A school board is a body that has power over all school committees (Hyslop, 1987, cited in Thekiso, 2013:21). In urban areas, all members were appointed by the Native Affairs Department (NAD), whereas in rural areas, all members were nominated by Pretoria and the Bantu Authority. It was such that when the homeland system was developed, the proportion represented by homeland authority appointees was allowed to increase. Boards in urban areas often consisted of clergy and ex-teachers, who lacked popular support.
The idea of including parents in statutory bodies of school governance stemmed from the findings of the Levy Commission of 1892, which recommended the establishment of a district board consisting of magistrates, missionaries, colonists and two parents from the community, appointed every two years to manage education at district level (Duma, Kapueja & Khanyile, 2011: 45). The challenge with regard to the boards was that parents from the community were excluded from them.
2.3.2.1 Strengths of school boards
Although the idea was to ensure that parents were included in the structure of school boards, they were without powers and not in charge of schools (Hyslop, 1987). School boards were discrediting and getting rid of teachers who were political activists. Members of school boards were not accountable to parents; hence the parents of local students considered school boards to be illegitimate. They were therefore resented by teachers and parents (Hyslop, 1987).
School boards play a vital role in the establishment and maintenance of structures that support the district vision, together with the empowerment of the school’s professional staff as they implement their school board duties. They also have to invite the community at large to a meeting, in order to update them about the policies and educational programmes of schools.
In addition to the above, the researcher is of the view that the following should be seen as the strengths of the school board:
It had powers to investigate complaints against a teacher who was reported by members of the community, parents or inspectors, and to institute whatever disciplinary action it deemed necessary, albeit subject to the approval of the Department. In the researcher’s view, school boards possessed powers to investigate professionals’ true status, and were the eyes of the department. They were actually awarded more powers to investigate and report, which implies that the structure stood in a position of trust in relation to the department.
Members of school boards were also expected to submit recommendations to the Department with regard to modifications of the syllabi of schools under their control. School boards knew their communities, and were therefore allowed to make recommendations regarding school subjects. The researcher is of the view that school boards had powers to recommend the exclusion of subjects that they deemed unnecessary and unsuitable for learners.
School boards had the power to levy and collect fund contributions from parents, and together with monies allocated to it by the Department, to control and spend it judiciously. Hyslop (1987) argues that this was a means of squeezing African communities financially, in order to subsidise the kind of cheap mass education that the government was aiming to provide. School boards were responsible for collecting and accounting for monies at schools. Although the education at this time was known to be cheap mass education, the school boards were supported fully with regard to funds. The department alleviated the burden of funding schools, in order for school boards to take charge and lead the process effectively, ensuring that parents funded their children’s’ education.
It was believed that these bodies could be freely and directly interfered with by officials of the Bantu Education Department, such as Regional Directors and Circuit Inspectors, all of whom were White males. However, the Assistant/Supervising Inspectors also kept a close watch on their daily activities, in order to ensure that these School Boards executed directives from the Department promptly and without any right to veto them. This view was also propounded by Hyslop, who indicates that school governance was constantly monitored to avoid them deviating from their
directives. The constant support ensured that school boards strove to deliver what was expected of them. These structures ensured that they succeeded in protecting the Bantu Education mandate.
School boards had to control all the community schools within the area of their jurisdiction. This ensured that all schools in the same area were implementing governance in a similar way.
They had to erect and maintain school buildings and school equipment. In this regard, school boards needed to ensure that school buildings were in good condition, in order to promote safety, and had to renovate schools rather than waiting for the DoE to take care of such challenges, which took a long time to be implemented. School boards were responsible for employing, transferring or dismissing a teacher,
subject to the approval of the Department (Tsotetsi, 1999: 19). They were involved in professional matters that involved teachers, which was strength on its own, as they were not professionals.
In comparison, the present SGBs can register their challenges through appropriate channels, but cannot dismiss a teacher. The researcher argues that although SGBs represent the employer during promotional posts, they are limited to recommending suitable candidates for posts to the Department of Education, which then has to make the necessary appointments, and this may not even be according to the order of their preference. SGBs need to be trained and informed of the rights of teachers and the work that they do to ensure that their children receive quality education. SGBs deal with school governance issues, and school management issues are best left for the SMT, with the principal in the driving seat. .
2.3.2.2 Weaknesses of school boards
One of the weaknesses of school boards is that they failed to promote the effective education of a Black learner by robbing the blacks of their money in support of cheap education by the apartheid regime. Hyslop (1987) alleges that school boards were used to get rid of the teachers who happened to be leaders of the struggle. This meant that they were able to ignore the renewal of the contracts of teachers who were activists. The blacks became tired of this oppression and continued to strategies in order to resolve the challenges that they were facing.
In addition, Hyslop (1987, cited by Tsotetsi, 1999) noted the following as weakness of school boards:
only four to six members represented their bodies in the school board, namely parents elected by Bantu education officials. The elected parents had to, in turn, first be approved by the Minister or Secretary of Bantu Education.
The provisions made it clear that “no serving teacher or wives of educationist Officials qualified to be members of such a parent body”. As a result, teachers were excluded from the structure of school governance, while ensuring that unelected African parents became numerically dominant (Tsotetsi, 1999: 19).
The researcher argues that at this time, married people could not be treated independently, hence the decision that partners of those in education could not serve as governors. The primary aim of school boards was to consider the ideologies of the National Party Government. Only males dominated the membership of school boards, and the rightful parents of learners had nothing to contribute to the education of their children.