CHAPTER FIVE Data presentation and discussion
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I present and discuss data. The study was about the dynamics of the supposed partnership between school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher-union site stewards in selected schools. I drew these participants from schools situated in the metropolitan area of Durban, KwaZulu-Natal.
This chapter is made up of four sections: Section 1 deals with participants’ profiles. Section 2 reveals histories of the participants. Section 3 is about participants` understanding of working together as partners. Both sections 1 and 2 provide the background of the study. Section 3 speaks directly to the first part of the first question, namely “understanding of partnerships” In the process of addressing section 3, the second question, namely “the explanation of the dynamics is also covered. Hence, the following first two questions were the milestones of this data presentation and discussion.
1. How do school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher-union site stewards understand and experience working together as partners?
2. How do school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher union explain the dynamics of partnership between them?
3. How, according to the school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher-union site stewards, can the partnership be enhanced?
4. What can be learnt about the role of school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher - union site stewards regarding school partnership?
Due to the large volume of data, I found it prudent and workable to have two data presentation.
Hence, data presentation for this study is found in both Chapter Five and Chapter Six.
81 5.2 Participants’ biographical profiles
In this study participants comprised of five school principals, five school governing body chairpersons, and twelve teacher-union site stewards. As I reported in section 3.4 these participants were from different historical, economical, racial, educational and social backgrounds. Hence, Table 5.1 shows the profiles of the participants.
Table 5.1 Biographical profiles of participants
Participant School Position Occupation Gender Experience in school governance Age Qualification
P SGB
member SGB Chair
SS
P– 1 Flower Primary
Principal Educator Female 07 08 00 11 Between
40 – 50
B.Ed.
Honours P – 2 Thando
Primary
Principal Educator Male 03 07 00 03 Between
30 – 40
Diploma in Education
P – 3 Rock
Primary
Principal Educator Male 08 14 03 06 Between
30 – 40
B.Ed.
Honours P – 4 Tholimfundo
High school
Principal Educator Female 01 02 00 03 Between
40 – 50
B.Ed.
Honours P – 5 Mountain
High school
Principal Educator Male 03 10 05 03 Between
30 – 40
B.Ed.
Honours CP – 1 Flower
Primary
SGB Chairperson
Attorney Male 00 06 03 00 Between
40 – 50
LLM
CP – 2 Thando Primary
SGB Chairperson
Self – employed
Female 00 07 07 00 Between
30 – 40
Grade 10
CP – 3 Rock primary school
SGB Chairperson
Deputy Principal
Male 00 03 01 00 Between
30 – 40
Diploma in Education 2nd CP-3 Rock primary
school
SGB Chairperson
Ward Counsellor
Female 00 03 00 00 40 -50 Honours in
Political Ss.
CP – 4 Tholimfundo High school
SGB Chairperson
Clothing industry
Male 00 09 04 06 Between
40 – 50
Grade 12
CP – 5 Mountain High school
SGB Chairperson
Nurse Female 00 14 05 10 Between
30 – 40
Professional Nurse SS – 1 Flower
Primary
T-union site steward
Educator M 00 07 00 04 Between
40 – 50
Diploma in Education SS – 2 Flower
Primary
T-union site steward
Educator M 00 02 04 04 Between
30 – 40
Degree in Education SS – 3 Flower
Primary
T-union site steward
Educator M 00 04 00 02 Between
30 – 40
Diploma in Education SS – 4 Thando
Primary
T-union site steward
Educator M 00 02 00 04 Between
40 – 50
Degree in Education SS – 5 Thando
Primary
T-union site steward
Educator F 00 02 00 04 Between
30 – 40
Diploma in Education SS – 6 Rock
Primary
T-union site steward
Educator M 00 04 00 06 Between
40 – 50
Diploma in Education SS – 7 Tholimfundo
Primary
T-Union Educator M 00 02 00 04 Between
40 – 50
Diploma in Education
82
SS – 8 Tholimfundo Primary
T-union site steward
Educator F 00 06 00 05 Between
30 - 40
Diploma in Education SS –9 Tholimfundo
Primary
T – union site steward
Educator F 00 04 00 03 Between
40 – 50
Degree in Education SS – 10 Mountain
High school
T – union site steward
Educator F 00 04 00 05 Between
30 – 40
Degree in Education SS – 11 Mountain
High school
T- union site steward
Educator M 00 02 00 04 Between
30 - 40
Degree in Education SS – 12 Mountain
High school
T-union site steward
Educator F 00 01 00 05 Between
30 -40
Diploma in Education
Key: P: Principal; CP: School Governing Body Chairperson; SS: Site Steward
In making reference to participants respectively, I shall refer to the participants P-1(FP), CP- 2(TP), SS-6(RP). Table 5.1 consists of eleven columns. The first column comprises of participants.
The second column shows that there are three primary schools and two high schools. The third column indicates actual positions of the participants in their school partnerships. The fourth column indicates that the participants belonged to a variety of occupations, including educators, nurses, a counsellor, and a former factory worker. The fifth column shows that there were 13 males and 10 females. Columns six, seven, eight and nine reveal experiences of participants as principals, SGB members, SGB chairpersons, and site stewards. Table 5.1 reveals that some participants apart from their positions at the schools, also had previous experiences either as school governing body members, as chairpersons or site stewards. They acquired these experiences at their schools, at schools where their children attended and also at their previous schools. Some of the participants like CP- 4 who used to work in the clothing industry, also served as a shop steward for six years. CP-5 worked as a professional nurse and was also a shop steward for 10 years. According to the Labour Relations Act of 1995, roles and responsibilities of shop stewards and site stewards are the same (Republic of South Africa, 1995). The difference is that shop steward represents factory and industrial employees, while site steward represents employees from the education sector (Baskin, 1984). These diverse experiences shared by the participants contributed to the rich information regarding dynamics of participants. Msila (2012) argues that knowledge and skills of any partner can benefit school partnership if such individual is willing to work with others collaboratively.
The seventh column presents participants’ ages. It shows that 17 participants were above 40 years of age. The remaining six participants were below this age. According to Browne (2012), the age of 40 is often viewed as point of maturity. On that note the majority of participants were able to make informed decisions. Although some of the participants were not yet 40, most
83
of them were very close to this age. This elucidates that school partnership constituted of mature partners.
With regard to the level of education, Table 5.1 shows that out of 23 participants, only two partners did not have matriculation (matric) qualifications, whereas the others possessed post - matric qualifications: ten partners had diplomas and another ten possessed degrees. This is a true reflection that the group comprised of partners who were able to understand SGB documents written either in isiZulu or English. Jansen (1991) maintains that formal educational knowledge is power. Christie (2011) on the other hand, is of the view that one does not have to have a high qualification or be degreed in order to serve in the community partnership. She asserts that natural intelligence with leadership skills can strengthen partnerships. The South African Schools Act (1996) stipulates that as long as a community member has a child at school, such member, regardless of educational level, qualifies to be a school governing body member and a legal partner in the school partnership. I therefore, saw it befitting to present verbatim quotations from participants CP-2 and CP-4 who proudly stated that their lack of education did not deter them from contributing assiduously to school partnerships. The following verbatim quotations contradict some scholars` conclusions that most schools’
partnerships fail because SGB members’ lack educational qualifications (Msila, 2014, (South Africa), McKenna & Willms, 1998 (Canada).