns were identical to those highlighted by the respondents in the research conducted in the Western Cape SDA schools. Dunbedin (1999, 10-14) discussed each of the above concerns as reported in his open-ended survey of the respondents. The observations by

132

Dr Dunbedin’s respondents were similar to that of the respondents who participated in my interviews and questionnaires. I will discuss each very briefly in order to show the similarity.

6.6.2.1 Poor communication skills and understanding their role The teachers complained that board members listened to parents and students and then discussed the matters on the board before verifying the accuracy of the reports with the teachers concerned. They indicated that the board members did not know the teachers and should pay a visit to their classrooms. Furthermore, the teachers felt very strongly about the fact that they were not included in decision making (Dunbedin 1999, 11-12). Similarly, complaints from parents and teachers in the schools in the Western Cape were that board members did not know them, they were not careful with confidential matters discussed on the board, and board members should come to visit the schools and sit in the classrooms in order to see what was happening in the schools. They made it quite clear that board members had no idea what their functions and responsibilities were. Dunbedin (1999, 11) suggested that, to solve the problem, “boards should receive regular in-service orientation to help them understand their roles… acquaint themselves with education codes and policies … not to mismanage but to govern”.

6.6.2.2 Selection process

Dunbedin (1999, 12) stated that educators were “concerned about the process for identifying and selecting potential board members”. Respondents in the SDA schools in Western Cape expressed the same concerns and called for change to be effected immediately. Both teachers and principals stated that the selection process in SDA schools in the Western Cape was flawed, and that the wrong people were appointing as members of school boards. Dunbedin (1999, 12) suggested that, “to improve the selection process, a job description be used as the basis for identifying possible candidates”. He stated further that “a brief summary of the candidate’s talents and interests should be made available”.

6.6.2.3 In-service opportunities for board members

Dunbedin (1999, 13) suggested that boards meet more frequently. Time could be spent on boardmanship to enlarge the members’ knowledge. At the same time, board members should be supplied with reading materials like specific journals articles, for example to help them keep abreast of what was happening in education and so improve their boardmanship.

133

6.6.2.4 Inaccurate understanding of their role

Dunbedin (1999, 11) stated that “many teachers strongly believed that board members do not understand what a board is supposed to do”. The same observation was made about the

Western Cape school boards in this study. This brings me to the second Conference in the USA that I would like to mention.

6.6.3 Southern Union Conference, Georgia

Higgs and Jackson (2004. 20-21) state that “Adventist elementary and secondary institutions are operated by boards with five basic areas of responsibility. They are: curriculum

implementation; personnel support; institutional finance; physical plant and public relations”.

They were also concerned about governance training, so a questionnaire was sent to school board members of Adventist day academies in the Southern Union Conference in Georgia, USA, to request their opinions concerning board governance training, … when asked about governance training, here is how they responded. Before I indicate their responses, I need to say that their replies were identical to the ones that I received from the school board members in SDA schools in the Western Cape when faced with the same questions. Reponses from board members in Georgia, USA included: they (the school board members) just come in and assume a position; it (governance training) is one of the weaker links of our academies; the older ones train the younger ones; there is no attention to governance training… wrong decisions and confusion and misunderstanding result (Higgs and Jackson 2004).

As indicated by the board members of the SDA schools in the Western Cape, it takes more than a year to get used to the responsibilities of the board. It is for this reason that there is a call for a two- or three-year tenure period.

The Southern Union Conference in Georgia indicated that there should be a programme of governance training. All new members would be required to attend and, at the same time, it would serve as a refresher course for experienced members. I would say that this is absolutely necessary if we want our boards to function effectively and efficiently.

Survey respondents in the Southern Union Conference indicated several reasons for the need for governance training. According to Higgs and Jackson (2004, 21), these were:

a. To reduce confusion about role definitions, functions, and responsibilities of administrators as contrasted with those of the board;

134

b. To provide board members with general knowledge about their legal responsibilities for operating the school; and

c. To provide a system of accountability.

The third example of overseas SDA institutions is that of the Lake Union Conference in Berrien Springs, Michigan, USA.

6.6.4 Lake Union Conference

The office of education had arranged a teachers’ convention for schools in the Union. One of the exercises was to divide into groups and discuss specific questions. The question for group four was, “What procedures would you suggest to create a positive relationship between the administrator and the board?” According to Higgs and Jackson (2004, 21) said that the

recommendation that received top priority was “training sessions to delineate responsibilities.”

There was a great need to give board members a job description. In the case of this study, respondents to the interviews and questionnaires in SDA schools in the Western Cape

mentioned on a number of occasions that school board members did not know what to do and that they needed a job description.

Another area of concern in SDA schools in the Western Cape was that of accountability of school boards. Coupled with accountability was whether boards did a assessment or a self-evaluation to monitor their own performance. In SDA schools in the Western Cape, there were no assessment instruments available so none of the boards ever did a assessment or a self-evaluation, neither were they ever assessed by the SDA Department of Education. With regard to accountability, according to Higgs and Jackson (2004, 22) “data received indicated that only a small percentage of boards conducted any form of assessment”. I concur with Higgs and Jackson (2004) when they state that evaluation and assessment of boards is imperative. They state the following reasons:

1. To enhance the credibility of the board;

2. To identify strengths and weaknesses;

3. To improve goal settings and specific areas of improvement; and

4. To keep the public and the board member better informed about the board’s progress in achieving its goals (Higgs and Jackson 2004, 21-22).

6.6.5 Summary

I find it of great significance that SDA school boards in other parts of the world, particularly in some SDA Conferences in the USA, are experiencing the same problems that SDA schools

135

boards are experiencing in the Western Cape, South Africa. A question that one may well ask is whether this is confined to SDA schools only. Again, I have a hunch that many of these problems are endemic to boards of state and other schools as well. Unfortunately, this research does not include looking at schools outside of the SDA church. However, it might be a good idea to investigate how stakeholders outside of the SDA school system experience their school boards. Furthermore, it would pay the SDA schools in the Western Cape and possibly in other parts of the world to take a serious look at their school boards and determine how stakeholders experience their school boards. At the same time, I trust that the solutions and

recommendations offered in this dissertation will provide a turning point in the life of each SDA school board in the Western Cape as they apply to their situation. I now turn to a discussion of deliberative democratic school governance and effective governance in SDA schools in the Western Cape.

6.7 Deliberative democratic school governance