Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

Opinionistas

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed are not that of Daily Maverick.....

Strong, effective school governance sits at the centre of educational success

Jonathan Molver
By Jonathan Molver
13 May 2024
Facebook
0
This article on school governance is the first in a three-part series which reviews the engagement of parents, the impact of the system, and alternative governance models.

School governing body (SGB) elections took place earlier this year. During this process nearly 150,000 parents were elected and sworn in as school governors, taking on responsibility for developing key policies, making critical staffing appointments and overseeing the expenditure of the national norms and standards funding allocation.

There is little evidence to suggest this governance model works, and ultimately, poorly governed schools deliver poor outcomes. To strengthen school governance, we need to review the criteria for parental eligibility, redistribute technical capacity to areas of high socioeconomic deprivation, and incentivise high-performing parent governors to remain in the system for longer so that their knowledge, skills and experience are not lost. 

In March, 25,000 public schools conducted elections to decide which representatives from their communities would govern for the next three years. The elected parents hold a tremendous amount of responsibility with regards to determining how the school will be run.

In 1996, in a move to democratise education and increase parental voice, the government implemented SGBs, on which parent governors would hold the majority voting position regarding the annual school budget, school funding, the structure of the school day, extramural activities, language and discipline policies, facilities and resource management, and post recommendations.

The theory was that by decentralising and democratising governance through the participation and representation of parents, there would be a stronger commitment from parents to the improvement of education for their children, increased accountability for educators, and ultimately improved pupil outcomes.

The evidence for this approach, however, is inconclusive.

A review of school governance undertaken by the Department of Basic Education in 2004 highlighted how unlikely effective self-governance was in socioeconomically deprived schools and communities, due to high levels of crime and unemployment, teacher shortages, and fraud and gross misuse of funds and resources. More than 18,000 of 25,000 of South Africa’s public schools are in quintiles 1 to 3, qualifying them as schools in socioeconomically deprived communities.

Tragically, the predictions in the review have largely been realised – the majority of schools are poorly governed, poorly led and deliver poor outcomes.  

It should be clear by now that parental participation and representation are not enough to drive increased accountability. The SA Schools Act states that school governance requires significant capacity (time, energy and resources) and capability (technical expertise). This is not the case for all of our schools. Schools of privilege have access to parents with the technical capacity required, and less-privileged schools, thanks to the legacy of apartheid, overwhelmingly do not.

If we are going to ensure that every child in South Africa has access to quality education, we could begin by acknowledging that our current school governance model is failing most of our schools and children, and requires significant reform in at least three key areas.

Review and amend governance eligibility criteria


School governance is a civil contribution to society, but it is one that requires significant knowledge, skill and experience. For example, the SGB’s financial responsibility and accountability includes the administering of the norms and standards funding allocation, the ratification of the annual budget (a process that requires the approval of the whole parent body) and fundraising.

Currently, in order to be considered eligible for election, parents need to meet the following criteria: they cannot be declared mentally ill, an unrehabilitated insolvent, a criminal, or a sex offender. Nor can they have had their membership terminated within the past five years.

These eligibility criteria are the absolute bare minimum and are a disservice to our children.

Education can draw on best business governance practices. The King Code recommends that “the board should comprise the appropriate balance of knowledge, skill, experience, diversity and independence for it to discharge its governance role and responsibilities objectively and effectively”.

While directors are not legally required to possess any special qualifications, skills, business acumen or experience in the company’s business to hold office, Section 76 of the Companies Act requires that a director should at all times act with the degree of care, skill and diligence that may reasonably be expected of a person who is (1) carrying out the same functions and (2) with the general knowledge, skill and experience of that director.

Given the levels of technical expertise required for an SGB member to fulfil their roles and responsibilities, it would seem essential to add relevant technical knowledge, skill and experience to the eligibility criteria.

Redistribute technical capacity


Raising the bar on eligibility criteria should have the immediate desired effect of ensuring that fewer underqualified parents are elected as governors. It will not, however, address the shortage of technically qualified parent governors in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities. This requires capacity building on a national scale – which will take time that our children simply do not have.  

Although resources in South Africa may be disproportionately distributed, they are not insufficient. An immediate solution with the potential to fast-track the pool of technically competent parents available in socioeconomically disadvantaged schools and communities is SGB co-option.

Current legislation allows for the co-option of governors to provide additional technical capacity for a specific period (with voting rights), or for the full three-year cycle (without voting rights) depending on the need of the school.

There are 25,000 public schools. If 25,000 educated parents/community members stepped forward as co-opted members and offered to support with, for example, school recruitment and financial governance, this would make a remarkable difference to strengthening governance and ultimately school functionality and performance in schools that desperately need it. By using the co-option model more intentionally, the technical capacity required for school governance in socioeconomically disadvantaged schools and communities could be increased overnight.

Incentivise longer-term parental engagement in governance and training


Organisations like GBF and Fedsas provide training and onboarding support for new governors, outlining their roles and responsibilities and demonstrating what good governance looks like. The impact of this training is sorely limited, as there are no incentives to ensure that schools retain SGB parent representatives. Every three years, parents move on, taking with them the knowledge, skills and experience they’ve gained.  

Research indicates that the longer the governance period is, the better learner outcomes are. We should strongly consider extending the three-year term of office for parent governors given the specialised and technical nature of the core governance functions – particularly financial management and resource management.

Read more in Daily Maverick: Our education system can take important lessons from aviation — or crash and burn

Furthermore, with the leadership positions at most formal governance associations occupied by ex-school principals, parents should be incentivised (parent governors are the only elected representatives in the nation who serve without salary or compensation) to join these associations and assist with the development and delivery of parent governor training, thus ensuring that the knowledge and experience they have accumulated is retained and cascaded throughout the system.

The move in 1996 to decentralise and democratise school governance was laudable. The desired impact of a new school governance system was aspirational.

But the reality for the majority of our schools has been disastrous. Our entire education system requires a radical overhaul if we are going to offer every child in South Africa a hope and a future – and school governance sits at the centre of this. Raising the bar for parent governor eligibility, redistributing technical capacity and training and retaining high-performing parents would provide a strong foundation for stronger school governance.

This, in turn, would lead to stronger leadership, better teaching and improved outcomes for all pupils – and that’s surely something worth voting for. DM

Categories:

Tags: