Responses from the school principals

Generally, all principals had a good working relationship with their boards. The principal at School A stated: “We actually have a good working relationship.” Another principal, at School B, said that “… our patrons trust us. I must be able to have the board in on this”. The element of trust and adhering to policy came through very strongly. Principal C noted that “open and honest communication with your board” was important. Principal D concurred with C and said that, with “school board matters I try to communicate … and carry out decisions that are made”. Principal E admitted that “our relationship has not always been constant … but I think the relationship has improved remarkably of late”. There was no doubt that all the principals tried their utmost to develop and maintain a good, positive relationship with their school boards. They saw their role of maintaining a positive relationship as being of great importance.

Principal E went so far as to admit that “I build up a personal relationship in the interest of the school – so that you support each other and do not work against each other”.

However, there were times when the principals felt that the board was not fulfilling its role.

Principals highlighted the fact that the board was not proactive. Principal A stated: “I believe the board must be proactive.” Principal B said: “Proactively the board gets 5/10. To me one of the greatest concerns is when the board is not actively involved in the school governance matters.” The principal appeared to be very agitated and distressed and stated that “currently, I feel I’m right against a brick wall. I need my school board now specifically … and I do not have my board here”.

One would have thought that the chairperson at least met with the principal to prepare the agenda, but in many cases this was not so. Generally, there was a lack of support from the school board. Principal E said that “very often the board itself does not really know what their identity is in terms of what their responsibilities are … there is confusion as to what their specific roles are”. In addition to other responsibilities, Seventh-day Adventist church pastors

91

also serve as school board members. All the principals reported that pastoral attendance at school board meetings was very poor.

With regard to fulfilling the vision and mission of the school, only principal C mentioned something positive. It was quite evident, then, that most of the school board members did not know what the vision and mission of the school were all about. The lack of knowledge of the vision and mission of the school had a direct bearing on the boards’ inability to fulfil their role.

Principal B mentioned that members chosen annually “do not always understand their function”. Principal C stated, “but they definitely don’t know the importance of the role they need to and must play to run a school efficiently”. Principal E concurred by stating: “I perceive the board underestimates the role which it should be playing.”

At the same time, all the principals agreed that the lack of an updated constitution had played a part in the ineffectiveness of the school board. At the time of the interview, and on completion of the questionnaires, most of the schools were operating with outdated constitutions. Some were being revised, while other schools were planning to revise theirs. Two schools revised their constitutions but the revised constitutions were rejected by the higher organisation for one reason or another. Towards the latter part of writing this chapter, copies of draft constitutions were sent to all the schools. The constitutions contained the functions and responsibilities of the school board. Principal E stated that “one of the reasons why I have not given them a constitution is because the present constitution is outdated, antiquated”.

Since, as stated by many principals, the board did not understand its role, and since they had not been appraised of their functions and responsibilities, it stood to reason that their

performance could not be assessed in any way. In any event, all the principals indicated that no assessment instrument existed, in spite of the fact that these schools had been in existence for many years.

The principals raised several areas of concern. During the interviews, Principal A stated that

“the part that worries me, that is left more or less entirely to us is the budget. There are very few people on the board that know terribly much about the budget...”. The principal indicated that that was why they were dependent on the Conference to send a representative to the board who could explain the budget and financial statement to the board members. This was a concern of a number of principals. The principals also made it very clear that it was very difficult to get people to serve on the board and that, when members were elected, they did not attend regularly. There was a lack of support and often boards had to go ahead without a quorum. Principal D was deeply concerned that they could not even get a chairperson to lead

92

the school board. As mentioned earlier, the principals were also very concerned that pastoral attendance was poor and often lacking.

Another serious concern voiced by the principals was the lack of expertise on the school board.

This was one of the main reasons why they felt that the school board needed training. Principal A went so far as to say, “The board needs training … I do not think of the board only, anybody that is placed in the position in which I am sitting…”. Principal B said, “the board needs training”, and then admitted that “they do not know very much about the operation of the school”. During the interviews, and later from the questionnaires, it became apparent that the school boards of the various schools were not involved in the strategic planning and knew nothing about the overall vision of the school. Responses to involvement in strategic planning and the overall vision of the school included: “not very involved”, “it does not come together to plan strategically”, “very little”, “the board is not involved in drawing plans”, and “not

involved at all”. The principals were very candid in their responses and various principals indicated that they needed help to solve the difficulties experienced with the boards. However, the question of training was one that all the principals supported. They also agreed that an induction and orientation programme would benefit all school board members. No school had an induction and orientation programme, no school offered any training for new school board members, neither was any training given to new or existing members. As mentioned, all the principals agreed that school board members needed training. They even mentioned the specific areas in which training was needed, but were not sure who should do the training.

Principal A said, “It is a brilliant idea. One would have to find the time to train them.” In response to the questionnaire, Principal A said that “they need to understand financial

statements, working policies, and general administration of the school”. Principal B stated that the school board needed “training in finance… They do not know much about the operation of the school”. Furthermore, Principal B reiterated in the questionnaire that if there was training,

“this will inevitably have a positive spin-off, in knowing their functions and responsibilities”.

The rest of the principals all indicated that training was needed on finance, understanding their role, and being “empowered”. Other areas of training included procuring funds, knowing their role, training in chairmanship, how the school is operated, school promotion and the latest developments in the field of education. The responses varied as to who should do the training.

Principal C felt that the “higher organisation should do the training”. Principal E suggested that

“the Conference and we as principals train our school boards more effectively”. Principal A suggested that the chairperson does the training, whilst principal C felt that “a person with people skills and who has the knowledge of the importance of the school board to the school ...

rather an external person”. Principal B felt that “[e]xperts can be called in”.

93

All the principals agreed that they would definitely recommend training: “as often as there were new members”, said Principal A. Principal B stated, “Initial training for incumbents but then two-yearly …”. Principal C advised “at least once a year depending on the needs of the school … Once board members know their important role in the running of the school, they should and would be more motivated to support the school”.

Principal D supported “short presentations by experts possibly at each meeting of the school board”, whilst principal E stated that “an intensive session of training at the commencement of the year would not be wise … rather tackle training as the need arises”.

5.3.1 Summary

The responses of the principals were very clear in both the interviews and the questionnaire.

There were many problems and something specific had to be done to empower the boards and help them accept accountability for their work as governors. In some way it was also necessary to free them from the shackles of their oppressive past and bring about transformation that will help them feel secure and accepted as governors. Through a process of education, the board members can be given the opportunity to reach their potential as human beings interacting with others on the board without feeling insecure and without feeling intimidated when confronted by those who are more learned and educated.