responsibility for their task in governance of the school and supporting the principal and staff in their management of it. However, despite all these prescriptions, the SGBs in this study appeared to be negligent in this regard. In all three, there was minimal or no involvement of the SGB and parents. There was an expression of despair in all the schools that more active participation in the education process was not forthcoming from these stakeholders.
Educator (In-5): “The parents are supposed to be much more actively involved”. In School C, parents only appear when “their kids fail at the end of the year” and when they come to the school to defend their children. There have been many episodes “when we are challenged and verbally abused for their kids”.
From School A were comments that the principal did not approve of SGB involvement. A member of the SMT asked rhetorically: “Why do you want to wash your dirty laundry in public?” The SGB was not kept informed and so may have felt that all was well at the school. Parental involvement occurred when grade tutors called the parents to discuss violations and contraventions, however the following was noted: “the parents do not want to listen. They blame the school for not disciplining their kids and for their unacceptable behaviour. Often they run to the department who TELLS us to drop the issue”. This appeared to sum up the scenario at this school.
71
The DC had “only one hearing in the last five years”, while another educator commented that in their school the SGB was dysfunctional and that the educators did not even know who the members were.
Of great concern is that in all three schools the parents sided with the learners. As one of the educators said, in spite of being verbally attacked, they were expected to “counsel, advise, groom, discipline, and give the learners a six-months‟ extension on overdue work”.
Category 3: The involvement of the IDSO and GDE in curbing school violence
The IDSO and the GDE might reasonably be expected to play a pivotal role in managing the schools in their district. The IDSO is in charge of a particular number of schools and all matters pertaining to them must be communicated to him or her. Disciplinary issues fall under his or her portfolio and he or she is guided by the Department and policies. However, it is apparent that these IDSOs do not make themselves visible at the schools and are not readily available, other than at the academic report-submission times, as reported by participants at each school in this study. This means that the only time the IDSO or Department officials appear is when a disciplinary report has long since been submitted to the head office.
The following extract reveals educators‟ perception of the level of disinterest in their school shown by the IDSO:
Educator (In-5): “The lady said that no one leaves the schools premises and that she is too busy to come to the school. She doesn‟t care if the gates are bolted in by the learners. If we have to sleep in the school there is nothing she can do”. According to press reports, learners blocked the school gates, threw petrol bombs in the classes and smashed educators‟ cars (provincial newspapers, May 14). In a frantic state, the principal called the DoE, invoking the above comment from the IDSO. Eventually, after the media aired the situation on a local radio station,
72
(Radio Highveld, 702, 14 May 2010), the Department sent someone from the DoE. In the incident, Mrs B, who made the statement above, was perceived by the educators as regarding the incident as a normal, everyday occurrence, which she treated in a nonchalant, ‟couldn‟t care less‟ manner. The educators were compelled to stay on the school premises for the duration of the normal school day.
This extract indicates her indifferent attitude to the safety and welfare of the educators:
“No we were all together and they were breaking down the fence and the classrooms and our cars. The district was here with someone from national. And this lady said, „oh if you have to die you have to die, but no one leaves the school.‟ And then everyone took offence and felt hurt by her comment”.
Despite all efforts educators may make to maintain a good school climate for effective teaching and learning to take place, they still require the support of the principal and other stakeholders.
4.2.5. THEME FIVE: Educators’ thoughts on how this violence can best be managed
Educators in all three schools felt that they were not being consulted on policy or decision-making in their schools. They seemed passionate about expressing their ideas on how to manage school violence towards the educators, and despite feeling distraught about their encounters, they felt that there were measures that could be taken and practiced in the classroom and on the school premises to reduce or minimise these misdemeanours.
In this theme, there were six categories of ideas that educators had to combat school violence directed towards them. A general attitude was: “If they do not work then they can be improvised or scrapped and another idea tried until we get somewhere. Because right now we in the government schools are the sinking
73
Titanic”. This view of the grade tutor was unanimously agreed upon by the other educators in the group.
Category 1: The improvement of consultation and communication between