Derivados de crédito

A combination of factors seems to be the cause of the revealed state of affairs in school governance.

As has been argued, one of the principal documents that sanctions RCL participation in governance, the Guides for RCL Participation in School Governance of 1999 seems to be inadequate for the purpose it was produced. The document is vague and too general in its reference to RCL roles and as a result it is likely to contribute to the manner in which the schools handle (or fail to handle) RCL involvement in governance. Furthermore, as discussed in chapter two, the tone of the document positions learners as potentially hostile partners. Of course the fact that the majority of the SMTs seem to be unaware of this document robs it of the power it may have to bring about change, however small.

As mentioned before, the loopholes in the policies that sanction RCL participation in school governance have not been identified by the SMTs, because of lack of interaction with these documents. Policy literacy seems to be a deficient aspect on the part of the SMTs. Perhaps it is against this background that, when discussing educational reform, Fullan (1993:3) argues:

The answer does not lie in designing better reform strategies. No amount of sophistication in strategizing for particular innovations or policies will ever work. It is simply unrealistic to expect that introducing reforms in a situation, which is basically not organized to engage in change will do anything but give reform a bad name.

The SASA mentions only that the RCLs should form part of school governance in schools that enrol learners from the eighth grade. The White Paper 2 of 1992, which preceded the SASA, talks only about involving the RCLs in discussions on policy

matters affecting the teaching staff and the learners and the relations between the staff and the body of learners. This is a clear indication that the participation was vague from its very conception. Therefore there are no distinct specifics referred to by documents concerning learner involvement, except to lay the framework for participation. One may of course deduce that policy makers believe(d) that schools have the capacity to make these policies ‘work’ in their organisations, and left the details to school managers to work out.

Concerning one of the roles of the RCLs, it is stated, “an RCL must contribute to the smooth running of the school and support the governance of the school” (DoE 1999d: 12. There are many conclusions that can be drawn from this statement, some of which could conclude that learner participation is partial and is there to instil a sense of responsibility in them and in the process avoid confrontation. One of the highlights of the findings of this research study is the fact that the schools investigated are by and large not learning organisations concerning governance, as they generally would be expected, because they have repeated the same mistakes on many occasions. Senge (1990:5) explains that:

What fundamentally will distinguish learning organizations from traditional authoritarian ‘controlling organizations’ will be the mastery of certain basic disciplines. That is why the disciplines of the learning organization are vital.

My understanding and contextualising of Senge’s views go back to the failure of SMTs to know and understand the contents of relevant policies and in the process make this one of their basic disciplines.

In conclusion, RCL participation in school governance is conditional and vague, and learners are still generally seen as potentially hostile ‘partners’ set on ensuring that schools are run on their terms. The research has therefore found that as a result of these and other factors the schools seem to be sites of struggle – places where power struggles occur. Schools are characterised by political climates (or cultures) rather than community cultures, thus stakeholders regard each other with hostility and suspicion rather than a need to cooperate.

In making these claims I do not mean to oversimplify a complex issue. Extending democratic rights to learners may always be problematic. The SMTs see themselves as upholding the laws governing schools in the manner in which they involve them; on the other hand the RCLs want more say and powers over and above their traditional levels of participation, hence they will always experience their participation as restricted. The reasons may not be out of selfishness on the part of the authorities and schools, but simply an acknowledgement that learners are still young adults or ‘children’ in the eyes of the law and those of the adults with whom they share stakeholder status. It is these dilemmas that call for further research on how best to involve them in school governance in ways and means that would suit all involved.

The real scenario in schools, then, is seemingly about power versus each other. The stakeholders concerned struggle [to the point of ‘fighting’] to find the common ground to help them think about contributing to schools becoming powerful organisations through coordinated efforts and or working together. Perhaps schools need to be managed along the lines suggested by Weick (1996:570) who argues:

…administrative fire fighting in its simplest form would consist of removing one or more of the causal conditions. If for example, it were the case that anger (heat) plus docile associates (fuel) plus taunting (oxygen) were found to be common denominators among parents, teachers, supervisors, students and board members who consumed disproportionate amounts of attention, then administrators could develop routines that eliminate one or more of the three… Effective fire fighting occurs when people strive to manage issues rather than to solve problems.

Weick argues that the customary negative associations of a ‘fire-fighting’ approach to management may be misleading. He argues that schools are particularly vulnerable “to failure” (Weick 1996:1), and routinising measures that minimalise or neutralise causes of conflict may be an effective ‘fire-fighting’ approach. Perhaps the Guides discussed earlier (Chapter Two) are an attempt to do exactly that, in other words to ‘normalise’ the role of RCLs in schools. This may have the effect of counteracting the ‘oppositional’ and encouraging the ‘cooperational’.