LITERATURE STUDY ON SCHOOL GOVERNANCE

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE STUDY ON SCHOOL GOVERNANCE

 INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter (2) provided a theoretical lens into the various scientific assumptions made by educational leadership and management theorists, in support of the theoretical frame for this study. This chapter (3) focused on ʺSchool Governanceʺ in a historical context as well as key roles and functions of important stakeholders over time, globally and locally.

 INTERNATIONAL VIEWS ON SCHOOL GOVERNANCE

It is argued by Noula and others (2015: 63) that the role of the democratic school is to act in such a way as to bring everyone in a community together. They (Noula, et al., 2015:
further argued that the most important feature of stakeholders’ action in the context of the school community should be to work towards the direction of a harmonious co-existence and collaboration, between the communities represented in the school. Therefore, it was concluded by Simkins (2014: 987) that governance needs to be considered as a comprehensive concept that encompasses both the role of the state and the range of other actors and processes through which educational provision is steered. James, Brammer and Fertig (2011: 394) strengthened this position by arguing strongly that school governing and governance, although complex, are important parts of education systems around the world, and those actors in school governance networks should include: teachers, politicians, unions, professional associations, government departments, and government agencies, headteachers, local authorities and, importantly, school governors.
Governance, according to Walkley (2014: 33), is therefore defined through the way different responsibilities, authorities and accountabilities are distributed within an organisation; governance is about the organisational structure of individuals and groups (lead actors) who have been identified as having responsibilities and authorities. On the other hand, governing may be defined as the action of implementing responsibilities, authorities and accountabilities (Walkley 2014: 33). It is therefore argued by Walkey (2014: 35) that outstanding governance and governing of Australian schools for example, required school board members to be informed about current practices such as new insights and knowledge from research, which in turn may lead to enhanced and improved approaches to school governing, including all lead actors involved in governing.
Connolly and James (2011: 504) is clear on the fact that school governance is a contested territory, and perhaps inevitably so debates over purpose, structure and role are rooted not just in considerations of effectiveness but also in ideology. They (Connolly & James 2011: 505) further argued that education reform is not a neat linear process, but the complexity and non-linearity of the reform process may be an outcome of the conflictual nature of governance. However, Wilkins (2015: 183) had reason to believe that since 2010 there has been a rise in academies and free schools in England which consequently led to increased school autonomy for large numbers of state primary and secondary schools, coupled with an increased demand for ‘good governance’ which had direct consequences for school governors. Under these arrangements, school governors had to adopt legal responsibility for the financial and educational wellbeing of the school (Wilkins 2015: 185).
James (2014: 895) furthermore argues that school governors, collectively as governing bodies, are formally responsible for the conduct of schools in England and are explicitly given the task of governing their schools. These governors are important network actors and are at the heart of many network relationships and interactions. Thus, important, as they do not act independently and in an isolated manner but interact with a range of other entities – not just their school (James 2014: 895). Therefore, in England governing bodies’ three core functions relate to the school’s finance, educational performance and strategic issues (James & Goodall 2014: 5).
James and others (2014: 104) in response hereto, shared the view that all schools publicly funded in England are required to have a governing body, which is legally responsible for the school’s conduct and must have representation from various stakeholder groups, for example, parents of pupils and members of the school’s wider community and the staff. The mode of governance of schools in England is therefore as a result predominantly hierarchical and the work of governing bodies is directed and controlled by government statute and regulations, but within the overall regulatory framework, all schools are held high in autonomy from local authorities who have a largely monitoring role (James, et al., 2014: 108).
Pearson (2011: 699-710) continued this view in saying that the expectations of the governing bodies in England have widened – such as the responsibility for the finances of the school – but that the contribution of the governing body is under-developed in practice and under-researched. However, beyond the expression of the governing body’s responsibilities and words of wisdom about ‘good governance’, the processes, practices and intentions of governing require more understanding which might bring ways to review the contribution of governing to leadership (Hill & James 2015: 10).
Simkins (2014: 994) in support to the above found the following governance processes in four jurisdictions:
England and Wales over the last few years have shared a common legislative regime with high levels of delegation to governing bodies and a stakeholder model of representation. As in England, Welsh governing bodies have been charged with playing a strategic role with operational matters delegated to the headteacher;
Northern Ireland, too, has a system of school governing bodies like those in England and Wales, with similar powers, but based on a complex set of rules which mean that patterns of representation vary, depending on the controlling authority to which the school is subject; However, Scotland has been different; fewer powers have been delegated and this has been to heads rather than to governing bodies or school boards, with the various formulations of local stakeholder involvement being advisory rather than authoritative.
Farrell (2014: 926) furthermore discovered that in Wales, governing bodies are made up of a combination of appointed, elected and co-opted governors whose membership depend on the category of school and the number of registered pupils. According to Farrell (2014: 927) the governing body’s role in Wales is essentially a strategic one with operational and day-to-day management matters to be performed by headteachers and staff with the key roles of governing bodies identified as: setting the school’s strategic direction, securing accountability, monitoring, evaluating, supporting and sometimes challenging.
School governance in England and Wales, as argued by Ranson (2012: 42), began with the proposition that the form taken by the governance of civil society matters for school improvement and pupil achievement. Improvement, therefore, depends upon mediating the cultural conditions of learning. Governing bodies have a crucial role in including or diminishing the representation of different cultural traditions, and in enabling or frustrating the expression of voice and deliberation of differences (Ranson 2012: 42).
In relation to this, James and Sheppard (2014: 4-6) continued to argue that in a range of settings in countries with developed economies, it is widely accepted that boards have an overall responsibility for the governance of their organisations and therefore, as with schools in many national systems, international schools typically have a governing body where parent involvement in governing is a preoccupation. James and Sheppard (2014: 17-18) believes that when such elected boards are wholly elected parent boards, many problematic issues will start to surface including a lack of strategic long-term oversight and high levels of rapid and unplanned turnover of governing board members.
Similarly, Moos (2014: 433) revealed that each school in Denmark has a school board with a parent majority and administrative staff (e.g. school leaders, principals, and teachers). Moos (2014: 433) also refers to the superintendent, situated in the middle of the Danish education chain of command in the municipal government’s administration, which is held accountable to municipal authorities and must comply with national rules, regulations, and policies while at the same time administering the local district school. However, the present education governance model in Denmark appears to be a joint regulatory enterprise between the state and the municipality that has direct ownership of schools, and this system according to Moos (2014: 434) employs a range of “hard” and “soft” instruments and quality-control measures to influence decentralised decision-making processes.
Hangartner and Svatona (2014: 286) further found that school governance in the Canton of Bern, Switzerland, is shared between the Ministry of Education and the municipalities where the following relationship levels are visible: the ministry as a political authority over compulsory education defines the curriculum and largely the organisation of instruction
– mainly finances, teachers’ salaries – and controls the pedagogical practice by regional inspectors, whereas the municipalities maintain school buildings, bear part of instruction costs and supervise the operation of their schools; local school board members are nominated by political parties and elected by the municipal parliament or by voters directly at a municipal assembly. Hangartner and Svatona (2014: 284) further argued that because of reform, local school governance emerged as a contested field in which headteachers, school boards and municipal councils are trying to expand their influence and to contain those of related bodies.
In support to the above Huber (2011: 469) suggested that in Switzerland issues relating to school governance have become increasingly relevant and numerous efforts aimed at redesigning the governance of schools with its various levels and their interrelationships have been introduced. Hubert (2011: 474) therefore argued that the governing body is established with representatives of the local public as members, in some Cantons elected by the public, in other Cantons appointed by the respective municipal council, and expected to fulfil the following roles:
ensure that teaching in schools is not influenced by individuals with possible competing interests; ensure that classes proceed independently of the competing economic, political and religious interests in the municipality;
responsible for the strategic leadership of the schools and the supervision of internal evaluations; holds the overall responsibility for the governing of the municipal school system and in many municipalities, (it is still the duty of the governing body to make classroom observations for strategic observation and involvement, but not to assess the individual teacher);
responsible (in most Cantons) for staff employment, student enrolment and, most importantly, the allocation and controlling of financial resources.
According to Román and others (2015: 90), in many countries, including Sweden, national and local governments have over the years explicitly shared the responsibility for public schools, but in Sweden, as in other countries, the balance between national and local school governance has varied over time. Román and others (2015) further state that public elementary schools and public girls’ schools in Sweden were principally run by the municipalities, whereas public grammar schools were nationally run. However, a major change in the Swedish school system came in the early 1990s, as the municipalities were exclusively made the principal organisers for public schools; whereas, responsibility for school resource allocation and for organising school activities is the responsibility of municipalities. On the other hand, curricular and judicial guidelines and goals are set and controlled by national politicians and administrators (Román, et al., 2015: 90).
In contrast to the above Nyoni and Matlabe (2014: 577) argued that participatory governance in Brazil was part of an effort to expand how, when and where citizens engage each other and engage the state. It was an explicit effort to use these spaces as the means to encourage the empowerment of citizens; to establish public participation; to include citizens’ voices in decision making; and finally, to promote new state processes which will recognise citizens’ demands.
The school board according to Ford (2015: 531-532) has long been an institution in local American life; its origins date back to 1789 when the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a state law requiring every Massachusetts town to open and support a local public school. Ford (2015: 532) further argued that this phenomenon started in Massachusetts and later passed on throughout the republic, and the locally elected public school board thereafter became the norm throughout the United States. However, it became important that school boards were empowered with the tools, training, and autonomy to work as high-functioning groups toward the creation of mission-aligned policies that benefitted students (Ford 2015: 548).
With reference to the above American context, Russo and Smith (2017: 31) declared that in acknowledging the significance of school boards in providing a quality education and meeting the needs of the district’s staff and students, it is important to know that they are composed largely of lay people – individuals from outside the world of education—who make far-reaching decisions that affect students, faculty, staff, facilities, and financial resources in the districts they serve. Board members, according to Russo and Smith (2017: 32), have the following duties: to develop sound policies, guidelines, and procedures for the overall operation of their districts; other key responsibilities include hiring personnel; determining school tax rates; adopting district budgets and approving expenditures; overseeing curricular and instructional programs, as well as standards and assessment; and approving collective-bargaining agreements for employees in states that allow negotiations. Working together, the board and district leadership can ensure effective management of the school system and, as a result, provide high-quality education for the community’s students (Russo & Smith 2017: 33).

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND, PROBLEM FORMULATION AND AIMS OF THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 PROBLEM FORMULATION
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.4 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1.5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.6 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
1.7 ETHICAL CONSEDERATIONS AND TRUSTWORTHINESS
1.8 DEFINITION OF TERMS AND KEY CONCEPTS
1.9 DIVISION OF CHAPTERS
1.10 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: MAIN THEORIES SUPPORTING TRANSF-ORMATIVE FRAMEWORK
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE THEORY
2.3 ORGANISATIONAL THEORY
2.4 SYSTEMS THEORY
2.5 TRANSFORMATIONAL THEORY
2.6 COLLABORATION THEORY
2.7 TRANSFORMATIONAL-COLLABORATION THEORY
2.8 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE STUDY ON SCHOOL GOVERNANCE
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 INTERNATIONAL VIEWS ON SCHOOL GOVERNANCE
3.3 VIEWS ON SCHOOL GOVERNANCE IN AFRICA
3.4 A BACKGROUND TO SCHOOL GOVERNANCE AND SCHOOL,GOVERNING BODIES (SGBS) IN SOUTH AFRICA
3.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND AIM
4.3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND STRATEGY
4.4 RESEARCH APPROACH
4.5 RESEARCH METHODS
4.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH FINDINGS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 DATA PRESENTATION
5.3 THEMES AND CATEGORIES
5.4 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
5.5 A TRANSFORMATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR STAFFING FORMER MODEL C SCHOOLS IN SOUTH AFRICA
5.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 SUMMARY OF THE STUDY
6.3 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE LITERATURE STUDY
6.4 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
6.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
6.8 CONCLUSION
6.9 BIBLIOGRAPHY
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT