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.

Drawing upon two forms of qualitative data—interviews with trustees and national trade association publication archival documents—and employing an abductive theory building strategy based on my analysis of higher education governance in the present day and historically, I perform an organizational etiology of U.S. higher education governing boards and governance. Studying governance in higher education lends itself to theory building, as governance lacks a strong basis of comparability, distinguishable from firm-based or other non-profit enterprise governance. Further, while governing boards are principal parties of authority, the shared governance framework almost universally privileges participation by a host of stakeholder parties. Further, the targets of governance, colleges and universities, are comparatively complex and ambiguous in terms of goals, priorities, purposes, products, and strategic interests, as well as in terms of operational, professional, hierarchical, and financial models of sustainability and advancement. I deconstruct governing boards, governance, and governing at several levels of consideration to find that explicit and ubiquitously understood organizational and work objectives and practices of governance conceal a state of organizing that necessitates considerable attention, deliberation, strategic action, and investment of resources by governing boards. It is the state of organizing itself that is a consummate and pervasive focus of attention and consideration. Governance and governing is an ongoing process or state of organizing characterized by a readiness to examine, address, and act upon boundaries of organization, profession, and work practices. As much as governing boards govern institutions, boards govern boundaries, and multiple kinds of boundaries at multiple levels of consideration at that. While boundary work implies work at the periphery, the boundary work of governance and governing boards is itself core to the organization and work performed. I dissect cognitive and practice-based dimensions of governing, ordering perceptions and explanations of the form of work being done by boards as professional organizations, and by tracing the broader culture and history of the field of governance, and show how boundaries and boundary work are a consuming strategic focus. Boards are enduring institutions with paradoxically unenduring boundaries. I find and describe how these boundaries share a set of traits and propensities indicative of a form of organizing without theoretical match or explanation: organizational amorphousness. I build the case for amorphousness throughout and, in the conclusion, explain how governing boards, the field of governance, and the work and practices of governing represent extreme cases of an evolved organizing predicated on dexterity and contingency. This form of organizing seemingly contradicts basic assumptions of organizing and begs the question as to what functions boards actually serve, as well as to what effect.

This quantitative study examined the perceptions of members of Oklahoma public higher education governing boards and legislators concerning higher education governance. The purpose of this study was to gain a greater understanding among the participants as to the role governing boards should play in the system. The population for the study comprised 142 members of the Oklahoma Legislature and 107 members of 15 Oklahoma public higher education governing boards. The principal investigator used a web-based survey development company to design, collect, and store survey responses. Results from the study were examined using independent samples t tests and one-way ANOVAs. From these tests, 5 out of 15 research questions had statistically significant findings. Analysis of the data revealed that legislators and members of governing boards perceive the role of governing boards differently in some key ways. There were significant differences concerning governing boards primarily serving to promote the interests of individual institutions, with members of governing boards, Democrats, and participants from suburban areas more likely to agree with this position. Members of the legislature were significantly more likely to agree than members of governing boards that the primary role of governing boards is policy implementation. There were also significant differences concerning the role of governing boards serving primarily to keep the expenditure of public dollars as low as possible with participants from urban areas agreeing with this statement.

In 1977 the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges developed a Board-Mentor Program to assist college and university trustees to enhance the organization and performance of their governing boards. This study evaluated through survey research this program utilizing presidents and trustees who participated in the program over a three-year period. The data were analyzed to determine changes that occurred as a result of participation in the program and if the program met the purposes and goals for which it was established. Twenty-one institutions, public and private, located in thirteen different states participated in this evaluation. Presidents and trustees agreed that the goals of the program were important and participation in the program was perceived helpful in the realization of the program goals. A positive correlation existed between the importance of the goals of the program and the helpfulness of the program in the realization of the program goals. Presidents and trustees identified several areas where change occurred as a result of program participation, and suggestions for program refinarent and change were identified by respondents. The study concluded with six recommendations including the need for additional study of trustee development programs. / Ed. D.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal