Democracy, social capital and school governing bodies in South Africa

Abstract

Critics of school governing bodies (SGBs) Á both on the left and on the right Á tend to rely upon arguments that ignore significant portions of the act that created SGB Á the South African Schools Act (SASA) Á the exact nature of the changes to SGBs wrought by amendments to the act and the manner in which the courts, in interpreting the act, have both reinforced the autonomy of SGBs at the same time as they have set limits on those powers. The authors' reading takes seriously all of the provisions of SASA, its amendments and various court constructions of SASA's provisions. This close reading of the South African Constitution, SASA, SASA's amendments and the case law reveals the lineaments of a fourth level of democratic government. Even with their uneven success as a fourth tier of democratic government, SGBs reflect, in many respects, the most important interactions that citizens have with the state. The authors contend that SGBs provide a vehicle for popular political participation that is quite real, and that participation is made no less real by the strictures imposed upon them by South Africa's constitutional and regulatory order. Despite concerns about their lack of capacity, SGBs enjoy popular acceptance and participation across class and language divides. The legal status of SGBs does not merely enhance various forms of local democracy, SGBs also maintain and create effective social networks that generate new stores of social capital. The ability to provide new forms of democratic participation and to create new stores of social capital suggests that SGBs have the makings of a great, new and rather unique 'South African' political institution.

School Governing Bodies in South African Schools: Under Pressure to Enhance Democratization and Improve Quality

“…Although the decision to decentralize the management of all public schools in South Africa had financial advantages for the central government, the primary reason for introducing governing bodies was the political drive towards democratic participation (Christie, 2006;Grant Lewis and Naidoo, 2006;Sayed and Soudien, 2005;Woolman and Fleisch, 2008). Webber (2002), however, argues that a desire to have financially driven, self-managing schools may explain the inadequate attention paid to putting in place the people to govern the schools.…”

A critical examination of the recruitment processes of the South African principals from Rawls perspective: A conceptual argument

“…The interview process requires persons with knowledge of curriculum content, management processes and other strategically related matters. Fleisch and Woolmana (2008) reason that due to their lack of knowledge, some SGB members are employed in domestic and unskilled careers. This has a negative impact because in most cases, they do not have time to attend training arranged prior to interviews.…”

Accountability and trust: Two sides of the same coin?

“…By so doing parents from previously disadvantaged groups are expected to participate in local democratic decision-making, gaining experience practising democratic skills and values in school governance, and building constructive relationships within the school community. In that way parents are expected to spread democracy to the wider society of South Africa, while also increasing the social capital in the school, according to Woolman and Fleisch (2008).…”