Implications for school governance practices

Before looking at what can be done to make sure that all stakeholders become inclusive, deliberative, democratic participants in governance in their schools, I would like to look at school governance. As I indicated earlier, many of the main stakeholders involved in education prior to 1994 were excluded from school governance structures, including educators, parents, learners, community members and other interested parties. However, the South African

144

Schools Act (No 84 of 1996) guarantees a democratically elected governing body or school board that is mandated to formulate policies, rules and regulations, and then to make sure that they are adhered to. This meant giving a voice to all stakeholders involved with the school. The Act makes it very clear who should serve as governors. However, given the legacy of the past, the implementation became a problem to many. The South African Schools Act also provides for capacity-building programmes so that all those elected would feel a part of the structure and also equal to other members serving as governors. Parents have to be in the majority with regard to representation. Unfortunately, many aspects of the SASA do not apply to private schools. That is why the Seventh-day Adventist school boards did not adhere to the SASA.

This, as what was pointed out by the constructed data in Chapters 5 and 6, created many difficulties for SDA schools and their governance structures.

All the stakeholders indicated that they wanted to exercise their democratic right to participate in decision making or policy formulation, whether as a member of the school board or merely as a citizen interested in the welfare of the school, particularly if they had children attending the school. There were staff members who stated that each staff member had to have at least one opportunity to serve as a school board member during their tenure at the school.

Furthermore, parents wanted not only fair representation, but also that information regarding policies and decisions taking be passed on to them. In certain cases they wanted to be consulted before policy decisions were ratified. This was their way of participating democratically and also feeling a part of the process.

I have no doubt that capacity-building programmes would educate for democratic citizenship.

In other words, members of the school board, who represent the stakeholders, would receive the training to function democratically. I believe that in this way they could deliberate in such a manner that would respect each other’s diversity and even agree to disagree on certain matters but in a non-confrontational manner. They would be prepared to behave in a manner becoming of a democratic citizen in which respect and tolerance are shown to all. In other words, instead of each one wanting his or her way, they would deliberate, respect each other’s viewpoints, respect each other’s diversity and culture, and eventually come to consensus. This, I believe, would signal, at least in part, their growth as democratic citizens. However, opportunities should be afforded for this growth, as they are not present in SDA governance structures.

Besides, the school governance structures were loaded in favour of the school administration and higher organisation. Stakeholders were aware of this and called for radical change.

145 Pring (200, 17) states that:

Central to educational research, is the attempt to make sense of the activities, policies and institutions which, through the organization of learning, help to transform the capacities of people to live a fuller and more distinctively human life.

It is this kind of transformation that is needed. Capacity building will assist with the transformation from voiceless individuals to deliberative democratic citizens.

I therefore argue that there must be capacity building to transform stakeholders and afford them the opportunity to deliberate democratically. Until they experience true citizenship,

governorship at individual schools will remain a problem. Weinstock and Kahane (2010, 1) state that “democracy should be understood as the exchange of reasons rather than merely as the confrontation of contending interest”. Unfortunately, this has been the experience of the school boards. Various stakeholders referred to the confrontational issues that arose, some which took long periods to solve. Weinstock and Kahane (2010, 1) also state that “the

justification of policies in liberal democracies should be more democratic”. Stakeholders have urged this on the education authorities. They want deliberative democracy so that they could participate as democratic citizens in institutions where their voices were seldom and sometimes never heard. Weinstock and Kahane (2010, 2) make it very clear that deliberative democrats are not an elitist group and that, when “participating in the democratic process they should be civic minded”. They state that when participating in the democratic arena, participants should be open-minded and even “allow themselves to be swayed by arguments”. If they allowed this they would have a better view of everybody’s argument or contribution to the debate and they would then be able to participate more meaningfully and in turn deliberate far better.

Weinstock and Kahane (2010, 4) state that “deliberative democracy is part of a larger project to do with the role of communication and with the gradual overcoming of obstacles to

communication”. In the context of governing bodies or school boards, communication is of paramount importance. In a democracy where schools are open to people from all walks of life, we find that individuals from different language groups serve as governors. They must

deliberate democratically and therefore communication is very important. There is no doubt that many of the prejudices of the past still exist and these prejudices, for example, pose an obstacle to communication. Until there can be mutual trust among members there will be obstacles to communication that must be overcome. This can only happen when democratic citizenship and deliberative democracy are realised and trust and mutual respect replace distrust and other prejudices.

146

Weinstock and Kahane (2010, 4) argue that deliberation should be committed to liberty and opportunity. They also argue that deliberating citizens should deal carefully with one another and not foster “controversial arguments from conceptions of the good” (2010, 4). In this regard resources of public reason would play a part. If we want highly effective school boards, and if we want to educate people to be democratic citizens and participate in the running of the schools, we must take into account their language, ethnic and religious commonalities. There must be mutual respect for each other’s cultures. People need to identify with each other and work collectively toward a common cause, which is the success of the institutions that they serve. To achieve this they must view each other as equals, respecting each other’s diversity. In spite of cultural differences, people should feel free to participate democratically, realising that each individual has his or her own story to tell. Waghid (2010, 31) argues that we must create space for others to tell their stories, and if we cannot do that then we have not provided conditions for deliberation. Waghid (2010, 31) further asserts that, when people deliberate, they must actually engage collectively and not merely participate. This aspect came through very clearly while collecting data, since many stakeholders indicated clearly that they wanted to be actively involved in decision making and policy formulation, and in the operation of their institutions. It was clearly stated on several occasions that many serve on the school board but were merely required to “rubber-stamp” decisions. However, many clearly stated, both during the interviews and in the questionnaires, that they wanted to be part of the discussions, they wanted to contribute, in other words they wanted to exercise their democratic citizenship and engage in the deliberations concerning the institutions as participants. They wanted to make suggestions and see those suggestions either being accepted and used, or otherwise rejected with good reason in order to accept a better suggestion. Either way, they would be engaging, deliberating, and participating as free and equal moral human beings. Of course there were those who did not really care about participating. They felt that the board was doing a good job and saw no reason to interfere. Where some staff members insisted on serving on the board, one in particular said that, if asked, he would refuse to serve. This particular staff member had no desire to serve as a board member. However, staff in this category were in the minority. The majority by far wanted to participate meaningfully by having their voices heard. They were not interested in rubber-stamping decisions, but in discussing, debating and deliberating on issues before decisions were made.

I have no doubt that all the groups of stakeholders, including the board members themselves, wanted more than mere participation, more than merely attending meetings, more than merely rubber-stamping decisions. They wanted to engage as free, moral human beings in democratic deliberations and make a difference in their schools, but they were not all equipped to

147

participate. The next section will deal with preparing stakeholders for active participation. We will now look at capacity building.