Content area
Numerous research studies have examined the efficiency and efficacy of school governing bodies (SGBs) in managing finances in South African public schools. Findings show that in many non-fee schools, SGB members lack the financial expertise to find solutions to practical problems. The South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996 does not make provision for school management teams (SMTs) as agencies to be represented on SGBs. Principals, by virtue of their authority, are members of SGBs, while other SMT members may be elected to serve on SGBs as teacher representatives. Using a qualitative approach within a phenomenological design, this study investigated the perceptions and experiences of stakeholders about the role of SMTs of non-fee schools in financial management. Semi-structured interviews with 16 participants were used to gather data, which were then inductively analysed to identify themes and sub-themes. The findings revealed that many non-fee schools have not made tangible efforts to promote collaboration between SMTs and SGBs. As a structure, SMTs are not permitted to attend SGB meetings and are thus denied addressing pertinent financial issues to govern schools effectively.
Abstract
Numerous research studies have examined the efficiency and efficacy of school governing bodies (SGBs) in managing finances in South African public schools. Findings show that in many non-fee schools, SGB members lack the financial expertise to find solutions to practical problems. The South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996 does not make provision for school management teams (SMTs) as agencies to be represented on SGBs. Principals, by virtue of their authority, are members of SGBs, while other SMT members may be elected to serve on SGBs as teacher representatives. Using a qualitative approach within a phenomenological design, this study investigated the perceptions and experiences of stakeholders about the role of SMTs of non-fee schools in financial management. Semi-structured interviews with 16 participants were used to gather data, which were then inductively analysed to identify themes and sub-themes. The findings revealed that many non-fee schools have not made tangible efforts to promote collaboration between SMTs and SGBs. As a structure, SMTs are not permitted to attend SGB meetings and are thus denied addressing pertinent financial issues to govern schools effectively.
Keywords: collaboration; policy formulation; policy implementation; professional management; school governance; school management teams
1. Introduction and background to the study
The framework that underpins the governance of public schools is the South African Schools Act (hereafter referred to as Schools Act) (RSA, 1996b), which accentuates aspects such as stakeholder engagement, shared accountability, and collective decision-making (Kruger et al., 2022). School governing bodies (SGBs) must manage school budgets, create and implement policies, strategise, and ensure effective school governance (King & Mestry, 2023). According to Sections 23 and 24 of the Schools Act, the SGB comprises parents who must be in the majority, educators, non-teaching staff, and secondary school learners (Mncube, 2009). SGBs must develop and implement policies to cover all aspects of school governance, such as addressing school improvement, managing finances, maintaining learner and teacher discipline, procuring and managing learning and teaching support materials (LTSM) and maintaining the school's infrastructure. Thus, SGBs must communicate effectively with stakeholders such as teachers, parents, learners and provincial education department (PED) officials (Van Wyk & Marumoloa, 2012).
The Personnel Administrative Measures (PAM) (DBE, 2016) and the Schools Act (RSA, 1996a) define school management teams (SMTs) as school leaders (principals, deputy principals and departmental heads) who are responsible for the professional management of schools. As instructional leaders, they primarily take charge of school teaching and learning programmes (Navarro-Corona & Slater, 2017; Govindasamy & Mestry, 2022; Tapala et al., 2022). Although not included on SGBs, SMTs are indirectly involved in financial planning, managing educational resources, and getting involved in school improvement programmes. If distributive leadership is aptly applied, they usually play an important role in financial reporting, budget planning, and resource management (Van Wyk & Marumoloa, 2012).
While SGBs maintain financial policy compliance, SMTs usually assist in budget execution and expenditure authorisation to meet school priorities (King & Mestry, 2023). SGBs are required to create school development plans (SDPs), which they are expected to turn into actionable school improvement plans (SIPs) (Setlhodi, 2020). Thus, SGBs and SMTs have complementary governance functions that demand authentic collaboration. However, SMTs are excluded from governance decisions, despite their crucial roles in executing financial and operational goals. SGBs overstep their governance authority by meddling in SMTs' professional management responsibilities (Aina & Bipath, 2020; Dhlamini, 2023).
SGBs are mandated to design and implement governance policies, and SMTs are responsible for designing and implementing policies appropriate to professional management. For both agencies, policy reforms must clarify structures, duties assigned to individuals or committees, integrate concerns of SMT and SGB members into the governance framework, and provide stakeholder capacity-building. This change would lessen disagreements, distribute governance duties fairly, and give lower-ranked teachers leadership experience for career progression. Accountability, financial governance, and sustained school development would inevitably increase if SMTs collaborate with SGBs.
This study argues for authentic collaboration between SMTs and SGBs for schools' effective and efficient functioning. Their involvement will strengthen school governance (Jansen & Du Plessis, 2023). By excluding SMTs on SGBs, principals and other SMT members are historically embroiled in many conflicts, where SMT members accuse principals of making poor financial decisions. They believe that the status quo results in conflicts of interest, governance imbalances, and limited shared leadership (Dhlamini, 2023). A balanced governance system would allow SMTs to improve the decision-making powers of SGBs, make innovative contributions to fundraising projects and manage educational resources effectively.
The rationale for SMTs and SGBs to jointly govern schools will consolidate financial responsibilities, ensure effective policy design and implementation, and enhance SGB-SMT collaboration (Kruger et al., 2022). We are mindful that some SMT members serve on SGBs as teacher representatives, not as SMT agency. These members represent the teaching staff, and their rights are limited to making financial decisions of SMTs, thus creating governance gaps (Mohapi & Chombo, 2021). It is beneficial for school governance to collaborate and include SMTs in financial planning, curriculum-based decision-making, and governance to improve the effective functioning of schools (Dhlamini, 2023). Collaboration between SGB and SMT to monitor and control school budgets will strengthen financial governance and ensure compliance and efficient finance administration (Buys et al., 2020).
Principals are frequently responsible for managing school finances, leading to autocratic tendencies that may suppress SGBs and the wider community from essential decision-making processes. The principal's leadership is vital; however, granting excessive authority to one individual undermines the democratic principles established in the South African constitution (RSA, 1996a). Including SMTs in joint decision-making with SGBs will enhance governance efficiency, ensure representation of professional management perspectives, and improve alignment of budgetary decisions with school priorities. This amendment enhances the governance framework's equity and bolsters the strategic leadership capacity of schools (Basson & Mestry, 2019).
This study sought to answer the main research question:
How can SMTs of non-fee schools be empowered to participate in school governance actively?
The sub-research questions include:
* What are the perceptions and experiences of SMT and SGB members of non-fee paying schools regarding the empowerment of SMTs in school governance?
* How can SMTs jointly collaborate with SGBs to manage the finances of non-fee paying schools effectively and efficiently?
2. Aim and objectives of the study
The general aim of the study was to investigate how SMTs in non-fee schools can be empowered to engage in school governance actively.
The objectives established to justify the study's aim were:
* To determine the perceptions and experiences of SMT and SGB members concerning the empowerment of SMTs in school governance.
* To explore how SMTs can jointly collaborate with SGBs to manage the finances of non-fee paying schools effectively and efficiently.
3. Literature review: (Dis)empowerment of school management teams
A literature review was conducted to establish a knowledge foundation for the proposed inquiry and to enable researchers to understand the research problem and study contexts. Literature on the functions of SMTs and empowerment through collaboration and accountability will be examined.
3.1 School governance vs. professional management
School governance and professional management are distinct but interrelated aspects of educational administration, and crucial for the effective operation of schools. School governance focuses on the institution's strategic direction, typically led by SGBs. SGBs control financial operations through decision-making and policies (Naidoo, 2019) and manage learner discipline, language and admission policies (Mestry, 2019). The process of budgeting and budget approval through proper channels is key (Xaba & Ngubane, 2018).
Professional management involves the daily operations of curriculum and instructional matters, primarily undertaken by SMTs and led by principals (Dhlamini, 2023). SMTs ensure that teaching and learning policies align with national and provincial education legislation. SMTs are responsible for curriculum matters, selecting teaching and learning support materials (LTSM) and educational resources, and maintaining accurate learner records (Mahlangu, 2017; Mestry, 2019; Mestry & Naicker, 2022)
3.2 Legal framework and finance policy
The Schools Act (RSA, 1996b), Education Laws Amendment Act (RSA, 2007), and Basic EducationLawsAmendmentAct(RSA,2011)underpinschoolgovernance.SGBsmustmanage LTSM procurement, fundraising, governmental subsidies, resource allocations, and budgets. Section 20 of the Act mandates SGBs to manage school finances, while Section 21 gives schools further financial powers. SGBs may apply to the Provincial Education Departments (PEDs) for additional functions which aim to empower SGBS's to take ownership of managing resource allocations subsidisedsubsidised by the state. SGBs become autonomous when granted section 21 functions (Mestry & Dzvimbo, 2019), such as receiving state subsidies banked directly into schools' banking accounts. Schools can also choose their own LTSM vendors and manage the distribution of educational resources and LTSMs.
SGBs, in consultation with all stakeholders, must create watertight finance policies. The financial policy should outline the roles of treasurers, finance committees, and those involved in school finances. The financial policy should outline fund collection and payment mechanisms and accentuate monitoring, control, and transparency of finances. Fairness, openness, and cost-effectiveness must underpin school financial management through finance policies. Schools with weak internal controls might mismanage resources and spend irregularly, notwithstanding restrictions (Rangongo et al., 2016; Schlebusch & Mokhampanyane, 2024).
Although the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) (RSA, 2012) does not directly apply to schools, SGBs are expected to efficiently and responsibly administer state subsidies according to the PED's orders (Makhanya, 2023). Section 45 of the PFMA states that all officials must help manage public finances efficiently and effectively, including risk management and eliminating excessive spending. Finance officials must consider propriety, regularity, and value for money while making financial choices.
4. Theoretical framework: Collaboration theory
The Collaboration Theory was used as a framework to underpin this study. This Theory emphasises cooperative engagement, shared decision-making, and mutual participation to attain common objectives (Huxham & Vangen, 2013). This theory posits that organisations or individuals possessing distinct, yet complementary expertise collaborate more effectively than when acting independently (Grant & Baden-Fuller, 1995). Collaboration theory is ideal to interrogate the governance of non-fee public schools by engaging various stakeholders, including SMTs. Collaboration is crucial for enhancing financial management functions in schools (Basson & Mestry, 2019).
Collaboration theory provides a framework for understanding the integration of SMTs and SGB structures in effective financial management (Mestry & Govindasamy, 2013; Basson & Mestry, 2019). SMTs and SGBs offer distinct expertise in school leadership. SMTs possess expertise in curriculum matters and resource management, while SGBs manage financial and policy responsibilities (Dhlamini, 2023; Setlhodi, 2020; Tapala et al., 2022). Collaboration will align financial decisions with educational objectives. Shared decision-making, trust, and transparency will be established. Schools will prioritise capacity building and improve knowledge-sharing and skill development, particularly in financial literacy and strategic planning (Tapala et al., 2022).
Collaboration theory proposes that schools can include SMTs, including the principal, in governance and decision-making by reimagining policies (Mohapi & Chombo, 2021). Regular meetings, an accountability framework, and shared responsibilities will build trust and improve member communication (Dhlamini, 2023). The goal is to reduce conflict and improve school governance. Collaboration theory explains SMT's integration into the SGB, improving school leadership, especially in non-fee schools' financial management (Setlhodi, 2020). Collegiality, trust, teamwork, transparency, and group decision-making improve relationships between SMTs and SGBs (Mataboge & Mahlangu, 2024), enhancing governance and financial supervision in schools that need it most.
5. Research methodology
5.1 Research approach, paradigm and design
A phenomenological design within an interpretivist paradigm foregrounded this qualitative research study. The primary focus of this study was to understand the subjective perceptions and experiences of participants (phenomenology) while acknowledging that these perceptions and experiences are inherently interpreted and constructed within a social context (interpretivism), essentially, studying how people make sense of their experiences within their unique situations. More specifically, the phenomenological design explored the essence of the experiences and perceptions of SMT and SGB members' collaboration in school governance, particularly financial management in non-fee paying public schools (Neubauer, Witkop & Varpio, 2019).
5.2 Sampling
The study employed a purposeful sampling strategy to select four non-fee-paying public schools that met specific criteria related to financial governance and their involvement in both SGB and SMT structures. The participants comprised four principals, eight SMT members (four deputy principals and four departmental heads), and four SGB parent representatives who held chairperson or deputy chairperson positions. The participants were drawn from both primary and secondary schools. These participants were selected due to their direct involvement in school finances. Table 1reflects the participants' demographics.
5.3 Data collection
The primary method for data collection involved semi-structured individual interviews. The interviews examined participants' experiences, perceptions, and institutional relationships related to the direct involvement of SMTs in school financial management. To ensure completeness and accuracy, all interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim following the informed consent of participants (Adams, 2015).
5.4 Data analysis and interpretation
The data were analysed thematically through open coding. This process identified patterns of SMT (dis)empowerment within financial governance. Data analysis led to adjustments in themes concerning collaborative governance, institutional agency, and power asymmetries to align with the study's objectives and research questions (Richards & Hemphill, 2018). We used the six phases in thematic analysis suggested by Braun and Clarke (2012): Familiarising the data by listening to the audio recordings intently; Identifying descriptive or semantic codes obtained from the contents; Reviewing coded data and searching for themes; Repeating the process of reviewing themes in relation to the coded data as quality check; Defining and naming themes (and sub-themes); and interpreting the analysis of data which is supported by empirical evidence.
Data was interpreted using a thematic approach, informed by collaboration theory and the reviewed literature. The codes and themes presented in Table 2 were derived inductively from the collected data, guided by the theoretical framework. This dual process ensured the capture of both emergent and theory-driven insights. This process significantly aided in identifying recurring themes, patterns, contradictions, and evidence of (dis)empowerment in the proposed collaborative relationship between SMTs and SGBs concerning financial governance.
6. Trustworthiness of the study
Audio recording was employed to capture and produce data with maximal accuracy, and transcripts were validated with the audio recordings to ensure trustworthiness. Member checking was conducted, enabling participants to review the transcripts to ensure accurate representation of interviews (Rowlands, 2021). Confirmability was attained through reflexive journaling, and peer debriefing contributed to bias reduction in the research (Creswell, 2009). We believe that transferability of the research findings can be extrapolated to alternative contexts or situations. Credibility was achieved through participant triangulation across various school positions, including principals as top managers, SMT members as middle-level managers, and SGB chairpersons at a level equivalent to principals in operational financial management.
7. Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was obtained from the university's Ethics Committee, and the Gauteng Department of Education authorised data collection from the identified schools. The participants, who included principals, chairpersons of SGBs and SMT members, were permitted to be involved in the research process. Approval letters from participants included assurances that anonymity and confidentiality would always be maintained. That participation remained optional, allowing participants to withdraw from the study at any time without facing any consequences. All participants were informed of the study's objectives, voluntary participation, and right to withdraw. Pseudonyms safeguard confidentiality while ensuring informed consent. Transcripts were safely archived, with access restricted to the authors, in accordance with ethical and data protection standards (Resnik, 2020).
8. Findings and discussion
This section outlines the findings and discussion of the study, organised thematically into three main themes and their corresponding sub-themes. The collaboration theory underpins the study, which provides a framework for analysing the dynamics of power-sharing, participatory governance, trust-building, and institutional learning in financial management in non-fee paying public schools. While presented descriptively, the findings are analytically interpreted to uncover deeper tensions and contradictions within the existing governance arrangement. Table 2 presents the identified themes and their corresponding sub-themes.
To keep the anonymity of participants' identities, we applied the following codes:
P-A denotes principal of school A; DP-B denotes deputy principal of school B; DH-C denotes departmental head of school C; SGB-D denotes school governor body of school D, and so forth.
THEME 1: Lack financial management knowledge and skills, and limited professional development
SGBs are empowered to exert comprehensive financial control due to the decentralisation of authority (RSA, 1996a). The government uses a quintile ranking system to allocate funds to public schools annually to promote fairness and equity. SGBs must ensure appropriate oversight of school finances. However, in many non-fee paying schools, SGB governors' lack of financial knowledge and skills and/or inadequate financial training negatively influence the effective management of finances (Mahlangu, 2017).
Two sub-themes are discussed below.
SGB members' lack of financial knowledge and skills
Research shows that many parent governors in SGBs often encounter difficulties in effectively managing financial resources, due to their lack of knowledge and skills (Xaba & Ngubane, 2018). Principals indicated their uneasiness regarding SGBs' complete control of school finances, notwithstanding the legal authority established in the School Act. This is a matter of concern as education districts in PEDs do not offer any intensive financial training to principals and SGB members following their election to office (RSA, 2012).
P-D affirmed this:
Now that is the problem with modern democracy, as we have now, we have taken people who are not educated and not properly trained, who do not know anything, to manage school finances. They are given the power to make decisions. What do you expect? Chaos.
Studies also revealed that SGB parent governors of non-fee paying schools continuously conflict with principals because they are ignorant or cannot correctly interpret legislation (e.g., Schools Act) (Makhanya, 2023). The principal of School B indicated that conflicts usually arise when SGB parent governors and principals have divergent interests. Consequently, principals encounter difficulties trusting SGB parent members to manage school finances (Rangongo et al., 2016; Schlebusch & Mokhampanyane, 2024).
P-A maintained that:
The SGB that we have is to a certain extent skilled, but with regard to finances, I doubt that, I doubt that and that is the biggest challenge we have here in school because you know parents would elect a parent in a general meeting because they had seen that parent talking a lot in that meeting then they will say I want that man to be part of the SGB. In most cases, you find that your parents are not knowledgeable or skilled and that is the greatest challenge in our public schools.
The chairpersons of SGBs were questioned about their educational credentials in managing school finances. Responses demonstrated that SGB parent governors lacked practical financial knowledge and skills.
SGB-A noted that
...There is a parent who is the treasurer doing the finances for the school. The principal works hand-in-glove with the treasurer. I do not understand money matters, and I am not sure if they are managing the funds correctly. I only know figures, but in terms of how they are flowing, I do not know. I just see that money is coming in, money is going out, money is coming in, and money is going out.
This response by this SGB chairperson confirmed what Mahlangu (2017) suggested when he averred that SGB members' inadequate financial knowledge impedes governance capacity and creates challenges for SGBs to manage educational resources. It is thus critical to enable SMT members to effectively apply their skills to achieving efficacy and efficiency in financial management.
Limited financial training is provided by the Department of Education (or education districts)
The School Act provides the PDoE (or education districts) to provide frequent financial training to SGBs. However, very little training on school financial management, if any, is provided to newly elected as well as incumbents (Xaba & Ngubane, 2018). Principals highlighted the disconnect between policy expectations and operational realities, thus expressing frustration at delegating fiduciary responsibilities to SGBs without corresponding developmental support. Most parent governors of SGBs, often uninformed by relevant policies or practices, only provide superficial oversight (Moloi & Bush, 2019). The inclusion of SMTs on SGBs masks the weaknesses of SGB governors' ability to make good financial decisions.
P-C stated that
We have engaged with SGB governors who are financially illiterate. They are enthusiastic members who volunteer to assist in general matters but don't have the knowledge or skills to make financial decisions. Unfortunately, the education districts do not provide intensive financial training to SGB members. At meetings, most of the time I must give detailed explanations of the process of procurement or the procedure for fundraising.
SGB - A explains further
Ok! like last weekend, we had this training for financial management. We were taught how to manage school funds... Without any practical examples or actual financial documents, truly speaking, I did not have a clue of what the trainer was explaining. It was a waste of good time.
Consequently, insufficient training of SGBs compromises trust, co-governance, and accountability. The lack of intensive developmental programmes provided by education districts hinders SGBs from effectively fulfilling their role (RSA, 1996). This exemplifies what Huxha and Vagen (2021) refer to as "collaborative inertia," where structural collaboration exists in form but not in actual function, resulting in tokenism and inefficiency. Decision-making takes on a performative aspect when convoluted power is not distributed equally. The consequence, therefore, renders the financial systems susceptible to mismanagement of funds and disengagement from stakeholders (Dladla & Tanga, 2021; Jita & Mokhele, 2019).
The collaboration theory underlines the significance of capacity building for equitable partnerships and indicates the need to institutionalise training to enhance governance capacity (Sethlodi, 2020; Dhlamini, 2023; Huxhan & Vangen, 2013).
THEME 2: Diverse roles of principals in professional management and governance
This theme highlights the expectation of principals who serve in diverse roles: instructional leaders, financial stewards, and operational managers (Leithwood & Azah, 2019; Bush, 2020). Section 16A of the Education Laws Amendment Act (RSA, 2007) defines the principal's role and responsibility in leading and managing public schools. The principal acts as the Head of Department's representative and an automatic governing body member. They are tasked to advise and support SGBs in financial matters. However, they must ensure their actions do not conflict with departmental instructions, other legislation, or principals' obligations to the Head of Department (Dhlamini, 2023). Two sub-themes are discussed below:
Principals' role in the management of school finances
A principal must balance undertaking multifarious tasks such as administration, curriculum matters and governance issues. Although principals are mindful that their primary responsibility is curriculum management, they invariably address other issues, such as finances or other "urgent" administrative matters. Principals reported that their roles seldom encompass professional leadership; however, governance and administrative spheres result in little or no time to effectively manage these primary responsibilities (Van Wyk, 2020). The data revealed a significant gap in accountability and efficiency in school financial management, arising from parent governors' lack of knowledge and skills and the diverse roles of principals.
P-A maintains that:
SGBs are given the mandate that they should be responsible for the finances of the schools, and when I say SGB, I mean parents who are in the majority, educators, non-teaching staff and learners (in secondary schools). Now, we are also part of the SGB, so we should also be responsible for managing school finances. The SGB, including me as principal, is jointly responsible for financial matters.
Collaboration, through decentralised models of leadership (e.g., distributed governance structures), ensures that authority and responsibility are shared across multiple stakeholders (Bush & Glover, 2021). P-D noted that many "principals tend to focus on specific financial domains; however, they engage with various stakeholders to deal with diverse tasks.). This work overload is exacerbated by excluding SMT members from formal financial governance structures, thereby compelling principals to function in isolation or with restricted strategic support (Ngubane & Makalela, 2022).
Basson and Mestry (2019) indicate that many SGB members lack fundamental financial skills, resulting in the principal assuming a larger portion of financial responsibilities, which are often poorly executed due to heightened pressure placed on principals.
P-C explains the various functions that are placed on principals:
As a member of the finance committee, I am responsible for the day-to-day financial operations and oversight, such as authorising payments, overseeing procurement processes, and ensuring proper record-keeping. I assist my SGB to review the finance policy annually to ensure new regulations from the provincial department are included and correctly implemented. I must make sure that all financial practices comply with departmental regulations.
P-B emphasised that his SGB parent governors lack financial expertise and placed the entire financial management policies on him.
I am virtually responsible for the entire financial management. My SGB parents are financially illiterate. I must prepare financial reports and help in getting the financial records audited. However, I do provide support and act as a mentor, training them and guiding them to fulfil their duties. However, this financial responsibility takes up most of my time - it is daunting task.
This response emphasises that the principal, by virtue of being a member of the SGB with signing powers of bank accounts, bears substantial financial and instructional leadership responsibilities.
Exclusion of SMTs from financial decision-making processes.
Setlhodi (2020) highlights that shared leadership and developmental support for SGBs enhance collaboration, particularly in schools below the poverty line. This reinforces the notion that SMTs and SGBs should collaborate to improve financial and educational outcomes. However, tensions persist between the principal and the SGB regarding financial decisions, underscoring the necessity for clearer role definitions and enhanced collaborative frameworks (Basson and Mestry, 2019).
DP-D, when questioned regarding his role in school governance, particularly in the financial committee, stated that:
It is very little, it's very little to be honest because you do not truly make important cases, as I am saying this committee needs to look at statements that have to be prepared by these two people, finance officers, and the treasurer so it's like you are correcting certain things on the financial statement before it is taken to the staff and from the staff to the parents. Just to get clarity in case there are questions that are asked but, in most cases, most of the things that appear on that statement, as a deputy you were not part of that but then you are then expected when the statement is presented may be to the staff or to the parents, you are expected to defend whatever that is there. In most cases, you are just there; I do not know whether to call it rubber-stamping the statement.
The deputy principal characterised the limited role in financial oversight, indicating that their office is primarily tasked with defending financial reports rather than engaging meaningfully in their preparation. DH-B expressed a similar sentiment, stating that
I am not part of the fin comm [finance committee] of the school and right now the school has been allocated some funds but I am not even aware how much is allocated to the school, even when textbooks are purchased, you do not know how much is used to purchase textbook and stationery, even after the purchase is done, you are not even informed of what was spent and that is the problem. Everything is controlled by the principal.
These comments cumulatively illustrate that SMTs are marginalised in financial decision-making, which increases the workload of principals and creates a lack of transparency in the financial management process. Consequently, the inefficiency and absence of collaborative oversight compromise accountability and performance metrics. Considering that SMTs are responsible for managing school operations and coordinating the curriculum, with an understanding of the necessity for financial inputs, it is reasonable to conclude that SGBs should collaborate with SMTs on financial governance. Their inclusion would lessen the workloads of SGBs and principals, enhance transparency, and align resources allocated in the school with instructional priorities.
However, the principal from school B presented an alternative perspective, asserting that:
You can't have two bulls in one very small kraal... The governance structure, specifically the SGB, is responsible for overseeing financial management. What will be the role of the governing body be if the SMT were part of the SGB structure?
It is evident that there is a structural exclusion of SMTs from significant roles in school governance, despite their responsibilities in managing their departments and implementing resource-dependent programmes.
THEME 3: The need to integrate SMT in school decision-making and governance processes.
SGBs and SMTs operate as distinct entities with different mandates. SGBs are responsible for the governance of schools-setting policies, managing finances and representing the interests of parents. SMTs led by principals are responsible for the management of teaching and learning. However, while they are structurally separate, collaboration between SGBs and SMTs is essential for effective school functioning. SMTs bring professional expertise and can enrich SGB decisions around budgeting, staffing and infrastructure (Basson & Mestry, 2019). SMTs can assist SGBs in formulating policies and procedures and implement these policies at their schools. Overburdened with financial management responsibilities, Principals can rely on SMT members' support.
Two sub-themes are discussed:
Structural empowerment of SMTs through authentic collaboration with SGBs.
Although SMTs possess expertise in curriculum and resource management, they frequently experience disempowerment due to structural constraints and the emphasis on parental dominance in SGBs as dictated by policies (Basson & Mestry, 2019). Consequently, power struggles regarding budget and staffing issues tend to marginalise SMTs, as SGBs often override their contributions (Dhlamini, 2023). Clearly defined roles are essential for including SMTs in SGBs, developing a shared accountability framework, and establishing effective communication structures to prevent conflict and ensure that SMT's professional expertise informs financial governance (Magpili & Pazos, 2018).
While the Schools Act does not formally include SMTs in the composition of SGBs, principals can bridge the gap between the two structures by encouraging consultation or co-opting SMTs on sub-committees such as finance committees. Principals can create formal channels for collaboration or include them in joint committees in an advisory capacity to enhance school governance and performance. SMTs can play a pivotal role in shaping the culture of collaboration within a school community. Their influence goes beyond administrative duties - they encourage teamwork and authentic collaboration with various stakeholders, including SGBs (Tapala et al., 2022).
SMTs' empowerment is thus contingent on structural and policy contexts (Basson & Mestry, 2019). In South African schools, especially in rural and township non-fee paying schools, SMTs are crucial in bridging the gap between the school and its community. Thus, SMTs can strengthen relationships with SGBs through authentic collaboration to ensure sustainable improvement and learner success.
P-A avers that:
If SMTs are involved in the SGB as a structure, then they could also be exposed to SGB training workshops organised by the DoE. They could be invited as SMTs, and then they become empowered in those workshops because you know most of those workshops are, to a certain extent, beneficial, very informative, and they empower people.
SGB-C acknowledges that
Since I am a chairperson, I have never met with the SMT... I would love the SMT and SGB members to do training together. I would love SMT members to be involved extensively in such training. SMT must be trained so that they are a part of us in SGB, so that they can be trained on how the finances of the school must be run.
SGB - B concurred with SGB-C
SMT must be involved as well because we can learn a lot from them. They can show us that we can do this in order to manage the finances of the school. If there are funds that we want to raise, we do involve them. Maybe there is an activity that must be done here in school, we should involve them (SMT)... Like I am saying, it's all about teamwork.
Communication, trust, and shared accountability serve as essential drivers of collaboration.
Meaningful partnership between SGBs and SMTs should be built on effective communication, trust and shared accountability. Open and consistent dialogue will ensure that SMTs and SGBs align with school priorities, challenges and progress. Aspects such as budgets, academic performance and policy changes should be communicated transparently to build clarity and reduce misunderstanding. Schools can thrive if SGBs and SMTs work together through strong communication, mutual trust, and shared accountability.
DP-C stated that:
The impact I have as a deputy principal in the management of the school finances is that I have ensured that the school has established a mission and vision that represent its long-term operating policy. I must ensure that all objectives in the long term follow the school's mission and vision. With my knowledge of finances, I can contribute meaningfully to the financial management that the SGB is responsible for.
DP-A indicated that:
I have witnessed that when communication flows freely, decisions are better informed and more inclusive. There should be mutual respect and trust between SGBs and SMTs to foster a good working relationship. The problem with our schools is that SGBs and the SMT do not know their core duties. The principal should assist in defining their roles and avoid duplication. While SGBs are responsible for governance, the SMT should assist the SGB in handling the day-to-day operations.
Within the framework of collaborative theory, principals are expected to function not as sole authorities but as equal stakeholders in promoting inclusive leadership (Grant & Baden-Fuller, 1995). The complex dual role of principals as instructional leaders and in school governance often results in ambiguous boundaries between professional management and governance (RSA, 1996a). This dual functionality compels authoritarian practices, particularly when SGBs cannot contest financial decisions (Basson & Mestry, 2019).
Collaboration necessitates a shared purpose, clear roles, and a reaffirmation of the principal governance role to enhance inclusive and cooperative decision-making (Mohapi & Chombo, 2021). Therefore, the principal should participate and co-lead with SMTs and SGBs rather than dominate. The principal should foster transparent leadership within collective governance structures (Setlhodi, 2020). In this way, trust can be built among all stakeholders.
SGB must be transparent in every decision-making process and consistently apply the finance policy to ensure funds are managed effectively and efficiently.
9. Conclusion and recommendation
This study emphasises the importance of SMTs collaborating with SGBs to enhance the management of finances. SGB members in many non-fee schools lack expertise in making sound financial decisions for practical problems and grappling with pertinent legislation and regulations. SGBs are thus compelled to seek the support of principals in school financial management. Instead of collaborating with relevant stakeholders, some principals tend to make autocratic decisions. To obviate principals gaining full control of managing school finances and reducing their incongruent workloads, SMTs should be jointly involved in all SGB decisions despite the Schools Act explicitly omitting this structure. SMTs, involved in school day-to-day operations, are better able to comprehend and advocate for school needs, making them central to school governance. Their inclusion will ensure that stakeholders are fully represented on SGBs. It is strongly recommended that PEDs provide training and development to equip SGB and SMT members with appropriate knowledge and skills to help them make sound financial decisions.
References
Adams, W. C. 2015. Conducting semi-structured interviews. In K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, & J. S. Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (4th ed., pp. 492-505). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch19
Aina, A. Y., & Bipath, K. 2020. School financial management: Insights for decision making in public primary schools. South African Journal of Education, 40(4): Article 1756. https://doi. org/10.15700/saje.v40n4a1756
Basson, P., & Mestry, R. 2019. Collaboration between school management teams and governing bodies in effectively managing public primary school finances. South African Journal of Education, 39(2): Article #1688, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje. v39n2a1688
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57-71). American Psychological Association. https:// doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
Bush, T. 2020. Instructional leadership: International research and practice. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 48(1): 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741 143219864947
Bush, T., & Glover, D. 2021. Re-conceptualising distributed leadership in education: The need for clarity and precision. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 49(6): 919-936. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211034675
Buys, M., Du Plessis, P., & Mestry, R. 2020. The resourcefulness of school governing bodies in fundraising: Implications for the provision of quality education. South African Journal of Education, 40(4): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v40n4a2042
Creswell, J. W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Department of Basic Education, Republic of South Africa 2016. Personnel administrative measures (PAM). Pretoria: Department of Basic Education. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/ files/gcis_document/202209/46879gon2468.pdf:contentReference[oaicite:17]{index=17}
Dhlamini, J. P. 2023. Tensions between school governing body and school management team: Enhancing cooperation of the school. Journal of Educational Studies, 22(2): 98-114. https://doi.org/10.59915/jes.2023.22.2.6
Dladla, A., & Tanga, P. T. 2021. Challenges facing school governing bodies in the effective financial management of public schools in South Africa. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 32(1-3): 39-48. https://doi.org/10.31901/24566322.2021/32.1-3.1181
Govindasamy, V., & Mestry, R. 2022. The principal's role in managing curriculum change: Implications for the provision of quality education. South African Journal of Education, 42(4), 1 - 11. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v42n4a2294
Grant, R. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. 1995. A knowledge-based theory of inter-firm collaboration. In Academy of Management Proceedings, 1:17-21. Briarcliff. https://doi.org/10.5465/ ambpp.1995.17536229
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. 2013. Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203010167
Jansen, C., & Du Plessis, A. 2023. The role of deputy principals: Perspectives of South African primary school principals and their deputies. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 51(1): 157-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220975764
Jita, L. C., & Mokhele, M. L. 2019. When teacher clusters work: Selected experiences of South African teachers with the cluster approach to professional development. South African Journal of Education, 39(Supplement 2): S1-S10. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v39ns2a1693
King, J., & Mestry, R. (2023). The oversight functions of school governing bodies in the management of budgets. Perspectives in Education, 41(4): 177-193. https://doi.org/10.38140/ pie.v41i4.7512
Kruger, J., Beckmann, J., & Du Plessis, A. 2022. The management and governance conundrum in South African public schools: Principals' perspectives. Perspectives in Education, 40(4): 312-324. https://doi.org/10.38140/pie.v40i4.5735
Leithwood, K., & Azah, V. N. 2019. The characteristics and instructional leadership practices of effective principals in high-poverty schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(5): 520-537. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2018-0141
Magpili, N. C., & Pazos, P. 2018. Self-managing team performance: A systematic review of multilevel input factors. Small Group Research, 49(1): 3-33. https://doi. org/10.1177/1046496417710500
Mahlangu, V. P. 2017. Lack of financial management skills of school governing bodies: A cause for concern? South African Journal of Education, 37(1): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.15700/ saje.v37n1a1292
Makhanya, N. 2023. The role of accounting officers in ensuring responsible public financial management: A PFMA-centric approach. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 12(10): 241-247. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v12i10.3100
Mataboge, S. K. C., & Mahlangu, V. 2024. Attributes and actions of principals as instructional leaders in empowering school management teams (SMTs) in schools. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 11(1): 20-32. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.1192563
Mestry, R. 2019. School management teams' instructional leadership role in closing the achievement gap in impoverished schools. Africa Education Review, 16(6): 94-110. https:// doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2018.1464696
Mestry, R., & Dzvimbo, K. P. 2019. Financial management challenges in schools: The role of the school management team. South African Journal of Education, 39(3): 1-11. https://doi. org/10.15700/saje.v39n3a1669
Mestry, R., & Govindasamy, V. 2013. Collaboration for the effective and efficient management of school financial resources. Africa Education Review, 10(3): 431-452. https://doi.org/10.10 80/18146627.2013.853539
Mestry, R., & Naicker, S. 2022. Collaborative leadership and financial management in schools: A case study approach. Journal of Educational Administration, 60(2): 345-362. https://doi. org/10.1108/JEA-04-2021-0068
Mncube, V. 2009. Perceptions of the principal's role in democratic school governance in South Africa. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 41(1): 29-43. https://doi. org/10.1080/00220620802604594
Mohapi, S. J., & Chombo, S. 2021. Governance collaboration in schools: The perceptions of principals, parents and educators in rural South Africa. Cogent Social Sciences, 7(1): Article 1994723. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2021.1994723
Moloi, K. C., & Bush, T. 2019. The impact of distributed leadership on the capacity of school governing bodies in South Africa. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 47(3): 347-363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217717265
Naidoo, P. 2019. Perceptions of teachers and school management teams of the leadership roles of public-school principals. South African Journal of Education, 39(2): 1-9. https://doi. org/10.15700/saje.v39n2a1534
Navarro-Corona, C., & Slater, C. 2017. The integration of the functions of principals and deputy principals in the management of secondary schools. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 32(2): 58-68. https://doi.org/10.21307/jelpp-2017-0018
Neubauer, B. E., Witkop, C. T., & Varpio, L. 2019. How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspectives on Medical Education, 8(2): 90-97. https://doi. org/10.1007/S40037-019-0509-2
Ngubane, S., & Makalela, L. 2022. The role of school governing bodies in promoting participatory governance in no-fee schools: A critical reflection. Journal of Educational Studies, 21(1): 44-58. https://journals.ufs.ac.za/index.php/jes/article/view/6613
Rangongo, P., Mohlakwana, M., & Beckmann, J. 2016. Causes of financial mismanagement in South African public schools: The views of role players. South African Journal of Education, 36(3): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v36n3a1266
Republic of South Africa (RSA). 1996a. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Government Gazette, 378(17678). Pretoria: Government Printers https://www.gov.za/ documents/constitution-republic-south-africa-1996
Republic of South Africa (RSA). 1996b. South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996. Government Gazette, 377(17579). Pretoria: Government Printers https://www.gov.za/ documents/south-african-schools-act
Republic of South Africa (RSA). 2007. Education Laws Amendments Act of 2007. Government Gazette, 502(29807). Pretoria: Government Printers https://www.gov.za/documents/education -laws-amendment-act
Republic of South Africa (RSA). 2011. Basic Education Laws Amendments Act of 2011. Government Gazette, 550(34620). Pretoria: Government Printers https://www.gov.za/ documents/education-laws-amendment-act-2011
Republic of South Africa (RSA). 2012. Further Amendment to the South African Schools Act No. 84 of 1996. Government Gazette, 564(36028). Pretoria: Government Printers. https://www.gov.za/documents/further-amendment-south-african-schools-act
Resnik, D. B. 2020. Ethics of Research with Human Subjects: Protecting People, Advancing Science, Promoting Trust. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-48696-5
Richards, C., & Hemphill, S. 2018. Power, agency and collaborative governance: The role of school management teams. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 46(4): 605-621. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217694892
Rowlands, T. (2021). Member checking: Ensuring data accuracy and credibility in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 26(2): 558-570. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4678
Schlebusch, G., & Mokhampanyane, M. 2024. Financial management in South African public schools: perspectives from principals. Indonesian Journal of Educational Development (IJED), 5(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.59672/ijed.v5i1.3628
Setlhodi, I. I. 2020. Collaboration practices between the two tiers of school leadership in eradicating underperformance. South African Journal of Education, 40(3): 1-11. https://doi. org/10.15700/saje.v40n3a1796
Tapala, T. T., Fuller, M., & Mentz, K. 2022. Perceptions of departmental heads on their curriculum leadership roles: Voices from South Africa. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 21(4): 816-829. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2021.1899150
Van Wyk, C., & Marumoloa, M. 2012. The role and functioning of school management teams in policy formulation and implementation at school level. Journal of Social Sciences, 32(1): 101-110 https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2012.11893056
Van Wyk, N. 2020. School governing bodies in South African public schools: A review of the training and development needs of parent governors. Journal of Education, 78(1): 23-40. https://doi.org/10.17159/2520-9868/i78a02
Xaba, M., & Ngubane, D. 2018. Financial accountability in public schools: The role of school governing bodies. South African Journal of Education, 38(4): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.15700/ saje.v38n4a1633
Copyright University of the Free State, Faculty of Education 2025