RECONFIGURACIÓN Y RESULTADOS S/E ALPACHACA

A common thread emerging from SMC members‟ views is one in which they regarded their role as „inspectors‟ of schools. It appeared that in some cases, SMCs saw themselves as „watchmen‟, who were there to ensure that schools performed to the best of their abilities. For example, the SMC chairman at Kuku and the treasurer visited the school at least twice a week unannounced.

Our main responsibility is to visit the school from time to time. When visiting, we do not give them prior information. We go there unannounced and inform the headmaster that we are there to visit the school. However, we don‟t go there together as a team. Sometimes we go through their exercise books and check if the teachers are present and are teaching, so that is how we do our work (SMC member [Kuku]: 03/11/08).

Visiting a school twice a week could be viewed as an encroachment on the school management‟s domain. Even though these visits seemed uncoordinated, it appears that they were well-intentioned as the following comment suggests:

We didn‟t mean any harm and we are not against anybody. Because our children complain that their teachers do not come to school, we decided to see things for ourselves. That is why we check them (SMC member [Kuku]: 03/11/08).

These unannounced and uncoordinated visits were not always well received, especially by the teachers as the following reveals:

On one occasion, during a visit by the chairman and the treasurer of the SMC, I refused to give them my pupils‟ books on demand, and this led to a quarrel between us in front of the class until the head teacher intervened (teacher [Kuku]: 22/10/08).

Another teacher from Kuku recalled an encounter with an SMC member who questioned why she had arrived at school late, which led to a heated exchange between the two. The teacher had apparently been invited by the MDE to serve on the district cultural festival planning committee and they had met earlier in the morning at the director‟s office, hence her late arrival at school. The co-ordination of such extra-curricula duties was the responsibility of the school administration. Hence, the teacher was incensed by the fact that for whatever reason, she should have been officially noted as late by the school and

not by an SMC member. Some aspects of her complaint is reflected in the following comment:

What annoys us most is that sometimes when they come here they try to give instructions to us when we really don‟t report to them. Since I clashed with them no one has come to me again (teacher [ Kuku]: 23/10/08).

This role assumed by some of the SMC members appeared to have threatened cordial relations between the school and those who should have been there to support its improvement agenda, as this teacher‟s comment makes clear: “At times you don‟t know who is really in charge of the school” (teacher [Kuku]: 22/10/08).

Although some teachers were not enthused by the frequency of SMC visits, the head teachers appeared to be more tolerant, making some teachers conclude that the head teachers apparently feared losing the support of the SMC, and had therefore - it seemed - abdicated leadership and management responsibilities to it, as indicated by the following comment.

“We teachers always complained about these visits but master [the head teacher] never acted on our protests for fear that he may lose their support” (teacher [Kuku]: 22/10/08).

Another said:

I don‟t understand what they want; everybody has his role. We were trained as teachers and we have the responsibility to manage the school. Why should people who don‟t have any idea about education and management be allowed to interfere with our work? (teacher [Kuku]: 22/10/08).

However, according to some teachers, with a few exceptions, particularly in the case of those with some level of education, the SMC often had no wish to interfere in school management issues. One teacher remarked:

It is not all the SMC members who disturb us. Its only about three of them or so who bring about this confusion. They think they know everything and seem to have taken over the SMC (teacher [Kuku]: 24/10/08)

Thus, SMCs attempted to hold schools accountable for pupils‟ progress, but their actions risked undermining teacher autonomy and agency, as the above views suggest. Clearly,

SMCs were concerned about the academic performance of schools, but their methods of directly attempting to inspect teachers‟ work was seen as a threat to their professional autonomy and threatened teacher morale. Furthermore, it appears that the school and SMC had different conceptions of what their respective roles were or should be.

In its capacity as a school board, the SMC was expected to concern itself broadly with overall management, without getting involved in the day-to-day running of the school. However, according to some SMC members‟ perception of their function in facilitating community mobilisation of resources for the school, they should have had a much more active role. One member remarked:

Why is it that when we try to let them do what they are supposed to do they are not happy, but when they need assistance then they ask us to help. Why do they expect us to put our money in the school and sit back unconcerned? (SMC member [Kuku]: 03/11/08).

As far as the SMC was concerned, the school and their teachers needed to come to terms with the fact that community members could do more than make financial contributions if they were granted the room to do so.

In contrast to the SMC‟s attitude and methods of involvement with the school, the PTA appeared to view its role rather differently. PTA members generally seemed to assume a more supportive and advocacy-based stance in attempting to „educate‟ the community of parents about their responsibilities, as the following comment from a PTA chairman suggests:

What we do is that we normally invite the parents to the school and talk to them that they are destroying the children‟s future by taking them out for fishing. After receiving complaints from the school, we arranged with them [the school] to check on the children‟s attendance two times a week [my emphasis] (PTA chairman [Kuku]: 10/11/08).

This exemplifies how the PTA initiated steps to improve school attendance by sensitising community members about their responsibilities. The message from this advocacy stance is that the education of pupils required the collaboration of parents, community and school which supports the conceptual framework of this study (see chapter 2 section 2.5).

The regularity of PTA visits to routinely check on pupils‟ attendance was actually seen by the teachers and heads as being supportive of the school‟s mission, with the focus more on the pupils and less on the teachers. In scheduling their (PTA) visits, they signalled to the school management its recognition that they (school) were in charge and gave it the opportunity to appreciate the role that the PTA played. The PTA chairman at Kuku indicated:

We have a major role to play as PTA since we have a direct interest in the school because of our children. We discuss school matters with them and only come in to help when the need arises but when we are not happy about something, we tell them (PTA chairman [Kuku]: 10/11/08).

The PTA approach gives the impression that it appreciated that the development of pupils was a collaborative effort by all who had a stake in their well-being. But the question is why would the PTA and the SMC have such different approaches in trying to address problems confronting the school? Could the accommodation of the PTA be as a result of their direct stake in the school because of their children or is it as a result of the different perceptions and interpretations they each gave to their respective roles?