0.3 Analysis of results and research findings  (Page 10/7)

Chapter 4

Analysis of results and research findings

Introduction

In chapter three the research plan, that is the research design and methodology, was discussed. In chapter four the data which was collected via the focus group interviews will be analysed and the findings interpreted.

From the focus group interviews it was quite evident, that the different schools interviewed, that schools managed their finances differently.

Data analysis

According to McMillan and Schumacher (2001; 461) qualitative data analysis is primarily an inductive process of organising the data into categories and identifying patterns or relationships among the categories. Most categories, patterns and relationships emerge from the data, rather than being imposed upon the data prior to collection. Lincoln and Guba (1985; 8) concur when they state that the research imposes no a priori categories on the results of the study.

Research findings

The following themes were identified in the data analysis: (i) allocated functions of the school governing body; (ii) non-existent or ineffective school finance policy; (iii) ineffective financial controls; (iv) inadequate school funding; (v) the role of the principal and school governing body; (vi) stakeholder involvement; (vii) training of school governing bodies; (viii) the role of the Department of Education

4.3.1.theme 1: allocated functions of the school governing body

All of the participants were of the opinion that all schools should automatically be allocated Section 21 functions, especially the research participants in schools 5, 8 and 9 – which are non-section 21 schools as they believed that the KZNDoE did not act in their best interest.

Principal 5 complained about the “red tape” involved when procuring as a non-section 21 school – EC 72s (the requisition forms) and commitment registers were cumbersome and time consuming.

Principal 8: “We pay higher prices (as compared to section 21 schools) for goods and services. We should be paying less because the KZNDoE is buying in bulk and there should be a quantity discount.”

Principal 9: “There are lots of stories of acts of fraud and corruption of the part of the KZNDoE’s procurement staff at Truro (that is the Coastal Clusters Service Centre which manages the funds of the non-section 21 schools).”

Principal 2 indicated that the procurement of textbooks and stationery was cheaper and faster and the school received cash discounts which was not the case when his school was non-section 21.

Educator 9, supported by parent 9 stated that the school was “defrauded” by the KZNDoE as textbooks ordered timeously in 2007 were to date not delivered. The Service Centre did however pay the vendor. This was confirmed by Principal 9.

Educators and parents of schools 5, 8 and 9 accused the KZNDoE of discrimination for not allocating them section 21 functions even though they had applied on numerous occasions. All three schools believed that they did qualify in terms of the checklist.

Parent 8 indicated that after attending the Education Imbizo in May 2008, when the Head of Department for Education in KZN lifted the moratorium on Section 21 applications, the school immediately applied. To date (May 2009), one year later they have not had a reply.