The stakeholders’ attitudes and perceptions towards the partnership between the

The findings clearly indicated that the school heads, the teachers and the community members valued the need to engage each other in curriculum implementation issues. They all spoke glowingly about the benefits for the learners that accrue from a well-planned and managed engagement process. It appeared that both parties realised that the classrooms cannot be independent from external societal forces. This dimension was evident in the study where rural primary schools are located in the midst of communities. They could not afford to ignore the political, social, cultural and economic life that surround them. These situations have a bearing on the learners as well as the teachers. Burkill and Eaton (2011) and Lauridsen (2003) believe that schools do not exist in vacuums, independent of influences beyond the teaching-learning context, be they political, social, cultural or economic. Agreeing with the same view, Mataire

147

(2014) asserts that the teachers and their school heads should also appreciate that these seemingly smallest moments of connection and collaboration with their communities can have the biggest positive impact on a child’s educational life.

The findings also indicated that there have been a lot of ideas and items ‘borrowed’ by teachers from their local community during teaching and learning. However, the indications from the findings were that the ‘borrowing’ was done informally between teachers and community members. For example, by giving the children homework, or asking the children to bring certain items from home which could be used during the lessons. The absence of a clear cut formal route meant that the teachers used their discretion to engage community members. Agneesens (2006) and Wilson et al. (2008) also noticed that it is becoming increasingly difficult for a teacher to possess all necessary knowledge and competencies in the classroom at all times, and thus the need for increased division of expertise, skills and information.

Furthermore, the study revealed that both parties, namely the schools and the community members saw the benefits of engaging each other through various consultation processes. What this implies is that as the teachers consult the community members, it is an admission of the vast skills and knowledge base in the community which should be made use of and valued in the classroom for the educational development of the child. This idea is consistent with Elliot’s (2006) findings that opening the classroom doors to various community members with the requisite skills and expertise, lessens the teachers’ heavy loads thereby enabling the learners to gain meaningful knowledge from different people.

The lessons learnt from the findings are that the classroom teachers and the community members are important allies. Both have ideas about how they can scaffold the children’s learning in the classroom. Important to note is that the primary school teachers may not have the required knowledge of all the eleven subjects they have to teach at primary school level. They may gain knowledge from members of the community who might possess the required information. The learner becomes the biggest winner in this engagement practice. It was this attitude or spirit of preparedness of the community members and teachers to engage each other that was really encouraging. However, the missing link was how these community members could contribute significantly to decision-making in the classroom in order to achieve what Burkill and Eaton (2011), Barnhardt (2006) and De Katele and Cherif (1994) call (respectively) ‘unlocking the richness of community potential, expanding the pupils’ horizon and using the best of both worlds’. Adams (2012:184) emphasises that, “participation is not just getting people to take part and voice their opinions, it is about taking those views forward to action”.

148

The research results also indicated that the teachers seem to find it difficult to deroll. Going down from their ivory tower to the level of the community members with their little knowledge about classroom processes and procedures was not going to be easy. Yet they possess vast raw knowledge and experiences that could energise teaching and learning. This is in line with Barnhardt’s (2006) observation that the diversity of situational and professional conditions prevailing between the teachers and the communities have created high levels of suspicion and lack of respect for each other. This leads to a dysfunctional engagement system and failure to pursue avenues of interest. What was evident from the findings was that while the momentum to engage the community members in curriculum implementation was high, progress to the realisation of this appeared rather low. Putnam’s (2000) observation in his book, Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community, matches well with the findings, where he noted the decline of community networks, informal ties, tolerance and trust that once led the Americans to ‘bowl’ together. This represented a loss of social capital. It was a concern which Putnam thought needed restoration just like the concern of this study was for schools to take on board the community members so that they may ‘bowl’ together for effective teaching and learning to be realised.

What was explicit from the findings was that the issue of accountability in curriculum implementation rests with the school heads and the teachers. Accountability does not mean possession, but means that the school heads and the teachers have the responsibility to drive, monitor and evaluate the curriculum implementation process. With this seemingly heavy responsibility to push curriculum implementation forward, it appeared the road to effective community participation was not easy as teachers planned lessons without communities in mind. The study findings indicated the need for the teachers and the community members to plan together, draw parameters, resolve language issues and discuss successes and challenges as they prepare for the engagement process. This idea matches with the Social Capital Theory which is understood as the collective value of all social networks and the feelings that arise from these networks, to do things for each other (Putnam 2000). The teachers as the custodians of the curriculum implementation process have not given much room to community members. The perception is that these community members cannot add value to teaching and learning. What the teachers do not understand is that involving community members in teaching and learning situations does not mean that the teachers are leaving their duty. Teachers remain in control as trained professionals.

149

Therefore, from the research findings it was evident that community participation in curriculum implementation can grow and become part of a new and emerging commitment by all the stakeholders to enhance children’s learning. Study findings revealed that if the issue of community participation in curriculum implementation is properly managed and becomes a government policy in which teachers are liberated to engage communities, classroom life can be taken to a new interesting level. Adams (2012:183) confirms this idea when he asserts that research on community participation “….has continued to grow and there is now clear evidence of such research feeding into and becoming part of new and emerging government policy”