Parallels and Divergences in Decentralised Training Approaches: Reflecting on the Net Value of Implementing a Collaborative Model in a South African University

Mapukata, N O; Masinire, Alfred; Nkambule, Thabisile

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-57215-0_6

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Decentralised centralism thus has this effect of coming at the expense of community participation (Du Plessis, 2020). In support of Du Plessis (2020), Mapukata et al (2020) go further and see the principle of decentralised centralism as paving way towards fully decentralised and more school focused teacher preparation and professional development. Tan and Ng (2007, pp.…”

Section: Literature Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accountability in the financial management practices of school principals

Dwangu

Mahlangu

2021

IJEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this article is to investigate the effectiveness of accountability mechanisms employed in financial management practices of school principals in the Eastern Cape Provincial Department of Education. The strengths and weaknesses of the systems and mechanisms of the processes to hold school principals accountable are explored in detail in this study. The argument that this article seeks to advance is that accountability of the school principal to the school governing body (SGB) does not yield the best results in terms of efficiency. It creates a loose arrangement in terms of which the school principal takes part in financial mismanagement in schools.Design/methodology/approachData collection was made through semi-structured interviews whose purpose was to draw experiences from SGBs, particularly the finance committees who are in fact the sub-committees of the SGBs; as well as literature review. The finance committee is made up of the chairperson of the SGB, the secretary of the SGB, the treasurer of the SGB, and the financial officer who is a clerk responsible for the keeping and the management of financial records of the school. The process started with semi-structured interviews, then transcribing, coding, developing themes, making meaning of the themes and subsequently developing a principle.FindingsMechanisms employed by schools and the Department of Education to hold principals accountable for their financial management practices fail to make them fully accountable and effectively face the consequences of acts on their part that are illegal and unlawful. The mechanisms need a great deal of overhauling. The argument that this article seeks to advance is that this account of the school principal to the SGB does not yield the best results in terms of efficiency. It creates a loose arrangement in terms of which the school principal easily gets away with a crime when financial mismanagement occurs in the school.Research limitations/implicationsParticipants could possibly not be comfortable and willing, to tell the truth as it is. Participants might have the fear that telling the truth could land them in trouble with the law. Whilst participants were assured by the researchers of their anonymity and the confidentiality of the information given by them, there was no guarantee that the fear of being exposed would subdue completely. There was also a possibility that some participants would not be willing to say the truth as it is for fear of being victimised by other participants for exposing the status quo in their schools.Practical implicationsThe findings and recommendations from this study may be used by the Department of Basic Education as a source of information for policymakers and stakeholders to understand the effectiveness of their mechanisms to ensure the accountability of school principals on issues of financial management. On the basis of this study, policymakers will then be able to revisit their policies for the purpose of strengthening them. The principal is therefore responsible for the day-to-day administration and management of school funds because of this mandatory delegation. However, when things go wrong, it is the SGB that is held liable.Social implicationsSchool principals hold dual accountability in terms of which they are accountable to the employer only in so far as their professional responsibilities are concerned on financial management in the first instance. They are by no means accounting officers in schools. In the second instance, they are fully accountable to the SGB for issues relating to financial management. Section 16A of SASA lists the functions and responsibilities for which the principal as an employee of the Department of Basic Education, and in his official capacity as contemplated in Sections 23(1) and 24(1) (j) of the same Act, is accountable to the head of department (HOD).Originality/valueThe study provides a theoretical and empirical contribution to the existing literature on the effectiveness of the mechanisms employed to ensure the accountability of school principals in their financial management practices in schools. It offers practical recommendations putting in place mechanisms that effectively hold school principals wholly accountable for their financial management practices in schools. Most of the time, it is easy for the principal to get away with a crime even in instances where he or she is called upon to account for alleged financial mismanagement.

show abstract