attractive to politicians and policy makers under pressure (Kraak & Young 2001:4).
The study has found that the documented laws that govern school management and governance basically made it possible for learners to participate in school governance through the RCLs. The positive consequences of this step have, to some extent, been ‘measurable’, in that schools generally appear to be more stable than were in previous decades when learners sidelined, because legitimate channels through which to
interact with other stakeholders and authorities have been opened. The acquired powers (participation) by the RCLs have, however, led to their wanting more room to exercise them. For example, one RCL president complained that learner offenders are not brought to them to deal with their cases; they are punished and later brought to the RCLs’ attention as complaints. This scenario has created further confusion in schools, especially because many SMTs do not communicate effectively with the RCLs concerning written information pertaining to the extent of their participation. Much of what has been discussed so far seems to put an element of doubt on the policies in place, but having examined these policies, Kraak & Young (2001:4) are optimistic and argue that, “the problems of implementation are not necessarily an indication of the failures of South Africa’s first democratic government or even that the original vision was wrong”.
There is an element of unease on the part of the SMTs, as they feel that because the RCLs feel entitled to things, and because they are stakeholders, they want to take over the running of schools. This feeling is certainly coherent with the tone of the Guides, suggesting that it is en entrenched attitude people may not even be aware of. This suggests that the SMTs have not yet been able to shake off the mentality that “organizational control is a fixed, finite entity that emanates unilaterally from the top of the organizational hierarchy” (Abdel-Halim, in Kolowsky & Sagie 2000:21). This is where the politics of difference show their character i.e. that the two groups set goals differently and in the process of pursuing them their interests clash. The manner in which the two groups address these issues has contributed to many unsavoury scenes in schools, manifestations of what Ngcongo (1995:44) calls a “lack of a democratic culture and tolerance of the divergent views”. As a measure of transparency, which is among the cornerstones of democratic governance, implementation of the policies in place have proved to be far behind in terms of reaching their intended aim of letting everyone in the school community feel part of a democratic community.
Mistrust, a lack of clarity over the management of school funds and a display of negative attitudes towards each other have contributed to tensions and ultimately energy wasted on fighting rather than positively contributing to making the schools teaching and learning environments. The schools have proved to be doing very little
when it comes to displaying or adopting learning organisation stances, though some of the SMT members concede that they have learnt some valuable lessons through interacting with the RCLs in school governance. Perhaps what is emerging here is what the NEPI (1992:13) cautions about:
However, it is important to note that institutions and structures which allow democratic participation are a necessary but not sufficient condition for a democratic system of education governance.
By implication then, there is much that needs to be done in order for the policies to cultivate cultures that embrace all the stakeholders and make them feel part of a ‘living’ community. According to Sergiovanni (2000:14):
Culture provides us with knowledge, beliefs, and norms systems from which we derive significance. Community lets us know that we are connected to others and are part of a social group that is valuable and thus we ourselves are valuable.
This may not be specifically referring to the school governance dealt with in this study, but there are obvious connections, and similarities, which make it relevant, and the same writer goes on to say, “Schools need special leadership because they are lifeworld-intensive” (ibid., 166). It is in this ‘lifeworld’ intensity that issues such as communication become such crucial building blocks.
Of the challenges that schools face, pertaining to policy implementation and the general reactions (possible interruptions) by those for which it is meant, Weick (1996:571) looks at them in two ways, as he argues:
When the interruption is labelled a problem, then there is the expectation that people will hit it hard, that it can be solved, and once it is solved it will stay solved. However, when an interruption is labelled an issue, one expects that it will be managed rather than solved, that it will take different forms over time, and that endurance and persistence will be needed to keep it under control.
Therefore, it is expected that the SMTs, when addressing issues or crisis situations involving learners or RCLs, try to explore different avenues and not try to look for
quick fix solutions that would easily backfire on them and have a negative impact on the schools. Also the loopholes in the policies have difficulties for schools to operate, but the schools, seemingly, have not been able to detect these, so as to do something about them, even if only to bring them to the attention of the authorities. It is thus a question of managing issues, rather than solving problems.