CHAPTER SIX Experiences and enhancement of partnership
6.2. Participants’ proposals regarding the enhancement of school partnership
This section reveals suggestions from participants regarding the enhancement of school partnerships. This section speaks directly to question three of the research questions (see section 5.1). Regarding the enhancement of school partnership, there was a paradigm shift about participants` perception of their role in partnerships. I discuss this paradigm shift hereafter.
At FP school, all participants who previously served as SGB members were re-elected to represent their constituencies. I asked CP-1 (FP) as to what could be done to enhance role - players` partnership. CP-1 responded by expressing his remorse and regret regarding the state of the partnership. I did not want to interrupt him as Mouton (1996) posits that it is important for a researcher sometimes to allow digression from a respondent. According to her, vital information can be obtained from such digression. CP-1(FP) expressed his inner- feelings as follows:
To be honest, there are several factors that are affecting our partnership.
Unfortunately, they neither benefit our school nor us as members.
I viewed this response as an admittance and acknowledgement that all was not well with the partnership. On probing as to what could be done to enhance partnership, CP-1(FP) replied:
As the SGB chairperson, I had been thinking about all the challenges and differences that we have as SGB members. I am also not innocent in the whole situation. But my opinion is that as newly elected SGB members we need to start on a clean slate.
CP-1 elaborated in a way that seemed to show that he was a changed man.
The school principal, teacher-union site stewards, and I as leaders of our constituencies, we have a responsibility to lead by example. We need to be united, open, transparent, trustworthy, inspire, communicate, and be honest to each other. Moreover, it is vital for us to be moral leaders.
Though initially CP-1 seemed not to be answering the question directly, allowing him to start on that note, was of benefit for this study. It was through this apparent digression that assisted me with more detailed information from him. Hence, adopting Mouton’s suggestion, yielded positive results. I was taken aback by CP-1`s responses because during the first interview session, he appeared as someone who was not prepared to work with other partners, especially,
151
the school principal (P-1). The response from CP-1(FP) regarding the enhancement of school partnership suggested that he was a committed to change.
I thereafter probed as to what really prompted him to such sudden change. CP-1(FP) responded:
I have realised that the success of this school depends on us as leaders of our constituencies by working together collaboratively. Furthermore, as I have been re- elected by parents to be SGB member and chairperson, parents have been pointing fingers at me as someone who causes instability at this school. I am now prepared to work with other stakeholders. Parents have confidence in me, therefore, I am prepared to encourage peace and stability to this partnership.
This response suggests that the parents` intervention somehow also contributed in CP-1, to see the importance of working with other stakeholders amicably. Christie (2003) points out that it is of great importance for parents and community to encourage peace and stability at schools.
P-1(FP) reiterated CP-1’ words, but he also suggested training as key to the enhancement of partnership:
As partners we need to encourage unity and respect. Moreover, we have to make efforts that we attend workshops regarding our roles and responsibilities. In this area, there are some of our members who are not sure of what to do or not to do.
I made a follow-up pertaining to a nature of workshops he was talking about because P-1(FP)
was once on that campaign prior, to assisting SGB members. She responded:
Though the Department of Education expects me to workshop newly elected SGB members, but I would outsource an intervention of NGOs to workshop SGB members on governance matters. In addition to this assistance, I would approach departmental officials to workshop us.
P-1 (FP) clarified the motive behind getting the NGOs:
I think if we get an independent facilitator, perhaps we would be able to achieve our desired goal. This is because at the moment we as partners do not trust each other.
P-1’s (FP) proposal regarding the enhancement of partnership added more light on CP-1’s opinions that it was important for role-players to adhere to the principles of democracy. What I also noted was that seemingly such knowledge and understanding of principles of democracy would have only been possible if several workshops were conducted by neutral facilitators. P-
152
1`s opinion of utilising skills and knowledge from independent facilitators may perhaps be of benefit to the partners. Khuzwayo (2007) and Sergiovanni (2015) reported that it is the responsibility of school principal to provide training to SGB members but sometimes some partners view these trainings with suspicion. Therefore, the suggestion from P-1 (FP) to invite independent facilitators would cease these suspicion but develop greater understanding and trust.
On the other hand, SS-1(FP) suggested exercising of transformational and moral leadership as answer to the enhancement of partnership. SS-1(FP) summed up in the following fashion:
We live in a transformed society where there are numerous changes in this country and in the education sector. We all have a responsibility to transform this country. School principal, SGB chairperson and us as teacher-unions all of us, we need to be moral leaders. We need to be true to ourselves and our members. Though we have diverse constituencies but our main focus should be the success of our learners at our school.
Such success would only be obtainable if we appoint staff based on merit, not because they are our relatives or friends.
SS-2 (FP) proposed communication as one of key factors that could enhance school partnership.
In his response SS -2 repetitively stated that non - existence of communication was a cancer to school partnership between members. This was what he had to say:
The SGB members, especially the leaders do not communicate to each other. This results in mistrust, dishonesty, corruption, immorality, dictatorship and undemocratic procedures.
Drawing from the above responses it looked like school leaders at FP were all prepared to enhance partnership. The responses from the participants seemed to symbolise dawn of unity and preparedness to enhance partnership at this particular school. Most importantly, it was also inspiring to hear all partners expressing without any doubt that democratic and transformational principles had to be promoted to enhance partnership. This commitment to work together signified unity.
Regarding TP school, all previously serving participants were re-elected in the 2018 SGB elections. In responding to the question regarding the enhancement of school partnership, CP- 2 (TP) also put more emphasis on adhering to the democratic principles. He regretted regarding the conflict that took place at TP. He explained:
153
It was an embarrassment to see our school being on media due to conflict between us as SGB members over a deputy principal post. The challenge and contestation I received from the principal and teacher-union site stewards made me do an introspection. I must admit I was bitter because the preferred candidate of the site steward got the post. It was for the first time in history of the school to see someone who was not my choice to get a post. But the conflict of that nature should have been avoided.
Although the question was not about the background of the conflict, I again allowed him to continue expressing his views. Eventually, my patience seemingly yielded positive results, because it was through this background information that I understood that the conflict was one of the dynamics that caused ineffectiveness amongst partners. CP-2 (TP) thereafter, responded directly on the question I asked. In his response, just like CP-1 (FP), he pointed out that for any partnership to be effective, it should be based on the principles of democracy such as honesty, transparency, respect, teamwork, co-operation and unity. He elaborated on teamwork, duties and support. He elaborated:
Though this school is my legacy, it is important for us as partners to be mindful that we work as team. We need to give each other space to operate democratically. The principal has a responsibility to manage the school. The SGB members (parent component and myself deal with school governance. Teacher - union site stewards deal with teachers` welfare. But at the end of the day we need each other. We have a responsibility to support one another.
CP-2’s response suggested that he was willing to work with other partners collaboratively. I observed his facial expression that he apparently meant what he perceived as to be perhaps a better idea to enhance partnership. CP-2 (TP) acknowledged that though he was instrumental in the building of TP other stakeholders such as school principal and teacher were needed to manage it and teach their children. He admitted that it was the service that he was unable to offer. Furthermore, he put more emphasis on word such as “collaboration” among partners. I then sought clarity, as to what did he mean by collaboration? He elaborated:
As SGB chairperson I have committed myself to lead this school governing body in a very democratic fashion. An autocratic leadership would be the thing of the past. I now sit down and discuss issues with other partners. Every members` opinion are treated with utmost respect and dignity. We encourage teamwork, honesty, communication,
154
collaboration and open-door policy amongst members. We have agreed to adopt this approach for a purpose of enhancing partnership.
The report that CP-2 (TP) had already met with other partners and had agreed on these unifying principles suggested that these leaders were prepared to transform their previous method of operation. In line with CP-2 (TP), P-2 (TP) revealed that as members they encouraged engagement. He explained:
It was for the first time for me to disagree with the SGB chairperson. It was because there was no room of engagement to discuss issues. This has affected our partnership.
But I am happy now because as SGB partners we have taken a decision that it is important to meet and clarify our roles and responsibilities. We encourage teamwork and team spirit among our members. Issues that previously caused division are the things of the past.
Partners` decision to put more emphasis on communication seemingly brought closeness between partners. Data generated during the first phase from the participants of FP, TP and RP schools seemingly revealed that the absence of respect, trust, transparency led to poor communication. According to Christie (2011), it is possible for SGB members to be unable to understand their roles and responsibilities if they do not communicate openly. The proposal from P-2 (TP) that SGB members meet to clarify the roles and responsibilities was a crucial point. Most of researchers who conducted studies about school governing body partnerships suggested that SGB members needed to improve on understanding their roles and responsibilities (Tshabalala, 2013. Furthermore, they also need to encourage an open communication (Msila, 2014). These are the areas which have been identified as the sources of conflict and causes of various dynamics in school partnerships (Msila, 2014; Tshabalala, 2013;
Thompson, 2016; & Khuzwayo, 2007).
Apart from the democratic principles suggested by both CP-2 (TP) and P-2`s clarity regarding roles and responsibilities, P-2 (TP) also suggested that more training of SGB members was essential. He explained:
Knowledge is power. It is fundamental for us as SGB partners to learn from each other.
Moreover, we have a responsibility to make an effort to attend SGB workshops and trainings to empower ourselves. To ensure that this partnership becomes effective, we as leaders have to promote unity. Furthermore, we have to make sure that we uphold to be democratic and transformational leaders. It would also be imperative to invite
155
departmental officials from governance section and NGO’s experts to develop us on SGB school partnership matters.
P-3 (RP) just like SS-1 (FP) suggested that it was of cardinal importance for all SGB members to be moral leaders. In the same vein, teacher - SS-4 (TP) just like P-1 (FP), CP-1 (FP), CP-2 (TP) and P-2 (TP) also pointed out that democratic aspects, such as honesty, respect, teamwork, transparency, co-operation were the key to the enhancement of partnership.
On the other hand, SS-5 suggested detailed and comprehensive proposals regarding the enhancement of school partnership. She explained:
As SGB partners, regardless of our positions, we all have a responsibility to strive for positive development of fellow partners, raise awareness of moral ethics and standards, and focus on priorities that would benefit our partnership. We need to share values and be selfless leaders. It is our duty to promote harmony and cooperation. It is our responsibility as members to encourage freedom of expression among ourselves. Lastly, we are duty- bound to look beyond self - interest but look to the common goal. Tensions, disagreements, and conflicts over schools` projects, securing of posts for our relatives, friends and personal gains should come to an end.
The responses from the participants of TP suggested that all participants were in a campaign to democratise and enhance their SGB partnership. To hear all participants being on the same page regarding transforming their partnership, was something I perceived as a great change.
At Rock Primary school, participants reported that there were high contestations and campaigns during SGB election of 2018. P-3 (RP) reported that the mostly high contested position was that of a SGB chairperson. According to P-3 (RP), CP-3(RP) also availed himself for nomination but was not re-elected. P-3 (RP) further clarified that a local political councillor was the one who became the new SGB chairperson. P-3` s response evoked enthusiasm to interview the newly elected SGB chairperson. The rationale was based on an understanding that there was more work to be done with her, as I was going to interview her for the first time. I was very keen to seek her insight of the school`s governance politics between partners. This question paved the way for the third research question which I had asked above to the participants from FP and TP schools (refer to Table 5.1). To make a clear distinction from the previous defeated CP-3, I coded this newly elected SGB chairperson as 2nd CP-3.
156
To have an insight of 2nd P-3`s knowledge about her school, I asked her to explain about her understanding of Rock Primary school`s governance politics? In responding to the above question, she explained:
This school is part of our community. We elected parent members to be SGB members, but unfortunately, there have been fighting between the principal, previous SGB chairperson and teacher-union site stewards. Therefore, as a political councillor, I am duty-bound to see to it that all schools operate smoothly in my ward. I have been lobbying parents to elect me for a purpose of bringing stability and peace to this school.
My child is in Grade 2. I want what is best for her. But the politics that had been happening on the last two years is destroying the future of our children.
I sought an elaboration from 2nd CP-3 (RP) regarding the politics that was destroying the future of their children. She elaborated:
I understand politics very well, but I must admit that I was one of those parents who marched, demonstrated, shouted and demanded the removal of the principal. I was naïve enough until, I realised that the previous SGB chairperson was using us to fight his personal gain
2nd CP-3 further explained that they were deceived as parents:
I have been observing the situation at this school and have realised that all accusations levelled against the principal were fabricated lies and propaganda.
This response from 2nd CP-3 suggested that this was the person who seemed to understand the politics of the school and also wanted to transform the school. I thereafter sought her views as to what would be a best solution to undo this propaganda, which according to her had been entrenched to parents and community members. 2nd CP-3 responded with enthusiasm and confidence in the following manner:
We have already done the most important work. In this election, I was one of the people who campaigned and canvassed to ensure that parents did not re-elect the previous SGB chairperson. We won the first round. The second round now is to ensure that the SGB members work collaboratively regardless of their constituencies.
2nd CP-3 responded like someone who seemed to be concerned about the teamwork at the school. Her response suggested that she was indeed concerned about the community. Despite her commitment as the political councillor, but she availed herself to deal with the problem that
157
apparently caused dysfunctionality of SGB partnership at RP school. Her involvement in the campaign to ensure that the previous CP-3 who seemingly was the cause of conflict, was not re-elected, and her willingness to work with other role players, suggested that he wanted an enhancement of partnership. But as a researcher, I thought it would be more appropriate to hear from her. I then sought 2nd CP-3 as to what could be done to enhance partnership. Her response elucidated that she was on a mission to bring about change at Rock Primary school.
My vision is to transform the image of the school. I want to instil democracy and transformation among partners. My wish is to do away with this autocracy, self - enrichment, division, dishonesty, hidden agendas, mistrust, lack of communication, non-recognition and rejection of some partners. In short, my vision is to encourage participatory approach. I have already approached all partners that my intention is to discuss all these factors which previously affected this school`s partnership. I want all of us as partners to adhere to the principles of the Constitution of South Africa and the South African Schools Act.
The response from 2nd CP-3 suggested that she meant business. The inclusion of other role - players in the meeting she spoke about seemed to bring enthusiasm and hope. It may appear that they felt being recognised and appreciated as vital stakeholders. When it was time to interview P-3 (RP), I noticed that he was keen to share his happiness about the latest SGB development. He had this to say:
The storm is over, the only way to enhance our partnership is to work together collaboratively. I am very happy now because our newly elected SGB chairperson is insisting that as partners we have to do things democratically. In addition to that he stresses that we have to trust, support, communicate and believe in one another.
P-3’s response was seemingly in line with 2nd CP-3`s responses. This seemed to suggest that both these partners and leaders were prepared to transform and improve the work relationship.
P-3 (RP) echoed 2nd CP-3`s (RP) words that they had a strategic meeting where they laid ground rules to make their partnership more effective.
In the same vein SS- 6 (RP) spoke highly of the 2nd CP-3 (RP) regarding the enhancement of school partnership. SS-6 (RP) viewed her as a leader who promoted the democratic principles, transformational leadership and moral leadership.