0.4 Summary, recommendations and conclusion  (Page 4/4)

• quintile 5 schools receive at least R596 per learner per annum, the current (2009/2010) adequacy benchmark
• the PED immediately address the contestations that schools have lodged in respect of wrong quintile ranking
• if education is a national priority, then it must be funded on a needs basis rather than on a budget that the state can afford

Unpublished research (the results of which are in my possession) conducted recently in schools in Circuit A (Phoenix, Verulam and Tongaat) and Circuit B (Inanda, Ntuzuma and Kwa Mashu) indicate a strong correlation between the prudent management of finances and assets and inadequate state funding, that is schools receiving less state funding (schools in quintile 4 and 5) tend to manage their finances and assets better than those receiving more funding (schools in quintiles 1, 2 and 3). Under-funded schools also displayed excellent retrieval rates of loaned textbooks. The research also indicated the inability of the adequately funded schools to spend this larger state allocation. The research findings indicated that well managed schools “complained” that even though they had stockpiled textbooks over the last few years they were still “forced” to spend 30% of the states budget allocation on textbooks, an asset they did not require. It is therefore recommended that:

• a stock / asset audit be conducted to ascertain whether schools have sufficient textbooks, furniture and equipment
• based on the outcome of the above audit schools be granted the “freedom” to spend the states allocation on their needs rather than being forced to spend according to a predetermined formula

Training of school governing bodies

The research findings clearly indicated that both the Provincial Education Department and the Pinetown Education District had reneged on their legislative mandates to train school governing bodies. The literature reviewed indicated the possible reasons for this failure – where the PED and Districts did conduct training it was ineffective since the provincial and district officials were not experts in school financial management. Some provinces and districts employed consultants however this training also proved ineffective as many consultants do not necessarily have a sound knowledge of school finances.

The research referred to in section 5.3.3 above also indicated a link between poor financial management and poor academic performance. Mestry (2004; 129) concurs with the above research finding when he states that the training (of an SGB) in financial management is fundamental in preparing and equipping school managers with financial skills … to be responsible and accountable for funds and to make a contribution towards the improvement of the overall quality of teaching and learning of the school.

It is recommended that:

• the Master Trainer be reinstated because these volunteer school based personnel who conduct this training are hand picked experts in school financial management
• all members of the FINCOM be trained as the cascade method (train one or two members who are then expected to train the others) which is commonly used has proved to be ineffective
• all Education Districts closely monitor the training of SGBs bearing in mind that “new” SGBs will be inaugurated in September 2009

Reviewing the role of the department of education

According to the literature reviewed it is standard practice for schools to submit monthly, quarterly and annual financial reports to the education district office. The literature also indicated that management to develop plans, evaluate alternatives and where necessary take corrective action must use the information. The findings contradicted the literature, as it was quite apparent that the statutory reports submitted by schools were not used for their intended purpose, if used at all.

When the literature and findings are juxtaposed school principals and governors are justified in questioning the credibility of the KZNDoE, which is further warranted by the regular display of a lack of synergy often referred to as “the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing”, a case in point being the submission of the audited annual financial statements: (i) annual financial statements are collected by the Education Circuits, checked for completeness and submitted to the Finance Directorate of the Cluster before 30 June; (ii) schools are then contacted by the by another sub-directorate within the Finance Directorate to submit appendices which were included in the annual financial statements; (iii) the Norms and Standards section of the Finance Directorate then require schools to account for the states budget allocation which was also submitted as an annexure to the annual financial statements; and (hopefully) finally the Financial Support Services Directorate at the Provincial Head Office require the Education Circuits to audit the states budget allocation notwithstanding the schools having submitted audited financial statements.

Similar scenarios of confusion and mayhem are displayed in other aspects of the KZNDoE’s interaction with schools’ finances. It is recommended that:

• monthly reports sent to the Education Circuits be analysed and interpreted by the Circuit Manager with the intention of providing feedback to the school and providing reports to the Education District
• quarterly reports be used by the Education Districts to monitor and evaluate the schools’ compliance with the directives of the province
• annual reports and annual financial statements be synergistically managed by the Cluster and the Provincial Education Department

5.4.conclusion

Although this study focussed on schools in the Pinetown Education District the findings are highly likely to be applicable to all schools in the province and the recommendations should be valid for all schools in the province. The department (of education) has requested a copy of the findings – this will be provided and it is hoped that cognisance be taken of both the findings and recommendations.