Fuentes impresas: biogrâficas y de ambientacion:

The principal is one of the main presiding officers of the school board. The principal is also the educational leader of the institution. As such, all the other role players look to the principal for guidance and expect the principal to take the lead. However, when it comes to governance, the principal has to work very closely with the school board and must of necessity be a democratic

120

leader if he or she expects the rest of the role players to participate, deliberate and interact meaningfully. Woods (2005, 8) states that:

Leadership in the deliberative model involves finding ways to facilitate and sustain deliberation, which includes addressing obstacles to free and equal participation in the discourse of deliberation. In order to enable active participation by all, diversity of cultures, views and values has to be respected by those in both formal and informal leadership positions.

Woods (2005, 9) further states that “democratic participation enhances the capacity to realise deeply embedded human potentialities”.

No wonder then that the principal of School F stated very clearly that not only did the school board members need training, but principals needed training as well. However, we were

dealing with the school boards and there was clear evidence that the principals had a number of issues with their school boards. Working effectively with a school was not easy, and working conditions had been exacerbated by the many changes that the education system had undergone over the past twenty years or so. In the words of Harber (1998, 17), “What is required is not a return to a more competent and efficient form of authoritarianism but a new, democratic understanding of what effective schools and an effective education system look like”. Unless we have an effective education system, we are going to continue to have governance problems because an ineffective system results in ineffective schools. The governance structures will find it very difficult to function in an ineffective education system. Principals are expected to

function effectively in the ineffective education system and they therefore encounter numerous problems with their school boards.

One of the major complaints from principals was that policies were not in place that could guide them as well as the school boards. In the absence of numerous policies, principals and boards were left to flounder in the dark. A lack of policies led to poor decision making, and this affected the rest of the role players. The absence of policies also made it difficult for the

implementation of new, democratic governance structures.

Coupled with the absence of policies was the fact that the school boards did not fulfil their roles and responsibilities. This was of grave concern to the principals. Poor attendance and erratic support affected many meetings. One of the major reasons for this was that many parents lacked the expertise to make meaningful contributions on the school board. Harber (1998, 21) states that “nationally these seems to have been considerable parent apathy about elections to the governing bodies, which is ironic considering that legally they must be in the majority”. The fact is that very few parents served on the boards of the schools in this study.

Very often, principals struggled to get a quorum for their meetings and had to phone members

121

and beg them to attend the meetings so that the board could transact business and have enough members to vote. Some principals went ahead and transacted business without a quorum.

Another major difficulty was that the school board had no identity. One of the principals stated categorically that the board felt that it did not belong. Members came because they were chosen and. more often than not, contributed very little by way of discussion. Very serious admissions had come to light. Principals stated that the school boards had not been empowered to do their work. All the principals agreed that functions and responsibilities were never

communicated to the board members. No training had ever taken place and, naturally, no assessment of their performance as a board. Furthermore, board members had not received copies of constitutions and policies, and had never been involved in strategic planning for the schools. Harber (1998, 21) states that because “implementing the new democratic school governance structures will not be easy”, various departments are going all out to see that new structures are successful. Amongst others, “development of rules for the new governing bodies,

… running workshops on such matters as how to chair meetings and take minutes as well as programmes on conflict resolution and participative decision-making” (1998, 21) were initiatives implemented to prepare governors for their responsibilities. Up to now, the Education Department of the Seventh-day Adventist church has done nothing to prepare

governors to govern their schools effectively and efficiently. The principals felt that their hands were tied because they were in no position to offer effective training. My contention is that principals should make a concerted effort to get the Conference’s Education Department to conduct the necessary workshops. As a democratic educational leader, the principal must of necessity take the lead to get his entire board trained so that they can govern effectively and efficiently. A good place to start would be to ensure that board members felt a part of and could identify with the institution. These members needed to experience democratic citizenship in order to identify with the institution. Once this had taken place, the training could follow.

6.4.1 What do principals propose should happen?

First of all, the principals suggested that in order to solve some of the problems the board members should think positively. Schools faced and are still facing tremendous financial challenges and the pressing question was, are funds available? Inevitably the answer is no, but the principals felt that this should not deter board members from finding other ways and means of solving their problems. Again, my solution would be to agree with the principals to get the boards to think positively. They should not allow what cannot be done to prevent them from doing what can be done. Parents, staff and principals have made repeated calls to the school board to assist with fundraising events and earmark those funds for special projects in the

122

school. The time has come for innovation on the part of the school. They should not continue to pursue the same events that bring in less and less funds for the schools coffers. Role players felt that boards did absolutely nothing. This was mentioned very often during the interviews and in the questionnaires. The staff and parents in particular felt that the school boards were doing far too little. Therefore, school boards should be proactive and not wait to see what the school administration was planning. They had to come up with innovative ideas and fund-raising suggestions and then assist with the implementation of those suggestions. In my

experience, the boards certainly did too little and often left governance and management to the principal and staff.

As far as democratising a school is concerned, Welgemoed (1998, 37) suggests that “educators, education managers, administrators, governors, parents, learners and education and

development, i.e. authority, community and economy interact with one another to form an interdependent whole”. In this way, they can exist as a “democracy”. In this way, too, there will be “a culture of teaching and learning”. She further stated that the way to go was

“restructuring the school to include greater participation in decision making and power sharing among parents and staff through a programme of decentralisation of management (Welgemoed 1998, 39).

Welgemoed (1998) proposed a specific governance structure that involved parents’

participation in five portfolios. Parents with skills in these specific areas were appointed to committees chaired by members of the governing body. As a result, there was a marked improvement in the relationship between parents and the school (Welgemoed 1998, 39).

The data for my study indicated clearly that there was a need for the appointment of

committees on which parents could serve and make their contributions. If this procedure was followed, parents would definitely feel part of the democratisation process.

Welgemoed (1998, 39) also proceeded to involve educators in the governance structures.

According to my data, educators, i.e. staff, felt particularly aggrieved that they knew very little about what constituted the governance of the school and about the school board itself, and because they had very limited or even no participation in the governance structures. In many instances, administrators, instead of a duly elected staff member, represented the staff on the school board. According to Welgemoed (1995, 40), “it appeared that the restructuring process was relatively successful as it related to parents and educators”. They later saw the “value of including learners in the decision-making and management” process as well.

123

The inclusion of all the role players in the governance structures of SDA schools is imperative.

The formation of committees will ease the pressure on the principal and the school board, because committees will be made up of role players, e.g. parents, staff and community members, who are skilled in specific areas. These areas could include “educational, finance, maintenance, promotional, discipline, fundraising, legal” (Welgemoed 1995, 39), and any other deemed necessary by the school administration and the school board. All role players would then enjoy their democratic rights in decision making and power sharing, and in this way they would be empowered to function effectively and efficiently.

It is extremely important that principals attend to the updating of constitutions, as well as policies, in the schools. Too many of the constitutions were outdated, and in a number of instances there were no policies to guide the schools. All role players need to bear in mind that policies help to guide the decision making and procedures in the school. However, policy making must be an inclusive process and, once voted, all must abide by it. The following policies, amongst others, were non-existent in most of the SDA schools in the Western Cape:

Attendance Policy, Discipline Policy, Admissions Policy, Homework Policy, Special Needs Policy, Education Policy, Child Protection Policy, Guidance to the Board of Governors, and Health, Safety and Security Policy. This is sufficient reason why the principals and the school boards find it so difficult to function effectively and efficiently.

Another solution suggested by the principals that would overcome ineffectiveness and

inefficiency was to appoint a school board to serve three years at a time. The principals stated that it was meaningless to appoint a board to serve a year at a time. The board would no sooner have started its work than it had to end its work for the year. The result was that very little was done, considering that the board met only four times for the year. Three years would give the school board an opportunity to accomplish much for the school. Changes take time and, if certain things were to be changed in the school, the management and board would need more than a year to effect these changes. Since people do not take easily to change, time would be an important factor. Welgemoed (1995, 46) said that “education in a democracy for a democracy is possible, but sustaining the democracy is a challenge”. She further averred that “stakeholder participation is critical to the successful transformation of our schools and country”.

A major problem was how to effect deliberative democracy among people who lacked the skills and expertise to discuss and make major decisions. Elster (1998:1) said that, largely under the influence of Jürgen Habermas, “the idea that democracy revolves around the

transformation rather than simply the aggregation of preferences has become one of the major positions in democratic theory”. Parents, staff, principals and even the board members

124

themselves want transformation and innovation. But where do you start to effect this? The solution lies in training the board members. The members had no idea what their functions and responsibilities were. None of them was in possession of an updated constitution, and none of them had been involved in policy making. In order to empower the board there should be training, orientation, induction and assessment of the work done. The SASA makes it clear that board members must be trained in all aspects of governorship. Staff, parents, principals and board members themselves highlighted areas in which they needed training. Areas mentioned included finance, meeting procedures, policy making, functions and responsibilities,

democratic leadership, some legal aspects of governance, communication skills, strategic planning, setting goals and aims, how to govern effectively, how to monitor certain aspects of school management, human relations and handling sensitive issues with confidentiality. This is an enormous task, but school board members were prepared to give up time for training.

Training would solve a number of problems that principals were experiencing with their boards.

6.4.2 Summary

It was obvious that the principals needed training in democratic leadership themselves, before they could attend to the training of board members. The Conference’s Education Department should give serious attention to this aspect. Furthermore, no time should be wasted, the empowerment of school board members should receive urgent attention, and they should be provided with the necessary training so that they can become agents for transformation and change at the schools they serve. In addition, the principal’s burden will become much lighter, since the principal can now depend on the school board to govern and he and his team would be left to manage the school. If the governors were equipped to do their work effectively and efficiently, the principal, along with his team, would be left to manage the school effectively and efficiently, and there would be a far better working relationship between the school board and the management team.