A dissertation submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of D. Litt in Communication Science at the University of Zululand, 2007. / The main task of Chief Superintendents of Education Management (CSEMs) and Superintendents of Education Management (SEMs) and principals is to achieve the goals of the Education Department. They direct the activities and performance of their supervisees. In pursuing this, a leadership relationship and interaction between the supervisors and his supervisees is necessary. These leaders however, perform two significant roles; that of leading and that of being led. The leadership of these leaders is influenced /affected by the relationship the leader has with his supervisor to perform optimally or rninimally. For these managers in Education to lead effectively, they need to be well and timeously informed about matters. The SEMs need to be kept abreast of education related issues because of the type of work they do. It ranges from communicating departmental goals and objectives, consultation with stakeholders, chairing workshops and meetings of principals, parents and School Governing Bodies. They also serve on recruitment panels, among many other functions. Various forms of communication styles systems and communication strategies are viewed as significantly crucial in the work of the SEM. The SEM however relies on senior management for information. Latest and revised policies come to the SEM via the line function. Reaching the set destination depends on the leadership styles of the supervisors, whether they are traditional or transformational leaders. The SEM likewise, disseminates the information to the principals of schools. They in turn do the same to their supervisees at school and to School Governing Bodies, where necessary. The leadership styles of the SEMs and principals also affect information dissemination either positively or negatively. The results of the study points out that communication channels are not always adhered to in the Department of Education. Information does not reach the SEMs on time. E-communication is still minimally used in the Department of Education.

ABSTRACT Before 1994 corporal punishment was the main discipline strategy implemented in schools. Since then legislation has been passed, which resulted in corporal punishment being made illegal. The majority of educators strongly opposed this change in the national discipline policy as they felt it left them powerless in terms of disciplining their learners. In 2000 a national programme on discipline strategies was embarked on and many of the results were incorporated in the booklet titled “Alternatives to Corporal Punishment: The Learning Experience.” This booklet formed part of the National Department of Education’s discipline policy. It contains guidelines for implementing alternative strategies to corporal punishment in an effort to remediate problems with discipline. It also gives examples of disciplinary action for dealing with misconduct. The objective of this research was to establish what educators’ perceptions of the Department of Education’s alternative methods to corporal punishment are after they had exposure to it by means of a workshop. The research also aimed to explore underlying reasons for the educators’ perceptions. The sample of sixty-four educators used for this purpose came from various school contexts from traditional ex-model C schools to historically disadvantaged schools. The data in this study was obtained by means of a structured questionnaire, which was administered to the educators that attended the workshop on the Department of Education’s Discipline policy. In view of the fact that there are no existing instruments in use to explore the objectives of this research, it was necessary to develop a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of both open-ended questions, which required a more qualitative approach as well as close-ended questions, which were more quantitative in nature. The results obtained from this study showed that the majority of the respondents who attended the workshop agreed with the discipline policy proposed by the Department of Education. However, there was a significant discrepancy between the educators’ perceptions of the policy and whether they felt it could be successfully implemented in their schools. The main reasons for this was that the respondents felt that the Department of Education and educator training institutions do not provide educators with adequate discipline training and support. Furthermore, the findings of this study demonstrated that the respondents are experiencing a state of learned helplessness where they feel the discipline problems they are faced with are beyond their control.