0.3 Analysis of results and research findings  (Page 2/7)

Educator 8: “The KZNDoE did not even have the decency to acknowledge receipt of our application. Our principal has done numerous follow ups but the KZNDoE could not provide us with a progress report. I think they’ve lost our application. They lose everything.”

Principal 9: “We’ve been applying for Section 21 status every year for the past four years. Not once did we ever receive a response from the department.”

In the main this theme is about the advantages (disadvantages) of section 21 (non-section 21). Section 21 schools get the states budget allocation deposited into the school’s current banking account whereas non-section 21 schools receive a “paper allocation” and the KZNDoE manages this allocation on behalf of the school. Section 21 schools are able to procure goods and services from suppliers of their choice (provided that proper procurement procedures are followed) and can negotiate huge cash discounts, whereas non-section 21 schools may only have goods and services procured on their behalf and only from suppliers on the KZNDoEs data base at exorbitant and highly inflated prices.

Principal 5: “In November 2007 we bought computers through the department. The EC 72 was completed in blank (Truro could not give us a price). We received the computers almost a year later. Had we been a section 21 school we could have received those computers immediately at less than one third of what the department paid.”

Mestry (2004; 230) states that one of the greatest advantages of being allocated section 21 functions is that in the event of the school being unable to spend the states allocation in the current financial year, the funds will still be available to the school in the following financial year. One of the greatest disadvantages of non-section 21 schools is that in the event of requisitions not being processed by financial year end, schools lose their allocation since there is no “roll over” of unspent budget amounts (ibid; 230).

4.3.2.theme 2: non-existent or ineffective finance policy

Participants agreed that the poor management of funds or even the mismanagement of funds was to a large extent as a result of the school not having a finance policy (non-existent) or if the school did have a finance policy, not implementing it (ineffective). The school’s Finance Committee (FINCOM) is inextricably linked to the efficiency and effectiveness of the school’s finance policy. During the interviews all schools indicated that they did have a finance policy however when I conducted a document review this was not the case.

Principal 7: “We do have a policy, which is everyone knows what is expected of them and who is responsible for what – we are yet to commit this policy to writing.”

School 4 had a beautifully drafted policy which they had “borrowed” from an ex-Model C school – however the name of the donor school appeared throughout the policy.

Parent 1 indicated that she had been treasurer of the SGB for the last three years, just before the new principal was appointed. He obtained all the required policies from another school and the governing body simply adopted these policies as school policies.