Since the new dispensation, all stakeholders in the school are expected to play an active role in the governance of schools. It is not the responsibility of government alone to see that schools are up and running. Parents, educators, non-teaching staff, learners (in Secondary Schools) and the community must also share their ideas on how the school is to be administered. This study has focused on the knowledge that the School Governing Bodies (SGB's) should posses in relation to legislations and the application of the knowledge make an impact in the administration and management of the school in the Klerksdorp-area. For schools to function effectively, the School Governing Bodies need to know that the Constitution (Act 108 of 1996) is the supreme law that has an impact in all education legislations, policies and regulations. Therefore, whatever school policy is to be developed should take cognizance of the Constitution. Central to the study is the SGBs' understanding of their roles and functions as stipulated in the Schools Act, (Act 84 of 1996) to avoid conflict of interest and administer the school efficiently and effectively. It is expected that the SGBs should transfer their knowledge into action by formulating policies that govern the school. By formulating school policies the SGB will then be able to have an influence since clear directions will be stipulated in the school policy on how the school is to be managed and administered. School Governing Bodies, as governors of the school are also accountable to people that elected them. It is their responsibility to provide feedback to their constituency and to inform them on the progress made. / Thesis (M. Development and Management)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2007.

This study set to investigate how School Governing Bodies (SGBs) currently execute financial accountability. This is because schools are funded mostly from public funds, and are directed to be accountable to stakeholders by the South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996 and the Public Finance Management Act No. 1 of 1999. This means that school financial accountability is a legal requirement in terms of the laws relating to school governance and public finance management. Financial accountability, entails reporting to stakeholders in terms of how funds have been expended in relation to the mandate given to the school's accounting officer. In the case of schools, this combines the school principal and the SGB. This implies the implementation of financial accountability elements namely, financial planning, controlling, monitoring and reporting. The empirical research quantitatively used the questionnaire and qualitatively used interviews to investigate how SGBs practiced financial accountability. While the quantitative survey revealed that SGBs were financially accountable, the interviews provided insight into the phenomenon, which indicated gaps in school financial accountability namely: lack of capacity to perform financial accountability functions; poor monitoring of schools' financial management and accountability performances, both by Departmental officials and schools themselves; poor adherence to policy prescriptions as provided for in the South African Schools Act and the Public Finance Management Act. It is therefore recommended that SGBs should explore simplification of financial accountability language to suit the parents' level of understanding; principals and educators need capacity -building to be able to handle communication with parents who are not educated; Departmental officials constantly to monitor and support schools in their financial accountability processes; and that Departmental Units should establish information 'feeding' channels so as to identify needs for development and support across the units, so as to intervene timely in areas needing intervention, and principals need to establish peer - assistance networks at local level so as to learn from examples of good practices from their colleagues. / Thesis (M.Ed.)--North-West University, Vaal Triangle Campus, 2009.

This study set to investigate how School Governing Bodies (SGBs) currently execute financial accountability. This is because schools are funded mostly from public funds, and are directed to be accountable to stakeholders by the South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996 and the Public Finance Management Act No. 1 of 1999. This means that school financial accountability is a legal requirement in terms of the laws relating to school governance and public finance management. Financial accountability, entails reporting to stakeholders in terms of how funds have been expended in relation to the mandate given to the school's accounting officer. In the case of schools, this combines the school principal and the SGB. This implies the implementation of financial accountability elements namely, financial planning, controlling, monitoring and reporting. The empirical research quantitatively used the questionnaire and qualitatively used interviews to investigate how SGBs practiced financial accountability. While the quantitative survey revealed that SGBs were financially accountable, the interviews provided insight into the phenomenon, which indicated gaps in school financial accountability namely: lack of capacity to perform financial accountability functions; poor monitoring of schools' financial management and accountability performances, both by Departmental officials and schools themselves; poor adherence to policy prescriptions as provided for in the South African Schools Act and the Public Finance Management Act. It is therefore recommended that SGBs should explore simplification of financial accountability language to suit the parents' level of understanding; principals and educators need capacity -building to be able to handle communication with parents who are not educated; Departmental officials constantly to monitor and support schools in their financial accountability processes; and that Departmental Units should establish information 'feeding' channels so as to identify needs for development and support across the units, so as to intervene timely in areas needing intervention, and principals need to establish peer - assistance networks at local level so as to learn from examples of good practices from their colleagues. / Thesis (M.Ed.)--North-West University, Vaal Triangle Campus, 2009.

Since the introduction of Local Management of Schools(LMS) as a result of the 1988 Education Reform Act (ERA),the role of the school governing body has evolved and been refined by successive legislative acts and consequent regulations. In recognition of this development, governing bodies have been the subject of a number of research studies eg Kogan et al (1984), Earley (1994), Deem et al (1995) and Scanlon et al (1999), all examining a range of themes from role and context, composition and early development, citizenship and effectiveness. Suchr esearchp rovides the context for this study into the role of the Chair of a school governing body. Other than Esp and Saran (1995), Sheam et al (1995) and Scanlon et al (1999), little research has been conducted into the role of the Chair. It is the contention of this study that, through incremental legislative acts, statutory instruments, circulars and other official DfEE documentation, the role of the Chair has become central not only to the workings of the governing body but also central to the operation of school governance as seen through the eyes of the DfEE. This position has, however, not been a planned progression of deliberate steps but an unplanned incremental development. The Chair of governors, it is argued here, has emerged as a"key player" in the operation of school governance. The research was conducted in four LEAs in the North East of England using a number of research instruments which included a questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, diary recording, recorded observations and documentation analysis. The questionnaire was sent to all Chairs of governors in three LEAs - Northshire, Newshire and Sunshire. The sample was 320 and the response rate was 43%. The interviews were conducted with twelve Chairs in three LEAs with the author's LEA of Southshire replacing Sunshire. Three interviews were also conducted with the Governor Training Co-ordinators in three LEAs in the region. Eight Chairs of governors were invited to record a structured diary for a period of four weeks and six Chairs did so. Three governing body meetings in the author's LEA were observed and recorded using an observation schedule. Finally, in addition to the close scrutiny of all legislative acts since 1980 with regard to education and school governance and other official documentation, minutes of meetings of school governing bodies in Southshire for the academic year 1998-99 were examined. The findings from this localised study show that the Chairs' perceive themselves as "key players", with the Head teacher, in the operation of school business. This is supported by factors such as the amount of time spent by Chairs on school business, their role in the committee structure of governing bodies, their working relationships with Heads and the routes of contact to the WEE and LEA. Whilst pressures continue to grow and the pace of change quickens, Chairs feel that they are able to cope. Evidence of tensions in the relationships between Chair and Head were found to be less than expected and where they did exist, they were largely as a result of difficult inter-personal relationships rather than policy differences. The research also shows a lack of formal and informal contact between Chairs. There is no self-supporting network at local, regional or national level. Chairs' acknowledged the importance of training but were willing to demote its priority in the face of other factors eg budgets. Chairs did not access training for themselves. The research concludes with the need to re-assess the role of the Chair in the light of the key functions now allocated to the position by legislation and the growing significance the position has in the operation of effective school governance.

This thesis examines the roles of governors within the contexts of the national framework for governance and the effect they have on schools. The field of research into the effects of school governors is an infant one. Little direct observation of governance has taken place and there is no true experimental research. In the absence of such work, the project developed a definition of effective governance through consideration of the descriptions of and prescriptions for governor activity. It used the definition to develop two research instruments. The first of these, a national questionnaire, produced some specific examples of a range of activities for governors and lead to the development of a second instrument. This, a schedule for semi- structured interviews, was applied to six case study schools. In these studies, governors and headteachers were interviewed conceming the characteristics of their goveming bodies and the outcomes for the schools were set against these characteristics. What emerges from these comparisons are some clear associations between effective outcomes and certain governor activities. These include training, monitoring, clear support for the school, the degree of trust gained with the staff, detailed knowledge of the school, and participation in school development planning. Overall, the conclusions point to connections between the manner in which governors conduct themselves and their business and the successes of the school that they govern.

Research Doctorate - Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / States are contingently formed, enacting modes of governing in diverse and prosaic ways. States’ roles in social governing are shaped by the specificities of institutional contexts and peopled practices. Yet much recent analysis of social governing ignores the influence of state institutions and workers. In such analyses, social governing is taken to be largely driven by an overarching mode of governance—neoliberalism. Indeed for many researchers, techniques of social governing such as interagency working represent practices through which to trace neoliberalism’s enactments, variabilities, co-options and resistances. In obscuring the prosaics of peopled states, our understandings centre on ‘the state’ as a coherent and cogent entity, one that increasingly governs the social in neoliberalised ways. The premise of this thesis is that interagency practices of social governing need to be examined from prosaic perspectives. Such an attention to everyday practice widens the analytical lens on social governing; allowing for disjunctive possibilities of everyday governing rather than focusing on over-determined discoveries of neoliberal rule. Indeed, a prosaics of state institutions relocates interagency workers and institutions from their positioning at the end-points of neoliberal rule and, instead, welcomes their diverse political and social actions as the very foundations on which governing is shaped. In so doing, it reveals practices of state institutions and interagency workers that can be creative, emotive and, as I assert, caring. In accessing everyday spaces through my research, I utilise a case study interagency programme of the New South Wales Government entitled Families First, which attempts to better facilitate the support of families with young children. It is an examination of the spaces of Families First that reveals the multiple ideological framings, congested institutional histories, changeable politics and everyday practices of workers that characterise state institutions and form the foundations of social governing. Rather than rehearse or raze understandings of neoliberal governing, the inclusiveness of a prosaic approach allows neoliberalism to co-exist as a potential practice of diverse interagency contexts; supporting hopeful perspectives on interagency working and nurturing a mutual language of prosaic politics, governing and ethics.

Thesis (M.H.A.)--University of Michigan, 1965.

Thesis (M.H.A.)--University of Michigan, 1965.

No description available.

Recruitment, selection and transfer of educators were decentralized after South Africa became a democratic state in 1994 and shifted to School Governing Bodies. The legislation promoted a shared governance and participation of parents in issues that are related to recruitment, selection and transfer of educators, but parents are struggling and facing challenges in performing these tasks as School Governing Body members especially in the Butterworth district, as a result of that Butterworth district is experiencing problems with increasing number of disputes resulting from the appointment of educators after they have been recommended by the School Governing Bodies. This study focuses on the recruitment, selection and transfer of educators in the Butterworth district of the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. The study sought to reveal the thinking behind government insistence on giving the School Governing Bodies a responsibility to recruit, select and transfer educators knowing fully well that they do not perform this responsibility. A qualitative approach was used to explore and challenge this phenomenon. This approach is concerned with understanding social phenomenon from the participant’s perspective. In depth semi – structured interviews with open ended questions were used to bring the researcher more closer to a more plausible perspective of this phenomenon. Moreover, they were used because they are the most appropriate method to capture the data. The findings revealed that School Governing Bodies are faced with challenges such as: high level of illiteracy, manipulation of School Governing Bodies by school management, unions and candidates, the issue of regionalism and kickbacks, capacity building and empowerment and role played by the Departmental Officials. By conducting this study, we hope that the findings might contribute in identifying the disjuncture between the policy and the practice in issues pertaining to educator recruitment, selection and transfers.