The following pertinent issues, being the socio-economic status of the communities within which these schools were located; Section 21 status; Geographical location; Learner enrolment, School Management and School nutrition (presence or absence); Administrative functioning and physical buildings; School size: and the Language of Learning and Teaching, will now be explored by simultaneously outlining their inherent similarities and differences.
7.2.1 Similarities and differences - Socio-economic status (SES)
At the outset of this section, I advise that the socio-economic status of both GPS and DPS is explored concurrently, as I observed that both schools emerged from similar SES contexts. To this end, I argue that although schools are mostly formal and compulsory institutions that create opportunities for teaching and learning to take place, they do not always function as effectively as expected, largely due to contextual and circumstantial factors. Thus, in seeking to establish the socio-economic context of learners found in GPS and DPS, I believe it useful to first explore what constitutes ‘socio-economic context’ so that a true picture of factors governing these learners’ economic status, which encompasses their home-backgrounds and their social standing, may be acquired. Cognisance is likewise taken of literature that describes the diverse contexts of South African schools, highlighting the fact that most teachers and learners face a myriad of teaching and learning challenges daily.
Taking the above into cognisance, Lam, Ardington and Leibbrandt (2010) suggest that learners emerging from low socio-economic home backgrounds such as those found in GPS and DPS, pose a challenge which their members of the SMT, as instructional leaders, are urged to overcome, as was implied in Chapters Five and Six, Sections 5.1 and 6.1. It is postulated by Lam, et al. (2010) that since members of the SMT depend on the support of parents in motivating their children towards achieving better, especially where this had not been a past practice, requires both transactional and relationship-based approaches. This implies that a reciprocal relationship needs to be fostered by SMT members whereby both the community and the school give to and receive from each other.
Thus, it is once again reiterated that a comparison outlining the similarities and differences between GPS and DPS in terms of socio-economic status, revealed that both schools emerged from lower socio-economic status backgrounds. The SES defining GPS was that learners from below average homes comprised 60%, those from average homes being 30%, and above average homes being 10%. DPS ranged from 80% of the learners coming from below average homes, 10% from average homes and 10% from above average backgrounds. In furtherance of the above, cultural identification and lifestyle and attitudes, as alluded to by Cunningham and Cordeiro (2006), indicate that SES is strongly linked to academic success. These researchers claim that learners emerging from low socio-economic backgrounds are more often than not likely to perform dismally in school, as compared to children alighting from higher socio-economic background homes.
In like manner, Spaull (2012) observes that a factor impacting negatively on learner progress in South Africa, to be SES, postulating that hypothetically, indigent learners’ performance is deemed to be mediocre. Contrary to the assertions of the above researchers who suggest that poverty determines academic performance, Lunenburg and Ornstein (2008) note that although well-off and opulent families possess the means to ensure that their children enjoy better amenities, in no way does this imply that underprivileged children’s performance will be sub- standard. I am apt to concur with Lunenburg and Ornstein (2008) as I do not anticipate SES to be the contributing factor negatively impacting on the scholastic performance of learners in GPS and DPS.
Equivalently, drawing from my personal history based on the lower SES community within which I grew up, being Chatsworth in Durban, I like many others in my neighbourhood, was able to rise above poverty and defeat contextual factors to attain the status that I am presently enjoying. Thus, I believe this could likewise be the scenario with learners from GPS and DPS, who, if intrinsically motivated, may enjoy the full benefit from their empowered teachers whom the SMT strove to professionally develop. The similarities and differences in whether or not their schools were classified as section 21 status schools, is now rendered.
7.2.2 Similarities and differences - Section 21 status schools
Declaring that both GPS and DPS were Section 21 schools, as posited in Sections 1.6.2; 5.2 and 6.2 of Chapter One; Chapter Five and Chapter Six, the question of how much money was
allocated for these schools in terms of their state subsidy, will now be explored. SASA (1996), saw the division of public schools into five categories or quintiles, with poor schools categorised with a low quintile ranking, receiving R165 per child annually (2006), and better- resourced schools having a higher ranking. In light of this, it is ironic that despite their dire circumstances, and purely because the school management of both GPS and DPS school made concerted efforts to maintain the upkeep of their buildings and so on, the DBE declared them to be Quintile 5, Section 21 schools. This implies that they manage their own finances, unlike schools that fall under Quintiles 1 to 3, to become no-fee paying schools. Thus, after these schools annually submit an audited annual financial statement report, the DBE deposits the schools’ allocation into their account. Nevertheless, although Glow and Diamond Primary schools are informed, in accordance with KZN Circular 48 of 2013, of their allocation six months in advance, so that they may budget and plan for the next financial year, the responses elicited from these members of the SMT indicated that due to unforeseen and unexpected expenses, their planning did not always materialise as envisioned by themselves.
In light of GPS and DPS being Section 21 schools, it is claimed that schools provided with money from the education department to buy resources, are categorised by SASA (1996) as being Section 21 schools. This implies that Quintile 1 is the poorest of poor schools, with Quintile 5 deemed to be not as poor. Taking the above reasoning into consideration, the school context was taken into account to rate GPS as being Quintile 5. Since it was situated in the CBD, it gave the impression that it was a ‘rich’ school, without taking cognisance of the SES of the learners. Thus, as a result of the low financial status of most of the parents whose children attend these schools, these members of the SMT were compelled to totally, partially or conditionally exempt their learners from paying school fees. Likewise, these leaders from both GPS and DPS expressed their discontent and disappointment that their schools are not ranked lower to become ‘no-fee’ paying schools. Thus, SMT and staff members from both schools were forced to engage in fund-raising drives to supplement their school’s scant allocation.
Inherent in the arguments expressed by SMT members from both schools, were found postulations that their parent community defaulted in paying school fees as most of them were either unemployed, or earned very low salaries. In GPS were found learners who resided with their grandparents mostly due to their parents either being deceased or working away from their homesteads. Thus, the main form of income appeared to be the meagre old-age pension and