Historia y Evoluci´ on

The term ‘participation’ appears to be appealing, on the surface of it, but in practice it is another matter altogether. Generally, learners are said to be active participants in the creation of a code of conduct in most public secondary schools. As a teacher in a South African school, I can testify that this is true because in terms of SASA learners form part of the SGBs as RCLs. However, whether they are active stakeholder in the creation of a code of conduct remains questionable. Mncube (2009, p. 95) maintains that learners are incapacitated or hindered in taking active roles in SGBs because other stakeholders (parents and teachers)

42

believe the learners are too young and immature, and thus unable to make good and sound decisions. On the other hand, Sithole (1995, p. 99) argues that although learners played an important role in South Africa’s liberation struggle, they now tend to be marked with incapacity. Sithole (1995) argues that learners must be acknowledged and allowed to participate in matters concerning their education, for instance, in the creation of a code of conduct. Mncube (2008) concurs, suggesting that the voices of learners must be heard in SGBs, where they must be regarded as active participants.

Mncube (2009a) conducted a study entitled “The perceptions of parents of their role in the democratic governance of schools in South Africa: Are they on board?” His study suggests that parents and learners are often not involved in decision making – that is left to the principal and SMT, who make decisions on behalf of the other stakeholders. In the schools Mncube investigated, the research showed that not affording learners their participative rights resulted in many disciplinary problems. Learners tended to hold back from participating because they knew that the principal or SMT would take decisions for them, since they, as learners, were too ‘immature’. Researchers like Phakoa and Bisschoff (2001) and McWayne, Hampton, Fantuzo, Cohen and Sekino (2004) assert that learner involvement in drawing up a learner’s code of conduct is associated with positive behaviour or self-regulated behaviour, and lower levels of misdemeanor in schools.

Cockburn’s 2006 study, “Mapping student involvement”, suggests that in most instances the code of conduct for learners is created in the absence of learner stakeholders, in keeping with the idea that it is unnecessary for them to be involved or even present. This deviates from the belief that learners might not be just and fair, but rather too lenient in including solid (or sometimes harsh) rules in the code of conduct, as they are aware that it will become a tool to discipline them and their classmates if they transgress. Cockburn’s study found that other stakeholders (excluding learners) believe that learners become lenient and compassionate if decisions are taken against their peers. As a result, the learners are excluded from the process and end up being informed and reported to by the SGB once a decision has been reached or a resolution arrived at.

Cockburn (2006) reports that in some schools the code of conduct for learners is created and formulated by teachers, without consulting learners – the next step is for the teachers to simply hand over the code of conduct. He confirms that learner participation can be repressed

43

and hindered by the leadership approach of the principal, together with his/her SMT, if there is a tendency to encroach on or take over the role of SGBs and take decisions on their behalf.

Sithole (1995), Carrim and Tshoane (2000) and McPherson (2000) note that neglecting and excluding learner stakeholders makes it difficult for children to see themselves as rightful members of the SGBs. As a result they still regard themselves as too young, as guests or observers. While the above is true, it is believed that the participation of learner stakeholders enhances the functioning of SGBs; if learners maintain a sense of ownership and accountability in terms of the code especially, they are accountable and liable for their own actions (Van Wyk, 1998; Cockburn, 2006; Mncube, 2009b).

2.7 Conclusion

This chapter has highlighted the findings of numerous scholars, as they relate to this field of study. Since the present work aims to explore how SGBs formulate and implement a code of conduct for learners, the literature investigated shows that learners do participate, having been afforded powers in terms of the Schools Act. However, in some instances they do not participate fully and are denied their right as active participants in matters related to school governance. It is evident that most SGB members – except learners – participate meaningfully in matters pertaining to the school. As the literature suggests, learners are regarded as minors, incapacitated and not to be exposed to issues concerning the school as a whole. However, it must be noted that there is a need for learners to participate efficiently in the compilation of a school’s code of conduct, as they form part of the SGB. Because the code outlines disciplinary procedures and learners are often at the receiving end of those procedures, they must exercise their participative right and engage meaningfully in discussions about the governance of the school in general, and their (and their peers’) behaviour in particular.

44 CHAPTER 3: THE THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

This study is underpinned by the theories of democracy. Although there are many definitions of democracy, all of them revolve around shifting power from the authorities/government to the people, allowing the people to govern themselves and granting them the freedom to voice their opinions.