How would you describe the collaborative relationship between Head Office and EMDCs?

“I think there is no ideal collaboration. There is always an attempt to ensure that there is a good working relationship. But as you and I know, working relationships are influenced by human resources, personalities, how people interpret policy, they are influence by management styles and leadership, they are influenced by a number of factors. We always are hoping and working towards improving that relationship.”

Question 5: The aspect of time is a precious commodity. Do you think that

enough time is allocated for teacher development?

“It is obviously the most important resource in the province and the country. I don‟t think enough time is allocated for training and professional development of teachers. I think that is one area that we need to work on.”

Question 6: Do you think there is a gap between the policy of inclusive education

and practice?

“I think there are always gaps between policy and practice. Inclusive education is a policy that was first meant to be tested in particular ways. Once the system has learned from that test, it would then go system wide, depending on its resources. So, I think that the system has intended for the entire 30 000 schools in the country to be inclusive. It‟s a short-, medium- and long-term approach that is clearly explained in the White Paper.”

Question 7: So. Do you think that the WCED is doing enough to develop

inclusive education?

“I think the WCED is committed to inclusive education and the WCED has done quite a bit of work in the area. I am not in a position to give you a definite answer on that, because I haven‟t looked at any evaluation reports regarding the success or failures of White Paper 6.”

4.6.1.4 Interpretation of data

All four directors within the WCED head office agreed that the ultimate achievement of policies is to establish quality teaching with learners as one put it “the ultimate service beneficiary”. Some agreed that collaborative teamwork between Head Office, EMDCs and schools is not ideal. They also agreed that this collaboration will always be influenced by resources, policy interpretation, management and leadership styles. What I deduced from these interviews is that communicative processes are lagging behind. This further indicates a lack of congruence between the objectives of Head Office officials and that of EMDCs.

At this point I can already offer a justification for arguing for deliberative democracy with its roots in “equal interest of all” (Habermas, 1996:306). The lack of congruence between the three tiers within the WCED indicates that deliberative democracy has a significant role to play in the communicative aspect in the WCEDs service provision model. If quality teaching is to be achieved, misrepresentation and distortion of information will have to be illuminated. As Fearson (1998:48) correctly observed, the “pathological outcome would disappear if individuals were allowed to discuss matters first.” A deliberative democratic approach to service provision enable stakeholders to express their preferences and facilitate better understanding of divergent or conflicting interests. It also creates an opportunity to combine capabilities through communication and so increase not only better understanding but also making good choices.

Furthermore, the directors see the HCDS as a policy aimed at creating quality education for all learners. Power is an inevitable feature in any organisation and the WCED is no exception. I have noted that significant power is vested in the hands of Head Office directorates. Power played a significant role in the establishment of an additional directorate and the appointment of ECD posts. Another theme that emerged from the interviews is that the WCED has to subscribe to the economic system within which it operates.

One director defended the WCEDs neoliberalist approach by stating they have to operate within the economic environment the education system finds itself. This is an affirmation of an education system that subscribes to commercialisation and privatisation, with its emphasis on marketisation and competitiveness. I argue that in this neoliberalist approach to education the role of the WCED has changed from provider to monitor and regulator.

Another theme that also emerged from the interviews was that our education system is dynamic and develops very fast. This would constitute regular reflection and dialogue between the WCED, EMDCs and schools. Reflection and dialogue forms the basis of a learning organisation. As a result there will always be a need for more training and development. This compounds the budgetary constraints that already complicate the service provision model.

All three directors agreed that the aspect of time needed much more consideration. One director emphasised the WCED Head Office‟s commitment to quality education, but admits the challenge with regards to adequate training and development time. Furthermore, he claimed that quality education is a joint venture between the WCED, schools and parents. He then claimed that parents are severely compromising the mission to provide quality education, through their lack of commitment. This could be a debatable issue, considering the prevailing high unemployment rate and some parents who experience serious financial challenges. On the issue of inclusive education it was said that the WCED is doing its bit, but gaps between policy and practice will always exists. The issue of communication was left untouched, although one director briefly mentioned an advocacy programme. Advocacy is a one-way communication that leaves very little room for interaction.

Throughout my encounter with the directors at Head office I noted their commitment and/or reference to some of the constitutive meanings, which they believed were important. The issue of communication did not receive much attention. Three new themes emerged from these interviews. Firstly, the WCED education system is dynamic and requires vibrant interaction and consistent development. Secondly, the WCED operates in a specific economic environment and therefore subscribes to an economic – i.e. the neoliberalist – approach to education. Finally, all policies are

political, because the education is highly political. This is not an uncommon perception; as Theron (2002:187) states “Education is located in the area of social contestation, and as such is always political.” It is because of the political paradigm in which education operates that deliberative democracy may provide a more transparent perspective on educational matters and justifying a particular service delivery model.

4.6.1.5 Conclusion

All interviewees generally defended the WCED‟s policy initiatives and service delivery model, but admitted that gaps that may exist between policy and practice. On the basis of the data collected during my interview sessions with WCED directors, I noted some congruence between the director‟s perception about the WCEDs service delivery model and policies. One director felt that the WCED does not fully comply with its policy initiatives; two felt that there is an overall commitment to quality service and teaching. Because conceptual analysis is deeply data driven, I had to conclude that the WCED is committed to developing schools into learning organisations. What is a possible source of difficulties, however, is that the WCED sees itself as a dynamic organisation always moving forward. This would mean that the WCED may move ahead of some schools that are not at their level of progressive development.

There is an overall commitment to most of the constitutive meanings that would support schools to become learning organisations. Through these interview sessions at Head Office I found that the communicative processes between the four departments that I had investigated within the WCED is fairly well linked with regards the overall vision of the WCED. This means that on the WCED Head Office level, they appear well-structured and geared towards a single purpose. However, I found the extension of this vision to the other two tiers namely between head office and schools to be totally inadequate.

A major limitation in the communication model of the WCED is the amount of coercion that exists from head office down to local schools. EMDCs are coerced into promulgating head office policies which further extend down to school level. This is counterproductive and incompatible with the principle of communicative deliberation.

Habermas (1996:305) posits that “deliberations are free of any external...internal coercion.” A communicative deliberative idea of democracy embraces the idea of inclusive participation and can be use to alter the inadequate understanding of the WCEDs concept of a learning organisation. When stakeholders participate, they take ownership and ownership enhances legitimation. The education environment in EMDC and school are significantly different as that of head office. Also, much more resources and service intervention is needed on EMDC and school level. Furthermore, the element of power sharing and communication still needs extensive consideration in the building up of trust so that power can be shared with EMDCs and schools.

4.6.2 EMDCs

These interviews were conducted on the second tier of the WCED. Because of geographical and time constraints only two EMDC directors were interviewed. EMDCs or Education District Offices as they are now called are the executive leg of the service provision location and EMDC directors are the driving forces behind these service provision. As such the success of developing schools into learning organisations is largely dependent upon the decisions taken by EMDC directors and the support and guidance given to circuit teams. Below is a narrative account of an interview conducted with EMDC directors.

4.6.2.1 EMDC Director 1

Question 1: How many components are there within an EMDC?

“We have the EMDC director and on the next tier we have our circuit team leader‟s senior curriculum adviser, senior circuit manager, senior school psychologist and a senior person for the admin component. Each EMDC has four components, namely the psychological component, institutional management and governance component, curriculum component and administration component. As a full EMDC we meet at least twice a term. After servicing schools we submit our reports to the top five and discuss with them independently our plan of action and the how and why of our interventions.”

Question 2: How would you describe the relationship between Head Office and