Jugadores de veto (Tsebelis)

The South African Schools Act 84 of 1996, guarantees a determined commitment to representative and shared governance in schools; incorporating the concepts of accountability, transparency and public involvement (S.A. Constitution,Act 108 of 1996).

Upon closer scrutiny it should enable all role players of the SGB equal participation in decision-making processes within the school environment. Adams and Waghid (2005:25) view participation, community engagement, rationality, consensus, equality and freedom as the Constitutive principles of the South African democracy. The nature of distributed governance in schools has changed from its initiation in 1996 particularly at school level (Myburgh, 2004:12). This is primarily because policies have been changed which has resulted in the tipping of the scale of power away from the SGB toward the state. It is clearly not a straightforward exercise to discover the reasons for this reduction in SGBs decision making authority. This current version of “shared school governance” has implications for democracy in South Africa. There is an inseparable link between democracy, education and the law. This interrelationship is evident from the Constitution, International Law and education legislation. The following examples catalogue this triangulation:

• The fundamental provision of the Constitution (SA, 96a) confirms that South Africa is a democracy based on the rule of law;

• Several of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution(Act 108 of 1996), including the rights to education (sub-section 29); equality (sub-section 9), human dignity section 11); freedom of expression section 16); freedom of association (sub-section 18); freedom of religion, belief and opinion (sub-(sub-section 15); the right to use language and culture of choice (sub-section 30); and the right to belong to a cultural, religious and linguistic community have particular consequences for education;

• The Convention on Prevention of Discrimination in Education (Smit and Oosthuizen, 2011:58) endeavours to respect the diversity of education systems and provides that the establishment or maintenance, for religious or linguistic reasons, of separate education systems which is in keeping with the parent’s or legal care-giver’s education, DBEs not constitute discrimination (sub-section 1)

• Article 30 of the Convention (Smit and Oosthuizen, id) provides that in those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child

60

belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language;

• African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (SA, 2000) affirms the democratic values and provides in section 2 that the education of the child must be directed to the preservation and strengthening of positive African morals, traditional values and cultures; the preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding tolerance, dialogue, mutual respect and friendship among all peoples ethnic, tribal and religious groups;

• The preamble of the National Education Policy Act-NEPA (SA, 1996c) provides that legislation should be adopted to facilitate the democratic transformation of the national system of education into one that serves the needs and interests of all the people of South Africa and upholds their fundamental rights;

• The directive principle in section 4(m) of the National Education Policy Act -NEPA(SA, 1996c) contains the democratic requirement that the national Minister of Education must ensure improving school governance through broad public participation in the development of education by including stakeholders in policymaking and governance in the education system;

• Section 4(b) of National Education Policy Act- NEPA (SA, 1996c) expressly contains the principle that policies should be developed to include the advancement of democracy in the education system;

• The South African Schools Act (Act 84 of 1996) gave formal effect to a participative form of democracy by redistributing power to local school governing bodies with the removal of centralised control over certain aspects of educational decision-making and the establishment of co-operative governance between education authorities and the school community (Squelch, 1998:101). In essence these provisions were intended to establish a democratic power sharing and co-operative partnership among the state, parents, and educators (Karlsson, 1998:37);

• In terms of the South African Schools Act (Act 84 of 1996), members of school governing bodies are democratically elected to represent parents, educators, learners and school personnel. School governing bodies have the democratic and statutory authority for

61

example to adopt a constitution (sub-section 20); take measures to ensure learner discipline (an inherent parental function) at schools.

This study explores the possibility that the change in distributed governance as practiced in schools in S.A. today, is because the State required to reclaim power and increase its hegemony over state institutions.

The issue of redress and equity is dependent on the SGBs’ theory of action, since SGBs decision making power over finance, the plant, key internal policies and programmes would in effect compel them to put State policies into practice and this then must: reverse past injustices in educational provision…..advance the democratic transformation of society, combat racism and sexism and all other forms of unfair discrimination and intolerance and promote their acceptance of responsibility for the organisation, governance and funding of schools in partnership with the State (DBE, 1996:2).

Distributed governance certainly seeks to include citizens in the process of governance and to be the fourth tier of government. It is undeniable that SASA is a novel piece of legislation that promised citizen participation in the political arena which was hitherto unthinkable

“These reforms, embedded in the larger socio-political changes challenged long standing hierarchical arrangements and applications of power within a key institution within society, the school (Naidoo, 2005:30).

Effective school governance is crucial for achieving effective schools. The implementation of Curriculum 2005 has been stressful for diligent teachers, the benefits that such a curriculum can deliver, can only be achieved by effective governance and management structures that operate with the conviction that learning environments demand and indeed, cannot do without, enlightened, informed and decisive teachers, managers and governors. The stakes are enormously high if education is to provide the engine for economic development and social improvement (Meyer, Boli, Thomas, Ramirez, 1997:144–181). The advent of distributed school governance was a step in the right direction by the ANC government (Naidoo, 2005:30-43). De la Mothe and Paquet (1994: 42-48) maintain that the best learning experience in a context of rapid change can be effected through decentralised and flexible teams woven by moral contracts and reciprocal obligations negotiated in the context of evolving governance partnerships such as shared school governance.

Distributed governance is embedded in a set of organisations and institutions built on market forces, the state and civil society. But it is most importantly nested in transversal links relating these three and allowing them to be integrated into a sort of web. These transversal

62

links neither mimic the hierarchical top-down organization, nor the matrix form of organisations, where vertical-functional and horizontal-process relationships are supposedly keeping one another in check. Rather, in a transversal world, processes are dominant, and the reaction to external challenges is for the different role-players to coalesce laterally to create informal links and multifunctional teams capable of promoting faster and more effective learning (Prinsloo, 2006:355-368)

According to Miller (2000:2), distributed school governance depends on holistic education and involves many role-players as this allows it to ensure effective learning. It is based on the premise that each person finds identity, meaning and purpose in life through connections to the community. Holistic education aims to instill in learners an intrinsic respect for life and a passionate love of learning (Miller, id). The art of holistic education lies in its responsiveness to the diverse learning styles (Miller, 2000:6). Berkeley (1990:207) insisted that if educational effectiveness and efficiency are to meet the demands of the post-apartheid era, then the best practices from commerce and industry should be incorporated in education systems. The best practices of the corporate management include techniques and application of principles to enhance participatory management and shared school governance (Berkeley, 1990: 207).The South African Education system like those in every democratic society face the challenge of educating succeeding generations of young people for responsible citizenship Institute for a democratic alternative for South Africa (IDASA, 1999:1-3). Learners have to be prepared for their future responsibilities as democratic citizens. Through public schools, learners can be infused with knowledge, values and skills, necessary to administer, protect and perpetuate a free democratic society (Giroux, 1997:6).

Giroux (ibid.) asserts that democratic values and principles cannot successfully be affirmed and transmitted to learners if an education system is bureaucratic or displays autocratic values and principles. Distributed school governance as legislation originally manifested in 1996 is crucial if South Africa is to remain a democratic country. Since it will enable the free flow of information, so that policies can be assessed and implemented after all role-players have been properly consulted and majority consensus received (Thody, Papanaoum, Johansson & Pashiardis, 2007: 37-53).

Mabovula (2008:302) posits that distributed school governance is a self-renewal strategy to be managed collaboratively on a consensual basis by all members involved in school governance. It needs diligent planning and implementation in order to benefit all role players.

It is an educational strategy that is intended to change the beliefs, attitudes and values of school governance role-players (particularly bureaucrats), so that they can better adjust to change. Its long-term goal is to increase the school governance capacity for self-revival,

63

increase its role-players ability to adapt to new conditions, problem solving and develop a culture that focuses on the continuous growth of the schooling system as a whole which determines the ethos of a school. The purpose behind the States’ distributing power should be to ensure that educators, parents, learners and non-teaching staff effectively participate in the governance and management of schools which would result in a better teaching and learning environment. These functions capture the contradictory character of the South African state, which was expected to meet the dual obligation of securing increased state revenue, by delegating financial responsibility to communities, while simultaneously developing a hegemonic discourse through meeting the needs and expectations of black Africans, (Chisholm, Motala, & Vally, 1999:1). It is in the context of these outcomes that the new post-apartheid government began the process of education transformation (Sayed &

Soudien, 2005: 115-125).

However what has emerged through the introduction of amendments to school governance legislation is a drastic reduction of SGB’s power. What emerges is the inherent weaknesses of the liberal, republican, social and elitist traditions of democracy as practiced in the South African education system. Cunningham, (2002:246-248) suggests that these undemocratic practices, have given rise to phenomena such as great divides between schools, oppression of minorities, wastage of financial resources, elitist and bureaucratic attitudes. The explanation for this seems to point to the ANC governments’ failure to make good on its promise of transformation and equity to its Black African electorate in ex Indian, Coloured and White schools. Legal wrangles where the State was forced to concede victory such as happened with the Point High school (as discussed above) only served to strengthen the State’s resolve for hegemony over school governance.

SADTU, which is a majority stake holder of COSATU, and COSATU an arm of the tripartite alliance, has employed intimidation and adopted tactics like “cash for posts” to win favour for the Tri-Partite Alliance’s ideology in schools. Govender (2002:279) implies that the relationship in the alliance must be portrayed as if each member of the alliance is independent. This he (Govender, id) maintains is the reason SADTU embarked on a day of action on 12 May 1999 in order not to be seen as a “puppet” of the ANC government.

2.9 SUMMARY

This chapter highlighted the concepts that have a bearing on distributed governance their meanings and ramifications. This was done with the intention of establishing the relevance in terms of what other theorists have written on similar issues. The aim is to establish the ideal

64

of distributed governance and then to compare and contrast it to what the current state of governance in schools in Gauteng is. This is important, in order to set a benchmark which will inform this researcher’s understanding and guide the data collection process and analysis.

CHAPTER 3

DISTRIBUTED SCHOOL GOVERNANCE AS PRACTISED IN SOUTH AFRICA, UGANDA, BRITAIN, SWEDEN AND CANADA

In the process of developing the concept 'distributed governance' this chapter will be exploring its relation to Hegemony and power, to illustrate how these two facets of Critical Theory influence distributed school governance as practiced in Gauteng schools. In order to illustrate how these components of the theoretical framework interact, comparative examples of school governance as practiced in Uganda, Britain, Sweden and Canada will be examined.