See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/306101374

THE ADVENT OF SCHOOL BASED MANAGEMENT IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

3 1,485

2 authors, including:

Thulani Zengele
University of South Africa
20 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NDP 2030 and BRICS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thulani Zengele on 15 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Vol. 10, No. 2 (2015) 172-184, ISSN: 1823-884x

THE ADVENT OF SCHOOL BASED MANAGEMENT IN THE 21ST

CENTURY
Bashimane Mollootimile & Thulani Zengele

ABSTRACT
The 21st century has witnessed management reforms in South Africa in the form of School
Based-Management. School-Based-Management has become a widely preferred management
style in schools because of the belief that it gives rise to increased production at school level.
While the need for effective School-Based-Management is supported, there is much less
certainty of what role and responsibility each and every stakeholder needs to play that is
likely to yield the desired outcomes. Through this empirical but discussion paper in essence,
we explore the nature and the rationale behind School Based Management. The views and the
different roles and responsibilities of every stakeholder as well as the intervention strategies
implemented by the department of education are explored. One on one interviews were
conducted with purposefully selected 9 participants from three schools. The results show that
the majority of stakeholders have held a positive assumption about School Based
Management as the means towards transforming the management style in schools from
bureaucratic to active participants in major decision making processes as required by School
Based-Management that aims at ensuring effective teaching and learning at school level.
Keywords: education stakeholders, School-Based-Management, democracy, teamwork,
bureaucracy.

INTRODUCTION
School Based Management (SBM) has been hailed in a number of studies as a management
reform tool that has received an overwhelming audience throughout the world even in South
Africa (Botha 2006: 3). The SBM approach, according to its proponents, requires different
stakeholders such as parents, learners and the school staff, both academic and non-academic,
to bring their respective strengths in a concerted manner to the joint task of ensuring school
effectiveness.
For an example, according to Ng and Chan (2008:488), it is through the SBM system
that principals, teachers, learners and parents have greater freedom and responsibility for
school decision-making about budgets, personnel and the curriculum in that they can create
more effective learning environments for learners. This paper looked at how principals,
School Governing Bodies (SGBs) and other management staff undertake their functions since
they have more control over the resources supplied to their schools. Restructuring and the
trend towards SBM provides the context for the discussion to follow.
In the 1980‟s and 1990‟s, there appeared to be an international trend in many
developed countries in the world to decentralize education systems. It was realized that large,

Open Rubric
 e-Bangi Vol. 10, No. 2 (2015) 172-184, ISSN: 1823-884x

centralized bureaucracies were not quick enough to respond to the rapidly changing economic
realities (Ng and Chan, 2008:487-488). It is also clear that since the late 1980‟s, the SBM
movement had some important trends in many countries, and some scholars have done
important theoretical and empirical work to build upon the link between SBM and school
effectiveness in the past decade (Cheng and Mok, 2007: 522). A World Bank report (2007)
indicated that developed countries such as New Zealand, Australia and Spain have
experienced SBM reforms of the strongest type that helped them to achieve their goals. These
countries have enjoyed, through the SBM system, an improvement in the quality provisioning
of education in response to globalization and growth of the knowledge economy (Cheng and
Mok, 2007:523).

South Africa cannot be seen as being left behind in the trend to decentralize its
education system. According to Botha (2006:3), former Education Minister Naledi Pandor
recently reassured the education fraternity of the government‟s commitment to the self-
management and the self–governance of South African schools. Moloi (2007: 466) confirms
what Minister Pandor mentioned that SBM is now operational and that the approach to
strategic management in South African schools gave added impetus by the shift to greater
self–management and in particular, the acquisition of Section 21 status schools (Republic of
South Africa 1996b) which gives more autonomy to those schools obtaining this status.
The major problem about a power shift is that it is not an easy task especially in a
country like South Africa where there is a demand for relevant education (Mabasa and
Themane 2002: 107). It is therefore, through SBM, that the Department of Education can
redress this culture of dependency by enabling SBM stakeholders to think and act
strategically, involve them in planning and problem-solving techniques and ultimately
reaching decisions under the guidance of departmental policy framework thereby ensuring
that those who experience barriers to stakeholders‟ participation are not underplayed or
overlooked.
If schools are to be effectively changed to meet the needs of all stakeholders, then there
has to be restructuring and transformation at that level. Key to restructuring and
transformation is the recognition of what such changes mean for that existing SBM structure
and new members who will be entering the structure in that school. Recent studies
acknowledge the shift and broadening of the intentions as well as the purpose of the SBM
system as a more effective way to manage school interaction and to improve instruction.
Nevertheless, there is limited empirical evidence of this strategic approach being adopted in
practice and there is evidence that many schools in the North West province, Mafikeng area
are still battling to work towards quality education as a goal set by the Department of
Education. Based on the above-mentioned challenges of SBM, this paper investigated the
effectiveness of School Based Management in the North West province. In order to achieve
this, the following objectives had to be realized:

 to critically discuss to the strengths and weaknesses of SBM;

 to critically discuss the roles of SBM Stakeholders; and
 to determine the impact of strategies of empowering SBM stakeholders;

173
 e-Bangi Vol. 10, No. 2 (2015) 172-184, ISSN: 1823-884x

THEORETICAL REVIEW
In broad terms, educational management theories are either bureaucratic or collegial in
nature. In bureaucratic or „top-down‟ theories the emphasis is on the official and structural
elements of organizations. There is also a focus on pursuing institutional objectives through
rational approaches (Bush, 2008:29). In South Africa, principals and teachers have
consistently been at the receiving end of top-down management structures. They have
worked in a regulated environment and have become accustomed to receiving direct
instructions from departmental officials. According to the report by the Department of
Education (1996:19) circuits and lower level structures have tended to function as
administrative units only and have been unable to respond to community needs.
The collegial or so called „bottom up‟ theories can on the other hand be seen as those
theories which emphasize that power decision-making should be shared among some or all
members of the organization. Collegial theories assume that organizations determine policy
and make decisions through a process of discussion leading to consensus (Bush, 2008:52). At
the spectrum of the policy and legislative initiative, as stated in the Task Team on
Educational Management (Department of Education 1996: 29), the emphasis is also seen as a
process of decentralizing decision making and the correct allocation of resources to school
level. Therefore, democratization in the ways in which school are governed and managed in
South Africa remains crucial. This point of view is of critical importance for research on
SBM. The researchers therefore based their decision for selecting a collegial-theoretical point
of departure on the fact that self-management must be accompanied by an internal devolution
of power within the school and within transformational leadership. This implies that a move
towards self-management of schools is based on the understanding that decisions should be
made by those who best understand the needs of learners and the local community. Studies
have also shown that self-management can lead to improved school effectiveness (Bush,
2008:29).

Conceptualization of SBM through its advantages and disadvantages

There are a number of sound arguments to support the introduction of SBM. According to De
Grauwe (2000:274), SBM promotes a participatory school environment and thereby allowing
teachers and parents to make democratic decisions on educational matters. This in turn,
fosters collaboration and collegiality among staff members because they have team spirit,
cooperate openly, and share responsibility which in turn should enhance learning. The school
has become a primary means of stimulating and sustaining improvement (Mncube, 2009:84).
Through SBM, teachers may decide to develop professionally on an ongoing basis with the
aim to improve themselves as individuals. Professional development has a positive bearing
towards school goals as it empowers those closest to the learners and the teachers who in turn
empower the learners and ultimately the community at large.
The preceding statement is supported by Cheng and Mok (2007:520)‟s assertion that
with SBM, the key role of the school is to develop its learners, teachers, parents and the
school itself. According to Davies (2002:258) teachers who work with parents in a particular
community, understand their learners better, generate unique rather than routine solutions to
classroom problems and are able to reach a shared understanding with parents and learners.
The role of parents therefore involves partnerships and supporters, and they actively
cooperate with the school.

174
 e-Bangi Vol. 10, No. 2 (2015) 172-184, ISSN: 1823-884x

In terms of disadvantages, Mncube (2009:85) maintains that unlike in developed

countries, some board members in developing countries are deprived of exercising their
power as they do not participate fully to perform the duties assigned to them due to lack of
necessary skills. In such situations the principal continues to perform the functions supposed
to be the responsibility of the SGB members and their role becomes that of rubber stamping
decisions taken by the principal and a few SGB members (Mncube, 2009:85). Unfortunately,
the intention by the government to allow schools to manage themselves is hindered by the
lack of knowledge and skills by parents who form the majority of governing members. The
challenge is that SGB‟s in many South African schools have not been prepared for SBM
reforms and even if preparation has been there, it has proven to be insufficient for new SGB
members to effectively discharge their duties.

One other concern related to SBM and presented by Sayed (2002:36) deals with both
the allocation and distribution of resources which involves education professionals and lay
people who have their own views on school management and the way in which it should be
organized. According to Li (2010:4), the interests of stakeholders are not always consistent at
school level and power struggles may ensue among parents and between parents and staff.
Disagreements may ensue as a result of not having a common understanding with regard to
issues of appointing staff, language policy and decisions on school fees within the school
community. Sayed (2002:45) argues that changing policy intention does not immediately
translate into changed practice. Democracy in school governance within the context of the
policy of educational decentralization not only takes more time, but requires more proactive
action to support and capacitate the School Governing Bodies and other stakeholders such as
parents, staff and learners to become vehicles of democracy.

The role and responsibilities of different Stakeholders in School Based Management

The Principal
At school level, the principal is perceived as the key figure in fostering power regarding
decentralization. Principals have been confronted with an enormous responsibility of
exercising leadership that promotes participation by all stakeholders of the school in order to
promote democracy, which is one of the goals of education in South Africa (Department of
Education, 2007).
Principals also have to deal with competing demands for both human management
and governance of schools. Principals have to manage schools in a process of shared,
collaborative educational thinking and leadership (Grogan & Andrews 2002:246) in order for
staff members to feel valued, respected and empowered (Hammersley-Fletcher and Brundrett
2005:60). This implies changing from the past autocratic tendency of unilateral decision
making to more democratic tendencies that are encouraged by active participation.

Teachers
Schools need to have a minimum of resources and competent teachers in order to assist them
to implement SBM systems successfully and ultimately compete in the global arena. Some
aspects of school culture, such as shared vision and values, strong collaboration and
teamwork, and student-centered style are, according to Li (2010:11), conducive to the
effective implementation of SBM.
Teacher teams have emerged as a popular school improvement strategy for developed
states (Scribner, Sawyer, Watson and Myers 2007). This practice of collaboration for the

175
 e-Bangi Vol. 10, No. 2 (2015) 172-184, ISSN: 1823-884x

purpose of making educational decisions embraces the realignment of roles and relationships
of school community members. Scribner et al (2007) further argue that where teachers work
in self-managing teams to develop goals, curricular, instructional strategies, budgets and staff
development programmes, learners often achieve at higher levels. Advocates of distributed
leadership which is in line with SBM suggest that many instances of collaboration have
become structural mechanisms of control through which the efforts of teachers are more
tightly coupled to standardized performance expectations.

The role of an SBM teacher has changed from a narrow perspective of managing the
classroom to a wider and a broader outside-the-classroom involvement in assisting to work
with other colleagues and external stakeholders towards the attainment of the school‟s vision
and mission. Through the implementation of SBM, teachers are asked to assume leadership
roles in staff development, mentoring and curriculum development, and to become key
partners in school and staff supervision including evaluation.

School Governing Body

According to Sayed (2002: 40), the increasing demand for democratic transformation in
education and in the society at large coupled with the demands of SBM prescripts through the
functions of the School Governing Body have further envisaged a key role for parents in the
schooling activities of their children. Middlewood and Lumby (2007:122) argue that
governors are accountable to parents through their annual reports and meetings with parents,
providing reports of schools‟ physical resources and academic performance of their school
including comments on the work of the governing body.

Through the introduction of SBM the role of parental involvement has been receiving
greater interest in schools (Li, 2010:3). Mncube (2009:84) argues that parental involvement
has been associated with a variety of positive academic outcomes including higher grade
points averages, lower dropout rates, less retention, special education placements and an
increased achievement in reading. Parents are now participating in school matters more than
in the past because they want their children to have access to quality education. Becoming
involved in their children‟s school activities, as required by the SBM system, parents are
likely to ensure that the values, the direction and the character of the community are
established and maintained. This requires parents to be involved in their children‟s
homework, meeting with teachers and attending school functions and activities. Therefore,
they became more aware of the benefits that can be gained from education and wanting to
have a say on what learning experiences schools should offer to their children. It is therefore
evident that their involvement has advantages in maximizing the school‟s scope and
developing a school culture of learning and teaching.

The intervention: The development of SGB members in SBM skills

According to Marishane (2003:12) the state, as obliged by the South African Schools Act
(SASA) (RSA, 1996a), has an important role to play in capacity building for efficient
resource utilization in the school. In South Africa, the government recognized that many
SGBs, especially those in the rural and less advantaged urban areas, do not have the required
skills and experience to exercise their new powers and may have difficulty fulfilling their
functions.

176
 e-Bangi Vol. 10, No. 2 (2015) 172-184, ISSN: 1823-884x

Many principals have been appointed at a stage that the demands of the roles were
different and they might find themselves in trouble because of the role change. Relevant
training may assist them somewhat, although there is no guarantee that it might benefit all of
them to such an extent that they feel sufficiently empowered. To deal with this issue, SASA
(RSA 1996, Section 19), which represents a sophisticated form of SBM, obliges provincial
governments to provide training for governing bodies. According to Botha (2006), the
training of members on SBM structures can also be regarded as an important capacity
building responsibility of the state. In responding to this call, the state, as obliged by SASA
(RSA, 1996a), in conjunction with professional institutions, established training programmes
to empower principals. One of the well-known programmes is the ACE (Advance Certificate
in Education) in School Leadership. This programme is aimed at empowering school leaders
to lead and manage schools effectively in a time of rapid change (Department of Education,
2007: iv).

SASA (RSA, 1996a) holds the state accountable for the implementation of and
success of the government‟s policy in developing the capacity of SGBs to govern. The
principals‟ strategic and long-term leadership roles are also reflected in terms of the attention
given in an ongoing manner to the training, development and empowerment of educators.
According Van Niekerk and Van Niekerk (2006:94) it is logical that if members of staff are
not properly trained to fulfill their new roles, they should not be entrusted to do SBM tasks.
Empowerment of staff implies that once trained and developed to a level of competency, they
are provided an opportunity to make a contribution towards the vision of the school by
implementing their new competencies to the advantage of the school.

METHODOLOGY
The study employed the qualitative research method which was selected because of its
originality and naturalistic display. Qualitative research, according to Creswell (2007), is
based on the ontological assumption that the nature of reality is diverse and that reality has
multiple facets. The researcher‟s choice of the qualitative research approach was also
influenced by the following explanations as indicated by Creswell (2007):

That research:

 needs a complex, detailed understanding of the issue (referring to the topic under
investigation) and talking directly to people, going to their homes or places of
work;
 empowers individuals to share their stories, hear their voices, and minimize the
power relationships that often exist between a researcher and the participants;
 wants to understand the contexts or settings in which participants in a study
address problems or issues;
 can differentiate what people say from the context in which they say it – whether
this context is their home, family or work; and
 helps explain the mechanism or linkages in causal theories or models by providing
a general picture of trends, association, and relationships, but they do not tell us
(researchers) why people respond as they do, the context in which they respond,
their deeper thoughts and behaviours that governed their responses (p40).

177
 e-Bangi Vol. 10, No. 2 (2015) 172-184, ISSN: 1823-884x

Interviews
In terms of the form of qualitative research methodology employed, individual interviews
with nine participants were conducted. Ary, Jocobs, Razavieh & Sorensen (2006: 480) put it
as a direct method of collecting information in a one-on-one situation as well as an
interchanging of views between two or more people on a topic of mutual interest. It was
important to include the teachers because they are at the heart and receiving end of the
delivery of all education policies for curriculum delivery. The interchange was between an
experienced SBM participant and the researcher who has to obtain insight in order to provide
findings to a research question. Furthermore, the interview is a flexible tool for data
collection because it allows the interviewer to make adjustments as the situation requires. It
enables the interviewer and interviewees to discuss their interpretations of the worldview and
how they regard the situation from their respective point of view.

Sample
In terms of sampling, the researchers employed purposeful sampling to select schools.
According to Ary et al. (2006:472) purposeful sampling, unlike probabilistic sampling,
“seeks to select information-rich cases which can be studied in depth”. The sample size of the
investigation was limited to schools that function in the Mafikeng Area Office in the North
West province. The North West province was chosen because not much research has been
done locally on the effectiveness of SBM and therefore the study aimed to provide insight
into the status-quo of SBM in the area. Three SBM participants per school were interviewed
from each school. The participants consisted of some parents within the SGB, principals and
teaching staff members. In total nine participants were selected. They are referred to as
Participant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I because of the respect to privacy of participants and
the research ethical code of conduct. The co researcher remained in the background during
interviews to provide whatever support that would be necessary during interviews.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

In presenting the findings, italics in certain sentences or sections in a sentence have been used
to denote the direct responses of participants. To enhance this study, the researchers began by
reflecting on the following questions:

 What is the nature of and rationale for SBM?

 What are the roles of the different stakeholders in SBM?
 Do the SBM stakeholders have the capacity to perform their duties effectively?
1. What is the nature of and rationale for SBM?
In relation to the question on the nature of and rationale of SBM, two distinguishable but
interconnected themes where identified, namely, explaining SBM within the school set up
and the justification of SBM. As part of explaining SBM within the school setting,
Participants were required to provide examples of related activities that manifest the
functionality of SBM in schools. With regard to the justification of SBM, Participants had to
indicate whether SBM was related and applicable to particular aspects of school life.
Many of the participants were in agreement that SBM could be seen as guidelines that
indicate how stakeholders should manage the school. The direction-giving aspect of SBM

178
 e-Bangi Vol. 10, No. 2 (2015) 172-184, ISSN: 1823-884x

practice was explained by participant A when she stated, “… and it is through such meetings
that schools set clear stakeholder-focused strategic directions and develops action plans to
support its directions”. Participant C commented that “decisions are based on the belief that
giving stakeholders authority would mean holding them directly accountable for their actions
and such accountability is expected to act as a tool for greater effectiveness”.

The participants further provided an example of how the decision making process
could assist stakeholders to control the school more effectively. The example relates to a
situation in which a conflict arises between a teacher and a learner. Participant d explained
that in this case, “the SBM system, through its functions in a school, should provide a
platform for finding a representative decision”.
In replying to the theme on the role of SBM stakeholders in so far as decision making
processes were concerned, the data revealed that most participants had raised conflicting
views in terms of their interests at school level. It goes without saying that SBM requires the
parents to have a say on the school finances. Participant G from the professional staff said the
following to show his frustration, “My plan of a school trip has failed because the principal
presented it to the parents who disapproved it as they felt that it was just a waste of money
regardless of how much effort was made to explain the importance of it to them”. Another
area of concern with regard to the relationship between stakeholders and human resources as
it had an adverse impact on the collegial relationships necessary for a quality school.
Participant E had the following to say about the situation in their school, “The principal still
shows favoritism as he together with the SGB recommended one of the teachers who has less
experience in teaching to head our department”. These two examples clearly show that
decision-making authority possessed by other SBM stakeholders could turn out to be the
main source of tension underlying school governance behaviour. The situation above is in
contrast to what the SBM stands for which is a practice that encourages collaboration.

2. What are the roles of the different SBM Stakeholders in schools?

In responding to the question relating to identifying stakeholders and then establish their role
within the school in terms of SBM practice, this is how participants responded:
A: “Principals guide members of the SGB to act according to the Act and encourage them to
conduct meetings properly”. Participant B: “The principal is a link between all stakeholders
of the school, and he further said, he (the principal) is in charge of the day-to-day
management of the school and the implementation of policy and curriculum, it is therefore
imperative that he reports on these matters and has a say in decisions taken in the SGB
meeting”. These two quotes clearly support what other researchers have found in the
literature review which is that since the introduction of the SBM, principals are experiencing
a role that is increasing in complexity. It is further clear that at the school level, the principal
plays a crucial role in decision making and that the principal in particular acts as a custodian
of such decisions taken on behalf of the school.
In terms of the role of parents within the SGB, it became clear that participants had
different perceptions of the roles of parents in SBM. Participant C stated that “the role of
parents has changed from being passive to that of being active participants in the educational
well-being of their children”. The participant further said “parents as SGB members play a
role of support and monitoring and they can hold the principal accountable for poor
performance of the school”. Participant F seemed to have a problem with the understanding
of the operation of the parents in school when he said: “In most cases, I only see parents in

179
 e-Bangi Vol. 10, No. 2 (2015) 172-184, ISSN: 1823-884x

our school when we invite them, apart from that; they seem to be remotely placed far away
from the school”. Participant F again had the following to say, “Parents as SGB members are
the eyes of the community, they are responsible to ensure that the school’s finances and
human resources are adequately utilized”. Surely parents are fully involved in a number of
school activities as required by law.

With regard to the role of the staff, the majority of participants indicated that the SBM
created a school environment in which teachers were fully involved in decision making
processes that enable effective learning and teaching in the school. This is how participant D
responded: “teachers are now directly involved in deciding the direction that the school
wants to take. Remember, the teachers are the cornerstone of this school because whatever
decisions are taken, they are the first people to see to it that those decisions are converted
into real practical terms. Their involvement is indispensable in so far as the implementation
process is concerned and even beyond that”. The preceding comment clearly shows how the
role of teachers has changed with this new system of education. The involvement of teachers
in decision making processes is of critical importance to the school and it is mainly motivated
on the basis of the so called idea of ownership.
One significant aspect of the study dealt with identifying and addressing shortcomings
on how stakeholders conducted their activities at school. The study revealed that stakeholders
seemed to have a problem with the understanding of operational plans within the school. This
raises the question of who should participate in decision-making and how. The problem
according to participant A was that “some decisions are left to the professional staff and some
to parents” citing lack of academic knowledge on the side of parents. Sometimes decisions
on crucial aspects of the school such as deciding “on issues of disciplinary action to be taken
against a learner” get a lot of influence from the staff and the situation as it presents itself,
leaves parents with no option but to become spectators because of “their inability to
scrutinize and interpret documents dealing with discipline accurately” according to
Participant A. This is clearly in contrast to equal participation of stakeholders as one group
wants to have a dominant voice over the other. Another revelation from one of the
participants is the reluctance on the side of stakeholders to work as a team. Participant C had
the following to say, “Division and factionalism are a problem...” and its cause was related
to “favoritism from the School Management Team” which include the principal. Once again,
this is against what SBM stands for, which is fostering collaboration and collegiality among
staff members. SBM also means sharing in the responsibility of running the school.
According to participant C, their principal is faced with “a mammoth task of running the
school alone” instead of practicing what he called distributed leadership”. The situation as
reflected above shows that the school does not promote a participatory school environment in
which a platform is created for everyone to grow.

3. Do the SBM Stakeholders have the capacity to perform their duties?

In as far as the improvement of SBM stakeholders participation is concerned, a sound
programme for parents, teachers and principals is critical to ensure the successful
implementation of SBM. The principal‟s role demands that focused attention be given in an
ongoing manner to the training and development of other stakeholders since participant B put
it, “training and development is an investment for tomorrow”. No principal can manage
strategically and implement strategies to attain the vision of the school without the assistance
of other stakeholders.

180
 e-Bangi Vol. 10, No. 2 (2015) 172-184, ISSN: 1823-884x

The study also revealed that most participants were of the view that training and
development assisted parents to deal with their plight of not being able to participate
optimally in the affairs of the school. Participant D said, “… I think there can be a much
better performance of all stakeholders if we are taken for training”. participant D further
added , “I am new in the SGB and still need time to familiarize myself with the language that
is used in meetings”. Surely the situation as explained above calls for a need for preparation
of new SGB members in the form of training. As Participant D put it, SGBs can function well
“if only each and every one of us knows what he is doing”.

In terms of teachers, data revealed that most of the participants held an idea that
teachers were to be empowered through teamwork. This sentiment is shared by proponents of
SBM as they hint that the benefits of teamwork should be familiar to anyone interested in
SBM related concepts such as cooperation, empowerment, collaboration and consultation.
Two participants, participants B and D emphasized the importance of consultation. As
Participant B put it, “I’ve got an idea I have to sell it so that it can be supported in the SGB
meeting”. Participant D warned that unless you consulted, “you will be seen as a
dictator…you will lose support”.
Another dimension of team work is reflected through the distribution of the leadership
role. Participant E told of how he used delegation tasks to “build on teacher’s strength”. For
Participant C, distributing leadership assisted to prepare teachers when they “apply for higher
positions” in her own words. For what is mentioned by Participant E, I and C to happen, the
principal must create an environment for the empowerment of SBM stakeholders and it has to
begin with him.
While still on the question of capacitation or improvement, participants agreed that
information was significant in the sense that it was a prolific source of power for people and
marked the importance of informed decision making to schools operating in a decentralized
manner. This is how participant I put this, “sometimes we, as parents, have no knowledge of
what is needed of us and as a result we are not afforded opportunities to take informed
decisions on school matters”. No matter how good decisions taken are, it will not make a
difference if people cannot understand them. During the interviews with stakeholders, the
researchers realized that schools were very dependent on departmental circulars and
documents for correct information which were distributed to all stakeholders then before
discussions at school level. The following section discusses brings the recommendations for
the effective implementation of SBM.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings discussed earlier, this study proposes the following recommendations:
As it has been established, the current educational dispensation requires stakeholders
to lead the process of decentralization of decision making power. Some of the
stakeholders, especially the parent SGB members are not adequately familiar with the
legislation that guides operations at school level. It is therefore imperative for SBM
stakeholders to make efforts to study the legislative documents that contain the
current thinking and practices. SBM stakeholders should acquaint themselves with
such legal documents in order to establish and maintain well informed decisions
within the school.

181
 e-Bangi Vol. 10, No. 2 (2015) 172-184, ISSN: 1823-884x

The department of education officials from the various offices must be deployed
throughout the country and North West province in particular where the study was
undertaken to enforce compliance with the prescripts and practices of SBM.
Since it was established that the introduction of SBM system creates a conducive
learning and teaching environment. Again, knowledge of each and every stakeholder
is essential to the realization of this conducive environment in schools. Stakeholders
are therefore expected to be alert at all times of anything that impedes learning and
teaching in schools and to take appropriate actions as required.
The study also revealed that participants were of the opinion that funding played a
crucial role in terms of improvements. Successful training of SGBs, based on the
needs of their members, is believed to be a prerequisite for effective, decentralized
and cooperative school based governance. Since some parents who are new in the
SGB are unlikely to be used to the task of acquiring goods and services or to keeping
accounts, they need to receive training to ensure their accountability for the school
funds that they are managing. Knowledge of administering funds could be of benefit
to stakeholders as they know proper decision making channels to acquire specialist
services that will assist them in the empowerment of other stakeholders. After all, all
members of the SGB must be taken to meetings for induction purposes before they
resume their duties
 In terms of findings, all stakeholders must participate in the operational activities of the
school as required by SBM since this can assist them in taking ownership of the school. It is
therefore important that the role of the principal as an overseer becomes vigilant and be found
to be a coordinator to optimally involve all key stakeholders in a process of decision making
and implementation.

CONCLUSION

Accounts from participants in this study reflect a picture that School Based Management
(SBM) performs a pivotal role in the life of a school. With the advent of democracy in South
Africa in 1994, an awareness of the need by SBM stakeholders to actively participate in each
and every aspect of schooling has become prominent. SBM as a system has become a
microcosm of a democratic system at school level. Not only has SBM ushered in a new sense
of ownership to stakeholders but it has also dispelled the myth that decision making processes
work effectively when they are detached from the their real practical environment. According
to this research, SBM considers those closest to the action as indispensable aspects to a
healthy life of the school. It is concurred that learning and teaching take place effectively and
efficiently under decentralized forms of power at schools. Stakeholders in education consider
SBM as enabling the creation and maintenance of a conflict-free, normal teaching and
learning atmosphere through which decisions are taken and implemented by all stakeholders.
The accommodation of each and every stakeholder‟s input is therefore vital and should be
part of an educational planning that amounts to SBM effectiveness at school level.
The study also acknowledges that reforms in the education system might have posed
more challenges for SBM stakeholders in that they required change in the knowledge base
and practice. This situation calls for a need for stakeholders to receive constant guidance and
training on governance issues, leadership and team effectiveness. On the basis of the
preceding statements, it is therefore proper to call for a much more comprehensive study that

182
 e-Bangi Vol. 10, No. 2 (2015) 172-184, ISSN: 1823-884x

will address detailed planning strategies that can enhance the interest of stakeholders in
introducing and implementing new education leadership systems at schools.

REFERENCES
Ary, D., Jocobs, L.C., Razavieh, A. and Sorensen, C, (2006) Introduction Research in
Education (7th Ed). Canada:Thomson Wadsworth.
Botha, J.R. 2006. Effective School Based Management: The critical Role of Management and
Governance. South African Journal of Education, 26: 1-18.
Briggs, K. and Wohlstetter, P. 2003. Key elements of a successful School Based Management
strategy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 14 (3): 351 – 372.
Bush, T. (2008) Leadership and Management Development in Education. London: SAGE.
Bush, T. and Gamage, D. 2001. Models of Self-governance in Schools: Australia and United
Kingdom. International Journal of Education Management, 15 (1): 39-44.
Caldwell, J.B. (2005b) School Based Management: Educational Policy Series. The
International Academy of Education and International Institute for Educational Planning
Publishers. London.
Cheng, Y.C. and Mok, M.M.C. 2007. School-Based Management and Paradigm shift in
Education: An Empirical Study. International Journal of Educational Management, 21 (6):
517 – 542.

Cresswell, J.W. (2007) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Grauwe, A. 2005. Learning the Quality of Education through School-Based Management:
Learning from International Experiences, Review of Education, 51:269 – 287.
Dempter, N. 2000. Guilty or Not: The Impact and Effects of Site-Based Management on
Schools, Journal of Educational Administration, 38:47 – 63.
Department of Education. 1996. Changing Management to Manage Change in Education,
Report of the Task Team on Education Management Development Pretoria. Government
Printers.

Department of Education. 2007. Advanced Certificate in Education: School Leadership:

Programme Overview. Pretoria, Government Printers.
Fullan, M. and Watson, N. (2000) School-Based-Management: Reconceptualizing to Improve
Learning Outcome. Falmer Press: 11 (4): 253 – 473.
Gammage, D. T. 2008. Three Decades of Implementation of School Based Management in
Australian Capital Territory and Victoria in Australia 22 (7): 664 – 673.
Grogan, M. and Andrews, A. 2002. Defining Preparation and Professional Development for
the future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2): 233-256.

183
 e-Bangi Vol. 10, No. 2 (2015) 172-184, ISSN: 1823-884x

Hammersley-Fletcher. L. and Brundrett, M. 2005. Leaders on Leadership: The Impressions

of Primary School Head Teachers and Subject Leaders. School Leadership and Management,
25(1): 59-75.

Kruger, A.G. 2003. Instructional Leadership: The Impact on the Culture of Teaching and
Learning in Two Effective Secondary Schools. South African Journal of Education, 23 (3):
206-211.
Li, J. (2010) Suggestions for the Implementation of School-Based Management.
jinli@hncj.edu.cn/pdf Accessed 24 March 2011.
Mabasa, T. and Themane, J. 2002. Stakeholder participation in School Governance in South
Africa. Perspectives in Education 20 (3): 111-116.
Middlewood, A. and Lumby, J. (2007) Strategic Management in Schools and Colleges.Paul
Chapman Publishing: London.
Mncube, V. 2009. The Perception of Parents of their Role in the Democratic Governance of
School in South Africa: Are they on Board? South African Journal of Education. EASA, 29:
83-103.
Moloi, K. 2007. An overview of Educational Management in South Africa. South African
Journal of Education. 27(3), 463-476.
Ng, P.T. and Chan, D. 2008. A comprehensive study of Singapore‟s School excellent model
with Hong Kong‟s School-Based-Management. International Journal of Educational
Management, 22 (6): 488-505.
Sayed, Y. 2002. Democratising Education in a Decentralized System: South African Policy
and Practice. Compare, 32(1): 35-45.
Scribner, J. P., Swayer, R. K., Watson, S.T. and Myers, V. L. 2007. Teacher Teams and
Distributed Leadership: A Study of Group Discourse and Collaboration. Educational
Administration Quarterly. 45 (1): 67 – 100.

Republic of South Africa (RSA) (1996a). South African School Act 84 of 1996. Pretoria:
Government Printers. Vibe RSA.
Republic of South Africa (RSA) (1998b) Employment of Educators Act 76 of 1998. Pretoria:
Government Printers. Vibe RSA.
Van Niekerk, E. J. and Van Niekerk, P. 2006. Strategic Management in South African
Education: The Leadership Dimension. African Education Review 3(1+2): 84-99.
Whitake, R. K. 2003. Principal Role Changes and Influence on Principal Recruitment and
Selection: An International Perspective. Journal of Educational Administration, Vol 41- Issue
1, pp.37 – 54.
World Bank (2007) What is School Based Management? Education Human Development
Network. Washington, DC.

184
 e-Bangi Vol. 10, No. 2 (2015) 172-184, ISSN: 1823-884x

Bashimane Mollootimile
University of South Africa
Department of Educational Leadership and Management
Pretoria, South Africa.

Thulani Zengele (Corresponding author)

University of South Africa
Department of Educational Leadership and Management
Pretoria, South Africa.
tzengele@unisa.ac.za
+27846028634

185

View publication stats