NTE INEN 1155: 2009 Vehículos automotores.

In this section I engage with the data that were categorised as school-related. As illustrated in the previous section, many of the individual influences on male school dropout are partly shaped by the school environment and therefore the fact that there are only two influences that were categorised as school-related does not mean that the school plays an insignificant role in male school dropout. On the contrary, these two factors were both found to be primary influences on male school dropout, the same number of primary influences that there were under the individual influences theme. Further, the two school-related influences were also strongly connected to individual influences such as missing classes, being absent, and misbehaviour at school. Therefore, the influences in the school context, as found in this study, were significant and in the following section I critically discuss these data. I have copied a piece of Table 4.7 as a reminder of the one category and accompanying two sub-categories which I also discuss in this section.

Table 5.2: School influences on male school dropout

CATEGORY SUB-CATEGORIES

5.3.1 School practices 5.3.1.1 Poor disciplinary climate and illegal practices 5.3.1.2 Poor relationship between learners and teachers

Next, I will engage in discussing the school-related influences on male school dropout as experienced by the participants in this study.

5.3.1 School practices

According to the participants in this study, there were two sub-categories relating to school practices which influenced male school dropout. Firstly, a poor disciplinary climate and practices were cited as a primary influence and, secondly, poor relationships between learners and teachers were also cited as a primary influence. Before engaging in this discussion, I would like to highlight the fact that none of the following arguments are directed against the specific institutions or individuals involved but are rather intended to produce an honest interpretation of the data as provided by the participants in this study. Next, I commence with the description of the sub-categories as school-related influences on school dropout as they emerged from this study.

5.3.1.1 Poor disciplinary climate and illegal practices

The data from this study indicated that a poor disciplinary climate and illegal disciplinary practices were primary influences on male school dropout. The findings showed that the disciplinary climate at schools was not conducive to learning as it was "like that (disorganised) all the time" with learners running "at the school if (they) see the teachers" (MD 8). What this meant was that the school was not a structured, orderly environment, as was also indicated by the reported levels of absenteeism and missing classes. The negative sentiments were fuelled by the disciplinary practices being exercised at these schools. These practices, namely physical abuse and/or corporal punishment, are illegal in SA and they negatively influenced learners' feelings of connectedness to the school, thus leading to an array of problems, like disruptive behaviour and not being in classes or at school for extended periods. These findings concur with those of Bingma (2012), namely that corporal punishment was sometimes brutally administered by teachers, even though it is illegal, in terms of national laws. According to Bingma (2012, p. 110) this is the kind of disciplinary practise that leads to an environment that "breed(s) institutional resistance". These findings also concur with a study by Fobih (1987) in Ghana which found that learners tended to drop out where teachers employed harsh ways of treating learners, including unfair disciplinary measures. As a result, the poor disciplinary climate that was fuelled by the practices at the schools was found to be a primary influence on male school dropout in this study.

The disciplinary measure of sending misbehaving learners home and not allowing them back at school before attending a disciplinary meeting accompanied by parents was also

controversial. This measure was not successful as "they (parents) also became tired of us (male dropouts) because they must stay out of work every day … and then they (school management) chased us away from school" (MD 12). This kind of behaviour was also seen in Bingma's (2012) study on male school dropouts as a school principal mentioned that "it is often better to expel young men who cause trouble (at school)" (p. 113). This approach was also found to be detrimental to male learners who were already struggling academically and disconnected from the school system (Bingma, 2012). Therefore, keeping learners away from school as an act of ‘discipline' rather seemed to be a way of getting them out of the system, and based on my experience this is one of the biggest reasons why males eventually drop out of school.

Not being allowed at school had multiple effects on the male dropouts: they missed academic work, became involved in other negative behaviour while not attending school and got into the habit of being absent from school or not being in class. One participant explained it as follows: "[N]ow you start staying at home (because of expulsion) … now you also don't want to go to school anymore because you don't want to bring your parents to school each time" (MD 11). Despite these obvious influences, school principals in my study seemed determined to enforce this practice which illustrated that this was a way of intentionally getting some learners to stay away from the school. A shocking revelation was the confession of a small group of teachers who intentionally worked at getting rid of some male learners from their classes by making "the world hot for (them)", even though they knew it was "a bit negative" (FT 1). This confession by a teacher was supported by other teacher participants in this specific focus group. I could not find any other studies on school dropout that cited this particular practice but it resembles the principle of ‘weeding', as termed by Crouch and Vinjevold (2006), where learners are held back in grades in order to influence the NSC results and EMIS data. In a similar way, getting male learners to disengage with school and eventually drop out meant that these learners, of whom many were already struggling academically, would not be part of the group to write the NSC examinations and would therefore not influence this outcome which the DBE uses as the main criterion for judging a high school's success.

In terms of the legality of the disciplinary process that schools follow, as described above, SASA 84 of 1996 (RSA, 1996b) is of particular importance. Section 9(1) of this law stipulates the learner's right to receive a fair hearing and then not being allowed to be expelled for more

than one week. However, the process as described in this study typically did not include a ‘fair hearing' and was not enforced for one week only but for as long as it took for a parent to come to school. Therefore, the use of the disciplinary measure as described above is illegal. What makes it even worse is that the official authority to whom the schools report are aware of this practice, as revealed in an interview with a representative of the WCED who stated that "schools are getting away with murder by chasing away children … they come with illegal ways, but (he) can understand, it is survival things" (WCED 1). Therefore, even the officials to whom the school principals report are aware of this illegal practice which is contributing to school dropout but they do not take any corrective actions, as far as I could establish, against such conduct.

When looking at the explanations for following the aforementioned disciplinary practices, in spite of the illicitness thereof, two reasons become apparent. Firstly, the school principals and teachers were struggling to manage their schools and classes through more moderate disciplinary actions. Therefore, this was a way of trying to maintain some kind of order in their classes and schools, but it was happening at the expense of some learners who were then also the ones who usually dropped out. As one school principal explained, "[T]he parent, the primary caregiver of the child, must then come to us, in many cases the parents take a week to come. Thus, that child then stays (out of school) a week" (SP 1). Therefore, school principals were open about their schools' implementation of this disciplinary action which to them had become an accepted disciplinary measure. With this in mind, I would like to reiterate that these findings are not intended to vilify the specific institutions or individuals involved; they rather comment on the structure and practices being followed and the resultant detrimental effect.

5.3.1.2 Poor relationships between learners and teachers

Poor relationships between male learners and teachers were revealed as a primary influence on school dropout as some dropout participants "left school because (of) a teacher at school who did not like (them)" (MD 1) and treated them accordingly. What this meant was that male dropouts did not feel welcome at school, to such an extent that they thought it better to leave altogether. These findings are consistent with Bryk and Schneider's (2002) finding that effective relationships between school principals, teachers, learners and parents contribute to engagement and positive educational outcomes. Bridgeland et al. (2006) also found that strong relationships between an adult and a learner at school serve as a protective factor

against school dropout. Therefore, these negative relationships and absence of ‘relational trust', as described by Bryk and Schneider (2002), were clearly not supportive of a positive school environment where learners are motivated to learn and stay in school. These findings also build on Elmore's (2004) argument that school principals and teachers should initiate change in a school; in this case it would be a change in the nature of relationships between teachers, learners and parents. However, similar to the previously discussed influence, there is no mention of this influence in South African quantitative studies that employed large national data sets (Branson et al., 2013; Gustafsson, 2011). Therefore, it seems as if this finding also provides a unique contribution to the understanding of the influences on male school dropout in SA.

To emphasise the negative effect of both verbal and non-verbal interactions between teachers and learners I again refer to data from my study. Experiencing that "most of the teachers always pushed (him) down" (MD 6) and hearing how a teacher called her child a "knife stabber or a gangster" (FP 9), made male dropouts and parents feel unconnected to the teachers and school. On the other hand, teachers spoke about the negative relationships which they had with some learners as "you would not like to hear the whole day your mother's this and your mother's that" (FT 2). Therefore, teachers felt as if they had no other choice but to respond in a negative way towards these learners. Put simply, the nature and tone of communication between teachers and learners revealed extremely negative relationships which influenced school dropout among males.

Upon closer investigation, it became clear that the negative relationships between teachers and learners were regarded as normal and part of the school culture. The one explanation, according to the teacher participants, was that they have negative relationships with a small group "to protect the other children (against those who are disruptive)" (FT 2) and therefore it was acceptable to make life hard for some of them. It seemed as if teachers were successful in establishing these negative relationships and making some learners feel unwelcome. Overall, negative relationships between teachers and some learners were part and parcel of the underlying culture at both the schools involved in the study and it appears as if this culture directly contributed to school dropout among males. These findings are consistent with those of Bryk and Schneider (2002) and Bridgeland et al. (2006) who found that effective relationships between school principals, teachers, learners and parents contribute to engagement and positive educational outcomes while also serving serving as a protective

factor against school dropout. Therefore, these negative relationships and absence of ‘relational trust', as described by Bryk and Schneider (2002), were clearly not supportive of a positive school environment where learners are motivated to learn and to stay in school. I further discuss this concept of ‘relational trust' (Bryk & Schneider, 2002) with specific reference to the findings of this study. When considering the nature of the relationships between the teachers and learners as described in this study it is evident that there were low levels of relational trust between these parties. This finding is in accordance with the findings of Bingma (2012, p. 109) who writes that "favouritism or what is perceived as favouritism may arise as teachers identify and nurture learners who display potential to do well and boost their school's pass rates and in future, matric results". This is the exact opposite of what I described in this section but according to Bingma (2012, p. 110), a combination of these kinds of actions from authority had the potential "to breed institutional resistance". The phrase ‘institutional resistance' was never used by any of the participants but comments of the male dropout and parent participants suggest that the negative relationships between them and the teachers and school principals had indeed led to some kind of resistance towards the school. Negative relationships between the stakeholders in this study seemed to contribute to the overall poor relationships between the different institutions being represented through this process, including the school and family. These observations also build on Elmore's (2004) idea that school principals and teachers should initiate change in a school – in this case it would be a change in the nature of relationships between teachers, learners and parents. Therefore, there is clear proof that the negative relationships between male learners and teachers led to a poor connection between learners and the school and this led to school dropout among male learners.

Next, I discuss the data that emerged from the study which were categorised as influences in the family context.