Derivados sobre materias primas

In this chapter I summarise the main findings of the study emerging from the themes highlighted in chapter four.

The first theme addresses recognition and suggests that only partial recognition is given to the RCLs as young adults and their roles in school governance by the SMTs and the documents from the department of education. The study revealed that contrary to what people are made to believe, as per the laws that govern school governance (SASA 1996, The Guides for RCL Participation in School Governance

1999), RCL participation in governance is limited to statements that are vague when it

comes to the extent of the participation, and only a little clearer in terms of forming part of SGBs and other insignificant structures. When it comes to critical decision making, RCLs are presented as minors, even by the departmental documents that sanction their very participation. This ambivalence has emerged as one of the main findings of this research.

The basis on which RCL involvement in school governance rests has, according to this research, proved to be practically lacking in terms of what one understands by democratic involvement. What has emerged instead, are indications, according to Schmuck & Runkel 1994:117) that:

The gap between the sporadic, generally ineffective ways in which students currently participate in educational decisions and the well organized procedures available to this end constitutes a major problem. Many of the SMT respondents were not forthcoming or did not know what to say about the sincerity of RCL participation. This was more significant during the interviews, where only one out of the five respondents mentioned that by law they are considered minors and can therefore not be included in committees that would perform duties that have legal implications. The SMTs acknowledge that they (RCLs) are part of school governance, but are not too sure about how to involve them except to represent the RCLs in the SGBs. The learners on the other hand, accept and

acknowledge their stakeholder status and want to take it a step further, thus sometimes creating scenes that get out of hand. The study has found that the RCLs do not know very much about the restriction of their participation, whilst the SMTs accuse them of wanting to take over proceedings.

Such situations have hardly helped the cause of having calm and smoothly running schools, as was expected to be the case when the issue of learner involvement was conceived, hence doing less in terms of developing and enhancing good school climate. According to Hoy and Miskel (1996:141):

School climate is a relatively enduring quality of the school environment that is experienced by participants… (it) affects their behaviour, and is based on their collective perceptions of behaviour in schools…a personality of the school.

The school climate, as envisaged here has a significant bearing on the discussion of issues, implementation of decisions taken and monitoring of progress by all concerned. The unfortunate manner in which the SMTs and the RCLs respectively perceive the role of RCLs in school governance does not constitute what the two writers perceive to be an ideal situation in schools. There are no indications or plans of coordinated efforts on the part of either group to try to make sense of the middle ground or framework created by the laws that govern schools, particularly with RCL involvement. It seems that they have not yet made sense of what it means to share responsibilities in a collegial way, meant to benefit the school as a whole. Talking of togetherness, Lambert et al. (1995:81) argue that “schools or organisations change as participants make sense of their work and find challenging possibilities together”. The study has found that the groups involved in school governance, instead of facing challenges together, have the tendency of projecting their energies at each other. Among the very important aspects that led to a state of confusion on the roles of RCLs in governance is that schools are characterised by inadequate communication. As a result of the manner in which schools handle communication, the RCLs themselves are unable to understand the significance of communication and are therefore not able to disseminate information pertaining to important issues in good time within the RCLs and to the learner masses they represent. So significant was the lack of communication between the RCLs and the SMTs that it proved to be among

the root causes of the sometimes explosive nature of the relations between the two groups in schools. Such situations have proved to lead to both groups jumping to conclusions about each other’s conduct. A typical example is one where the SMTs blame the RCLs for not knowing their roles, or not taking their roles seriously and neglecting their duties, whilst the RCLs reveal a lack of documented information; information which the SMTs need to supply.

Kraak & Young’s (2001:4) concerns are pertinent here:

Implementation of changes in a system with deep historical divisions and low levels of capacity is inevitably a slow process when compared to the relatively easy task of designing new policies. It is a process in which the experience of practice has to be drawn on to continuously interrogate the original vision, not to reject it.

Looking at how other countries address the issues of past indifferences, Kraak & Young (ibid.) go on to claim that:

International experience, not the least from the UK, suggests that learning lessons from the failure of past policies is not easy. Because such lessons are often uncomfortable (for radical reformers as well as for governments), they are easily forgotten.

It cannot be argued that South Africa as a country looks at and does things any differently from other countries, hence there is a need to heed the call by these two writers on learning lessons from the past.

5.2 POLICY ISSUES – IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE IN SCHOOLS