7.1 Introduction
In this chapter the main focus is to share the knowledge regarding what I learnt pertaining to the dynamics of school partnership. The chapter is made up of five sections and six sub- sections. The first section is about the journey I travelled. The second section reports regarding what I have learnt from the journey. This section comprises of six sub-sections which are discussed in 7.1 up to 7.6. From there I move on to report on the shortfall. This is followed by the recommendation for the urgent need for further research. The last section is about the conclusion of this thesis.
7.2 The journey I travelled
To set the wheels turning, in Chapter One, as I explained and justified the motives behind conducting this research about the dynamics of school partnership. I reported how stakeholders namely: school principals, SGB chairpersons and teacher-union site stewards operated disjointedly before the advent of democracy. I further argued how civic organisations and teacher - unions emerged for the purpose of challenging the then status quo. To recapitulate, the status quo was that, some of the role-players such as school principals, parents, teachers`
unions and learners had no opportunity for working collaboratively (Msila, 2014). Christie 2011 asserts that the apartheid government encouraged divisive elements at schools. It was in this chapter where I argued that the democratic policy frameworks such as the Constitution of South Africa (1993), Labour Relations Act (1995) and the South African Schools Act (1996) were introduced. The enactment of these new policies happened after the 1994 democratic election. The intention of introducing these legislations was to democratise and to promote partnership among school partners, among others. Though the democratic government made a great effort to improve school partnership, I explained in that chapter that there were several tensions and conflicts that characterised South African schools. What I identified as a knowledge gap was that, despite the establishment in schools, legitimate and democratic SGBs, supported by democratic and transformational laws which promote partnerships, but there are schools where SGB partners operate as enemies. Therefore, in the interest of school improvement, it is essential to build knowledge of roles and responsibilities to enhance positive dynamics in such schools.
162
In Chapter Two I reviewed literature regarding school partnership. I argued that previous researchers either researched about partnership between school principals and SGB chairpersons, school principals and teacher - union organisations, or SGB chairpersons and teacher organisations. It emerged that there was little if any scholar involved these three role- players being investigated together. In that chapter, I conceptualised the term “partnership” as a contractual agreement between two or more people. I found that such conceptualisation was shared by scholars from businesses, schools, governments, politics, and even marriages. These scholars further emphasise that for any partnership to be a success it is imperative to be guided by principles such as honesty, transparency, support, teamwork, collaboration, respect, communication, trust, commitment, shared leadership, clarity of roles and responsibilities, teamwork, participation, engagement, shared information, and capacity building. These principles are well articulated in the Concise Oxford Dictionary (Hoad, 1986); Mncube, 2011;
The Lectic Law Library, 2006; Du Toit & Kotze, 2011). These principles can be viewed as some of the pillars of partnership. (Brinkerhoff, 2002; The Lectic Law library, 2006;
Rubenstein, 2014; Khuzwayo, 2015; Tshabalala, 2012; Naicker, 2011; Day, 2008; Van Wyk, 2007; & Brandstetter, 2006) These scholars further refer to the above-mentioned features as enablers of partnership. Thus, literature provided me with a deep understanding of the theory of partnership in general and school partnership in particular.
The second section was on “Why school partnership?” I argued that literature reviewed under this aspect was related to the history of education in South Africa, and the motive behind the formation of civic organisation and union organisations. In the same Chapter, I examined some of the inhibitors to partnerships. Murphy and Oberlin (2016) are of the view that these inhibitors are hidden agendas, backstabbing, mistrust, antagonism, suspicions, accusation, conflict, sabotage etcetera. These scholars’ revelation of these inhibitors assisted me in understanding the dynamics of partnerships revealed by participants in the data chapters (Chapter Five and Six).
In Chapter Three, I positioned two theories, and one model, namely Participative Theory and Transformational Leadership Theory as the theoretical frameworks of the study. I explained that the Participative Theory is about power sharing amongst stakeholders. Parents, teachers and learners demanded full participation (Christie, 2011). It was not only the demand for participation but they also wanted to play an active role in ensuring that school structures were democratically transformed (Gill, 2016). I moved on to examine how scholars such as Wood (2011) and Gill (2016) postulate that participation and transformation are main features of
163
democracy which enhance partnership. Gill (2016) defines participative leadership as democratic participation and transformation. In the literature, it also emerged that participation, democracy and transformation are key principles in the enhancement of partnership (see section 2.3). I further explained that the Transformational Leadership Theory was about a leader who works with other members to identify needed change, creating vision to guide the change through inspiration in tandem with committed members of a group (Singh, 2015). The aptness of this theory was because of the national demand to transform and democratise schools. Moreover, I argued that the Collegiality Leadership Model, which is to do with devotion of power, empowerment, shared - decision-making and shared leadership would also be another of my theoretical lenses. If leaders are guided by the democratic principles, partnership likely to result in members` participation, democratic leadership and collegiality.
I titled Chapter Four “the Methodological Strategy”. I explained that this strategy comprised of the research design and methodology. It was in that chapter where I located the study in the interpretive paradigm. This paradigm is about researchers interpreting the problem and making sense of the participants` responses. Because my study was about exploring the dynamics of school partnerships, the participants shared their lived-experiences. Therefore, I found it justifiable to locate it in this paradigm. I further reported that I generated data through semi - structured individual interviews. I explained that this study comprised of 22 participants, namely five school principals, five SGB chairpersons and twelve teacher-union site stewards.
With regards to data generation, I adopted Whiteside, Mills & McCalman`s (2012) model.
164 Figure 7.1
The reason to adopt Whiteside, Mills and McCalman`s (2012) model is because Cain (2016) points out that data generation in a qualitative case involves a series of steps. Whiteside, et., al (2012) are of the view that four steps namely input, process, output and data connection are key to data generation. I equate these scholars first stage - input as involvement. This is when a researcher involves himself or herself in trying to gain entry. The researcher does all the required expectations so that he or she would be involved with the institutions and stakeholders in question. Whiteside, et. ,al `s second stage is process which I equate with procedure. This is the stage when I conducted interviews with participants. The third stage is output which I regard as product or solutions. It was at this stage when the participants suggested some solutions regarding the enhancement of school partnerships. Their last stage is known as data connection.
I equate this stage as reflection. This was when I ensured validity by affording the participants to check if the data I generated captured their responses. All of these enabled me to make sense of the data regarding the dynamics of partnership. Thus Chapter Four gave access to Chapter Five to discuss and present data.
In Chapter Five, I presented and discussed data which resulted in the research findings. The chapter really brought to light the dynamics of school partnership. I discussed how partners