Non-Educator Stakeholders and Public-School Principals' Views on the Proposed Amendments to the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996

Q3 Social Sciences
Johan Kruger, Johan Beckmann, Andre Du Plessis
{"title":"Non-Educator Stakeholders and Public-School Principals' Views on the Proposed Amendments to the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996","authors":"Johan Kruger, Johan Beckmann, Andre Du Plessis","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a14463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On 13 October 2017, the Department of Basic Education (DBE) published Government Gazette No 41178 pertaining to the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill (hereinafter BELA). The draft bill proposes to amend certain sections of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996. The DBE gave education stakeholders a window period to make inputs on the proposed Bill. Over 5000 submissions were received. \nOn 27 and 28 January 2020, Ms Angie Motshekga (Minister of Basic Education) invited the educator unions and governing body federations to further consultations on the Bill. The Bill was again circulated to the public in 2021 in Government Gazette number 45601 after further amendments. \nIn this article, the authors discuss school principals’ (as education stakeholders) opinions on the proposed amendments with a specific focus on school admission and language policies. \nThe research on which this article is based was located within the framework of government and management terms like the decentralisation and recentralisation of the powers of principals and school governing bodies (SGBs) and the recent phenomenon of political realism. \nThe research took the form of a qualitative case study using triangulation (semi-structured interviews, literature review and document analysis) to gather data. \nThe data produced mixed results. Some education stakeholders were very critical of the proposed amendments to the South African Schools Act while other groups welcomed the proposed changes. Some principals felt that the government was employing political realism in rescinding (recentralising) some of the powers that had been devolved to them in 1996 after the dawn of democracy in South Africa. They believed that the recentralisation would impede their autonomy when they carry out their professional and governance duties (the duties the school governing body delegated to the principal) in partnership with their SGBs. They believed it represented a regression to apartheid education. Other principals welcomed a more centralised governance approach where school leadership was dysfunctional and where SGBs provided no meaningful assistance to school principals.","PeriodicalId":55857,"journal":{"name":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","volume":"61 23","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a14463","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

On 13 October 2017, the Department of Basic Education (DBE) published Government Gazette No 41178 pertaining to the Basic Education Laws Amendment Bill (hereinafter BELA). The draft bill proposes to amend certain sections of the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996. The DBE gave education stakeholders a window period to make inputs on the proposed Bill. Over 5000 submissions were received. On 27 and 28 January 2020, Ms Angie Motshekga (Minister of Basic Education) invited the educator unions and governing body federations to further consultations on the Bill. The Bill was again circulated to the public in 2021 in Government Gazette number 45601 after further amendments. In this article, the authors discuss school principals’ (as education stakeholders) opinions on the proposed amendments with a specific focus on school admission and language policies. The research on which this article is based was located within the framework of government and management terms like the decentralisation and recentralisation of the powers of principals and school governing bodies (SGBs) and the recent phenomenon of political realism. The research took the form of a qualitative case study using triangulation (semi-structured interviews, literature review and document analysis) to gather data. The data produced mixed results. Some education stakeholders were very critical of the proposed amendments to the South African Schools Act while other groups welcomed the proposed changes. Some principals felt that the government was employing political realism in rescinding (recentralising) some of the powers that had been devolved to them in 1996 after the dawn of democracy in South Africa. They believed that the recentralisation would impede their autonomy when they carry out their professional and governance duties (the duties the school governing body delegated to the principal) in partnership with their SGBs. They believed it represented a regression to apartheid education. Other principals welcomed a more centralised governance approach where school leadership was dysfunctional and where SGBs provided no meaningful assistance to school principals.
非教育利益相关者和公立学校校长对 1996 年第 84 号《南非学校法》拟议修正案的看法
2017年10月13日,基础教育部(DBE)发布了第41178号政府公报,内容涉及《基础教育法修正案》(以下简称BELA)。该法案草案拟对1996年第84号《南非学校法》的某些章节进行修订。教育局为教育利益相关者提供了一个就拟议法案提出意见的窗口期。共收到 5000 多份意见书。2020 年 1 月 27 日和 28 日,Angie Motshekga 女士(基础教育部长)邀请教育工作者工 会和管理机构联合会就该法案进行进一步磋商。经过进一步修订后,该法案于 2021 年在第 45601 号政府公报上再次向公众发布。在本文中,作者讨论了校长(作为教育利益相关者)对拟议修正案的意见,并特别关注学校招生和语言政策。本文所依据的研究是在政府和管理术语的框架内进行的,如校长和学校管理机构(SGB)权力的下放和再下放,以及最近的政治现实主义现象。研究采用定性个案研究的形式,通过三角测量法(半结构式访谈、文献综述和文件分析)收集数据。数据结果喜忧参半。一些教育领域的利益相关者对《南非学校法》的修订建议持批评态度,而其他群体则对修订建议表示欢迎。一些校长认为,政府正在运用政治现实主义,取消(重新下放)1996 年南非民主曙光初现后下放给他们的一些权力。他们认为,重新下放权力会妨碍他们与学校领导机构合作履行专业和管理职责(学校领导机构下放给校长的职责)时的自主权。他们认为这是种族隔离教育的倒退。另一些校长则欢迎采取更加集中的管理办法,因为在这种情况下,学校领导层会出现功能失调,而校 董会也无法为校长提供有意义的帮助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
67
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: PELJ/PER publishes contributions relevant to development in the South African constitutional state. This means that most contributions will concern some aspect of constitutionalism or legal development. The fact that the South African constitutional state is the focus, does not limit the content of PELJ/PER to the South African legal system, since development law and constitutionalism are excellent themes for comparative work. Contributions on any aspect or discipline of the law from any part of the world are thus welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信