The Perceptions and Experiences of School Management Teams and Teachers of the Management of Physical Resources in Public Schools

Abstract

The effective management of physical resources significantly impacts on the quality of teaching and learning in schools. The procurement, utilization and maintenance of physical resources through organized structures, well-designed policies and rigid processes are critical for quality education. According to the South African Schools Act 1996, a governing body is responsible for managing the school’s finances and physical assets. However, most school governing bodies seriously lack essential knowledge and skills to manage both, the finances as well as physical resources effectively, resulting in poor learner performance and low educational outcomes. We administered a structured questionnaire to investigate the management teams and teachers’ perceptions and experiences of the management of physical resources in schools. Findings revealed that many governing bodies lack the necessary financial skills to develop practical budgets and procure physical resources economically for their schools. They are unable to set-up systematic structures and stringent processes, and this has caused wasteful expenditure for schools, and the failure of teachers to maintain and productively use physical resources. Their function to constantly monitor and evaluate the procurement and maintenance of physical resources is seriously lacking. Governors who are proficient will experience very little difficulty in managing the school’s physical resources effectively.

Keywords

assets management monitoring physical resources procurement South African schools

Introduction and Background

Since the implementation of the South African Schools Act (SASA) (Republic of South Africa, 1996a), the management of physical resources has become a key function for school governance. Through democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution (Republic of South Africa, 1996b) and the SASA, the legislators intentionally transferred their powers of administering and controlling schools’ property and assets to school governing bodies (SGBs). According to section 20(1) of the SASA, the management of schools’ finances, physical assets, and other educational resources is entrusted to SGBs. Decentralizing resource management from state to school level is a strategy used to increase the efficiency of resource utilization and to reinforce new school designs for high learner performance (Levacic et al., 2000: 489). The effective management of resources impacts on the quality of learning that takes place in the classroom (Moloi, 2002: 94). To facilitate such learning, public schools in South Africa following global trends in decentralization and having been subjected to the demands of self-management, are dependent on the effective management of physical resources.

The physical assets of schools include buildings, grounds, vehicles and furniture. Educational resources comprise of learning and teaching support materials (LTSM), non-LTSM equipment, consumable and non-consumable items, educational aids and equipment, information technology, and small capital items (Choonara, 2005: 25). The management of these assets and educational resources includes among others, setting up appropriate structures and processes; identifying educational resource needs; establishing sources of funding and conceiving well-formulated budgets; identifying reputable suppliers and service providers; and procuring, utilizing, maintaining and controlling the assets and educational resources within given boundaries and policies (Steyn, 2003; Beckmann, 2006). However, the management and governance expertise of SGBs differ greatly from school to school (Ngcongo and Chetty, 2000: 68). SGBs that have the capability are more likely to accentuate the importance of managing physical resources efficiently, thereby contributing to higher learner achievement, and the attainment of sound educational outcomes.

Section 21 of the SASA (Republic of South Africa, 1996) states that public schools that have financial expertise and governance capacity may apply to the Head of Education¹ of the provincial education department (PED) for additional functions such as maintaining and improving school property; purchasing textbooks and educational materials; and paying for repairs and maintenance of school buildings. These schools enjoy the benefits of selecting their own suppliers, negotiating better prices and discounts, determining the delivery dates for essential goods and services; and taking control over the utilization of state funds deposited into the schools’ banking accounts (Bisschoff and Thurlow, 2005: 11; Mestry and Bisschoff, 2009: 23; Van Rooyen, 2012: 138). However, SGBs that lack the necessary competence in school governance negatively influence learner performance. The head of education is unlikely to grant additional functions (section 21) to any ineffective or dysfunctional SGB. Schools that do not have section 21 functions rely heavily on district offices of the PEDs to execute most of their compulsory financial functions such as procuring LTSM or attending to urgent school repairs and maintenance. These schools are required to place their LTSM or repair orders with their respective district offices rather than dealing directly with suppliers. This is a time-consuming process, which ultimately leads to recurrent logistical and financial problems for both, PEDs and schools. The media and Ministry of Basic Education have continually reported on how some PEDs (for example, the Limpopo Province) procure inappropriate textbooks and irrelevant learning materials for schools, resulting in long delivery delays, dumping or burning unwanted textbooks, and producing wasteful expenditure for the state and relevant schools (Media 24, 2013). The lack of collaboration between PEDs and schools has serious implications for the provision of quality teaching and learning (Serrao, 2007; Department of Basic Education, 2010). SGBs that have a clear understanding of their functions and wish to remain autonomous are encouraged to apply for section 21 functions in terms of the SASA.

The Task Team’s Report to the Minister of Education (Republic of South Africa, 2003:42) confirmed that many schools were not equipped with the physical infrastructure required for safeguarding assets/resources, nor did they have any registration and tracking devices for the same (Republic of South Africa, 2003: 51). Moreover, many schools did not have necessary systems in place for effectively managing physical or educational resources. The Task Team established that the function of monitoring and controlling assets and physical resources is a critical process that enables SGBs (or finance committees) to take timely corrective action. Through effective control, SGBs are most likely to improve the retrieval rate of resources, minimize shortages and also reapportion unused or under-used resources (Naidu et al., 2008: 165; Mestry and Bisschoff, 2009: 175). To expedite this function, secured premises becomes a necessity (Squelch, 2001: 138). Furthermore, Conradie and Fourie (2011: 181) argue that no amount spent on sophisticated record-keeping systems can replace an effective and efficient physical stocktaking programme that keeps track of assets and educational resources at school, verify the validity and correctness of the numbers and value of stock on hand, and effect the disposal of any unserviceable, redundant or obsolete movable assets.

Several research studies on school governance observed that SGBs of historically disadvantaged public schools experienced serious problems in handling school finances, and managing physical assets and educational resources. Most of the SGBs were found to be unproductive and lacked the necessary financial and managerial expertise to manage their schools’ resources and funds (Mabasa and Themane, 2002: 112; Bush, 2004: 12; Heystek, 2004: 309; Ngidi, 2004: 260; Govender, 2005: 13). Their financial decisions usually translate into unaffordable resource wastage for schools and the government (Department of Education, 2008: 26). The failure of SGBs to execute their functions contributed to the inefficient procurement and unproductive use of resources, resulting in poor learner performance and low educational outcomes (Anderson et al., 2001: 8). This state of affairs is the consequence of one or more of the following:

illiteracy or apathy of parent members of SGBs;

mistrust and conflict between the parent members and the principal or school management teams (SMTs);

inadequate training for SGBs;

high turnover of governors; and

power play among role players.

Furthermore, SGBs in historically disadvantaged schools usually burdened principals by compelling them to take complete custody of school governance to the detriment of the principals’ professional duties (Heystek, 2004: 310; Naidu et al., 2008). It is thus assumed that SMTs are delegated the task of selecting, procuring, monitoring and controlling schools’ assets, and are subsequently held accountable for these functions. Teachers who are at the forefront of curriculum delivery are expected to utilize and maintain educational resources with a view of improving learner performance.

The research question that thus framed this study was:

What are the perceptions and experiences of school management teams and teachers of the management of physical resources in public schools?

Specifically, this study addressed two pertinent questions:

What structures and processes were necessary to manage physical assets and educational resources effectively and efficiently?

How does the state fund schools for the procurement of assets and other educational resources?

We will now examine the different structures and processes that schools use to manage the physical or educational resources.

Structures and Processes for Physical Resource Management

Several research studies have found that the provision and utilization of physical assets and other educational resources has a significant impact on the quality of teaching and learning (Moloi, 2002: 94). Resources are the means by which the processes of education can be operationalized (Foskett and Lumby, 2003: 129). Therefore, managing physical assets and educational resources effectively through school-based and provincial structures, policies and processes are critical for quality education (Coleman et al., 2003: 38; Mestry and Bisschoff, 2009: 3).

Formal structures in schools are of cardinal importance (Van der Westhuizen and Bruyn, 2002: 89), inferring that there must be an understanding of delegation of authority, responsibility and accountability (Campher et al., 2003: 33). Schools need formal structures because it not only depend on teachers’ skills, but also on decisions taken by management about attaining schools’ goals and objectives, the provision and utilization of educational resources, setting up of structural arrangements and, the control and evaluation of organizational activities.

The SASA (Republic of South Africa, 1996a) gives SGBs unprecedented powers to manage the schools’ finances and assets. They have the authority to, among others, develop and implement the finance and procurement policies; prepare budgets; supplement school funds obtained from the state; and control the funds and assets. However, the Education Laws Amendment Act 2007 (Republic of South Africa, 2007) now bestows principals with more powers in school financial and physical resource management. The Education Laws Amendment Act regulates that SGBs should form finance committees (a subcommittee) of which principals are members. One of the functions of the finance committee includes taking decisions on school funding and the procurement and maintenance of assets. At meetings, SGBs are required to ratify finance committee decisions taken for a specific period. Although for practical reasons, the SGB may delegate most of their governance functions to the finance committee, principal or SMT, accountability still resides with the SGB.

For the effective, efficient and economical use of the state’s and schools’ resources, both formal and informal structures, systems, processes and policies are to be operational (Van der Westhuizen and Bruyn, 2002: 89). Naidu et al. (2008: 88) propose the establishment of an asset management committee in addition to the finance committee that will oversee and manage physical assets and educational resources at schools. While it is important to establish such structures and implement defined processes, it is critical to re-evaluate existing structures and processes so that the objectives of the school are achieved at the lowest possible cost (Coleman et al., 1994: 5). Structures of asset management should incorporate ways of pursuing optimum-sustainable performance of physical resources that adopt a whole-life approach to the acquisition, operation, performance, maintenance, control and disposal of such resources (Hastings, 2010: 19). The finance committee, guided mainly by the school development plan and the school’s needs analysis, has the important task of developing the budget and presenting it to the parent community for approval (Bisschoff and Mestry, 2003; Mestry, 2005). The finance committee (or asset management committee) will implement the budget in the following financial year and take charge of the school’s assets and resources. The asset management committee should implement the procurement policy that guides the acquisition, utilization and control of physical resources (Department of Education and Training, 2010). Unquestionably, one of the key management functions of SGBs is that of monitoring and controlling the physical assets and educational resources. Both, the SMT and SGB should ensure that the school’s physical resources are acquired economically, and deployed efficiently to achieve the school’s goals (Naidu et al., 2008: 10; National Treasury, 1999a; Mestry and Bisschoff, 2009: 40). A serious concern facing PEDs and SGBs of public schools is the very low textbook retrieval rates of between 40% and 50% (Republic of South Africa, 2003: 2). Lost or damaged and torn textbooks cost schools and the state an enormous amount of money. There is thus a need for the finance committee (or asset management committee) to develop and implement a textbook retrieval policy that will emphasize the importance of teachers and learners taking good care of the LTSM provided to them and returning them in good condition.

The provision and utilization of appropriate educational resources is a prerequisite for high learner performance and sound educational outcomes. The SASA (Republic of South Africa, 1996a) prescribes that the state must fund schools from public revenue on an equitable basis (section 34) and that the SGB may supplement the state’s funding through fundraising initiatives (section 36) for among others, the acquisition of physical resources. The equitable share formula (ESF) phased in from 1996 is used for allocating revenues from National Treasury to the provinces. Provincial governments are constitutionally entitled to an ‘equitable share’ of national revenue, based on a formula reflecting provincial variables such as the school-age population, public school enrolments, the distribution of capital needs, the size of the rural population and the target population for social security grants weighted by a poverty index (OECD, 2008). Each year, a percentage of the total provincial equitable share is allocated to education based on primary and secondary school enrolments as a percentage of the population between the ages of 5 and 17 in the province. The equitable share reaches provincial governments in the form of an unconditional (block) grant. Because of the principle of cooperative governance, provinces are then entitled to make their own decisions about how to spread their ‘equitable share’ across all provincial social services (education, health, welfare, housing, community development). However, to address equity, the National Norms and Standards for School Funding policy (Republic of South Africa, 1998) regulate resource allocations. The calculation of recurrent costs are in accordance with the resource-targeting table and quintile ranking of each school, which is determined by the school’s enrolment figures and its physical condition (Mestry and Bisschoff, 2009). Using a national quintile system, schools are ranked according to the poverty index of the community (Republic of South Africa, 1998). Poor schools (also referred to as no-fee schools) ranked either as quintile 1, 2 or 3 receive substantial subsidies per learner for educational resources from the PED, whereas affluent schools ranked quintile 4 or 5 receive much less. The resource allocation provided by the state is ring-fenced and each PED prescribes how schools should spend their resource allocation. For example, in the Gauteng Province 50% of the allocated funds is ring-fenced and has to be used solely for the procurement of LTSM: 40% for textbooks; 35% for learner stationery; 10% for library resources; 6% for laboratory equipment and specialized rooms; 5% for office stationery; and 4% for library stationery (Gauteng Department of Education [GDE], 2012: 27; also Republic of South Africa, 1996a). It is imperative that such prescriptions be carefully scrutinized by the finance committee or SGB. They are required to take appropriate steps to prevent unauthorized, irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure and losses (National Treasury, 1999b: 7; Moeti, 2007: 51). Where the state’s funding is insufficient, schools can raise funds through diverse fundraising initiatives. Quintile 4 and 5 schools have the option of charging school fees only if a resolution is passed by the majority of parents present at the general parent meetings.

Thus, based on the state’s allocated funds, procurement planning becomes essential for the effective and timely solicitation of bids or proposals, awarding contracts, and delivery of the goods or services required or budgeted for (Ribeiro, 2009: 19). The traditional procurement cycle comprises of requisitioning, financial approval, market assessment, purchase decision, ordering, delivery, receipting and accounting for goods or services received, payment and accounting entry (Altekar, 2005: 175). The objectives of the procurement process is to achieve value for money; establish a full audit process that highlights how and where decisions have been made; achieve a solution that is affordable; lead to the selection of suppliers or service providers; and obtain good quality goods and services (Lamb and Merna, 2004: 16). Good procurement practices can increase a school’s financial position by taking advantage of quantity discounts, minimizing cash flow problems, and seeking out quality suppliers and also ensures correct levels of stock all the time by acquiring the right quality of goods, at the right time, in the right quantity from the right source, at the right price (Kerzner, 2009: 840; Singh, 2010: 278).

Theoretical Framework

Giddens’ structuration theory was used as a theoretical framework to underpin this study. Giddens conceptualize structure as rules and resources used by actors (SGBs, SMTs and teachers) in interaction. These rules of structure reveal a number of important procedures: they are tacitly known; widely sanctioned; and frequently invoked and used in conversations, interactions and daily routines. Structure involves the use of resources that are the material equipment and organizational capacities of actors to get things done. Those who have resources can mobilize power, although power in itself is not a resource but the result of possessing material and organizational facilities. Rules and resources are ‘transformational’ and that they can be created, changed, and recombined into different forms (Turner, 1986: 972). In the context of this study, this theory holds that effective management of physical resources influences education either directly or indirectly, and that structures, processes and policies are required to plan and organize human resources, thus becoming available timely in the teaching and learning process (Giddens, 1986: 2).The theory does not suggest that institutional structures are easy to change, rather that its main contribution is to shed light upon the process of institutional formation (Somekh, 2007: 115). It becomes mandatory for SGBs to collaborate and interact with SMTs and teachers to develop appropriate structures and processes, and apply relevant state legislation and policies to effectively manage physical assets and educational resources. According to Everard and Morris (1996) (in Naidu et al., 2008:75), organizations such as schools consist of the following four interdependent elements:

Structure: an organization’s hierarchical chart, committees, departments, and procedures. The SGB, finance committee and SMT are core school structures for managing resources.

People: The SGB, SMT, teachers, learners, parents, and non-teaching staff are all role players directly involved in either selecting, financing and utilizing the resources.

Technology: This refers to the plant and the processes that go with it. In the case of a school, the latter refers to the process of education while the former refers to classrooms, workshops, storerooms, and management information systems.

Culture: This covers such intangibles as an organization’s tone and value system, the standard by which merit is judged, human social activities that continuously recreate social structures, and relationships (Giddens, 1986: 15).

Giddens’ structuration theory embraces all four of the elements. It is imperative that SGBs and SMTs strive towards achieving schools’ goals through proper development and implementation of policies, procedures and control mechanisms. One of the most important aspects of school structures for managing physical resources are rules and resources recursively employed (Giddens, 1986: 24).

Research Enquiry

The general aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions and experiences of teachers and SMTs of the management of physical resources in public schools. To achieve this aim, teachers and SMTs of selected public schools completed a structured questionnaire. The constructed questionnaire was based on key factors that were prioritized during the literature review, as having an influence on the process of managing physical resources at public schools. To ensure content validity, items judiciously chosen to ensure that they complied with the subject domain were included in the questionnaire (Cohen et al., 2007:146). In an attempt to improve the content validity, several experts in the Faculty of Education, as well as at the Department of Statistical Services of the University of Johannesburg edited the questionnaire. In addition, a pilot study was conducted with three teachers and two SMT members (heads of departments), selected from schools that did not form part of this study. These respondents were requested to complete the questionnaire and to provide feedback such as importance of items, clarity of instructions, ambiguity, time taken to complete the questionnaire, and whether a workable, sensitive and reliable scoring procedure had been developed (Moloi et al., 2002: 90; Creswell, 2003: 30). Feedback received from respondents such as concept clarification and ambiguity in items helped refine the questionnaire.

The researchers selected the Gauteng East District² as they conducted most of their work in the east of Johannesburg and for expediency. It is also through anecdotal evidence that they ascertained that many schools in this district found difficulty in managing school finances and physical resources.

A structured questionnaire comprising of 41 items were designed to garner information on physical resource management in public schools located in the Gauteng East District. The format of the questionnaire consisted of three sections: section A comprised of nine questions relating to the biographical information of respondents, as well as relevant information concerning their respective schools. The 30 closed-ended items in section B required teachers and SMTs (comprising of heads of departments, deputy principals and principals) to indicate on a Likert scale, the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements dealing with the management of physical resources in their schools. The original Likert scale was a six-point scale where 6 represented ‘strongly agreed’ and 1 ‘strongly disagreed’. In section C, 11 closed items required teachers and SMTs to indicate the frequency with which aspects concerning physical resources were carried out. This scale ranged from ‘never’ to ‘always’.

The researchers disseminated by hand 750 questionnaires to 30 public schools randomly drawn out of a population of 165 schools. At least four schools (two primary and two secondary schools) were selected from suburbs and townships of Brakpan, Bakerton, Springs, Kwa-Thema, Daveyton, Etwa-twa and Nigel. In each school, the principal, deputy principal and a minimum of three heads of departments and 20 teachers had to complete the questionnaires. The researchers personally collected the completed questionnaires from the selected schools.

Of the 750 questionnaires distributed, 497 were returned usable. This represented a satisfactory return rate of 66.3%.

Stringent ethical requirements of the Ethics Committee of the university were observed. The GDE, principals and all other participants granted the researchers permission to conduct research. There were no foreseeable risks associated with the research, and respondents were treated with the utmost respect in terms of their autonomy, basic rights, dignity, confidentiality and the assurance of their anonymity throughout the process.

Data Analysis and Discussion

In section A of the structured questionnaire the following biographical details relating to the sample were extracted.

Type of schools: There were 13 primary schools, 15 secondary schools and 2 Learners with Special Educational Needs (LSEN) schools that were represented.

Location of schools: an equal representation of township and suburban schools is noted.

Post description: 159 (32%) SMT members (principals, deputy principals, and heads of departments) and 338 (68%) teachers constituted the research sample.

Gender: a selection of 163 (33%) males and 334 (67%) females was made.

The items framed in section B were designed to garner information about the perceptions and experiences of teachers and SMTs’ on physical resource management. The construct validity was investigated by means of factor analysis. Factor analysis is a statistical approach used to analyse interrelationships among a large number of variables and to explain these variables in terms of their common underlying factors (Borg et al., 1993: 269). The objective was to find a way of condensing the information contained in a number of original variables into a smaller set of variates (factors) with a minimum loss of information (Hair and Anderson, 2010: 16). By providing an empirical estimate of the structure of the variables considered, factor analysis becomes an objective basis for creating summated scales (Hair and Anderson, 2010: 16).

The construct validity of the instrument was investigated by means of successive first and second order factor analytic procedures performed on the 30 items using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 18 programme (Norusis, 2009: 389–426) to identify factors that may facilitate the processing of the data. None of the items had a measure of sampling adequacies < 0.60. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value was 0.94 with Bartlett sphericity value p < 0.05. Hence, all items were suitable for factor analysis (Field, 2009: 660). The outcome of these procedures led to the 30 items being reduced to the three factors show in Table 1.

Table 1.

Factors constituting the management of physical resources.

Number	Factor name	Number of items	Cronbach’s alpha reliability co-efficient
1	The effective management of physical resources	16	0.924
2	The effective procurement of physical resources	11	0.889
3	The provision of physical resources by the GDE	3	0.660

All three factors had a high Cronbach-alpha reliability coefficient above 0.5. Cronbach-alpha reliability is commonly used as an estimate of the reliability of a psychometric test for the selected sample. For the purpose of further analysis, the sum of the mean scores was computed to arrive at factor mean scores. These factor mean scores were then compared with one another in relation to the various independent variables, in order to determine whether the groups differed from one another in a statistically significant way.

The first factor, ‘The effective management of physical resources’ (Table 2) had a mean factor score of 3.14, which indicates that the respondents partially agreed that SGBs and to some extent SMTs, as one of their important functions, were to effectively manage the physical resources in their schools. Using Gidden’s structuration theory, the role of SGBs in setting up key structures, forming clear and practical processes and developing well-designed policies to manage physical resources forms the nucleus of this study. The budgetary process, procurement, storage, utilization, monitoring and control of resources at school-level, through school-based, provincial and national authorized structures, policies and processes, are critical for effective school management (Bisschoff and Mestry, 2009: 3). SGBs and SMTs of most middle of the range and affluent schools ensure the effective management of physical resources. Thus, these schools make certain that sporting facilities are always ready for use and that specialist learning centres are adequately resourced. Respondents mainly from historically disadvantaged schools were of the opinion that their schools did not have a well-formulated asset management policy and that SGBs did not make use of subcommittees such as a finance committee or asset management committee. In addition, these schools used manual systems to capture information relating to the management of finances and physical resource. As mentioned previously, the retrieval rate of textbooks in these schools were very low and that broken or unusable physical resources were not disposed of according to a formalized process.

Table 2.

Effective management of physical resources by the governing body (FB1.1).

Item	Description	Mean
B15	The sporting facilities at our school are always ready for use	2.82
B22	Our SGB parent members play a vital role in managing our physical resources	2.73
B29	Our specialist learning centres are adequately resourced	2.63
B24	The SGB makes every attempt to link the budget to Whole School Development	3.21
B23	At our school, adequate physical resources are available for teaching	2.94
B6	There are adequate textbooks for all learners at our school	2.92
B30	We have systems which evaluate the long-term effects of spending against the achievement of our planned objectives	3.02
B2	Parent members of our SGB participate actively on the LTSM committee	2.91
B16	Safety Equipment such as fire-hydrants and hoses are serviced annually at our school	3.31
B28	The SGB chooses service providers for jobs to be rendered at our school	3.14
B26	In our school, the SGB is held accountable for over-spending on items in the budget	3.23
B1	At my school, the School Governing Body (SGB) consults with all stakeholders when preparing the school’s budget for the next year	3.42
B25	The funds of our school are managed closely in accordance with our finance policy	3.52
B14	Our school buildings are always well maintained	3.32
B17	Office Equipment is always maintained on a regular basis	3.53
B18	Our gardens and grounds are always well kept	3.61
Average		3.14

The second factor, labelled ‘Effective procurement process of physical resources’ (Table 3) had a factor mean score of 3.73, which indicates that the respondents tend towards agreement with the items in this factor. The SGBs should ensure that they have a well-designed school financial policy and also effective processes in place for the acquisition and effective utilization of appropriate resources. However, there are not many public schools that possess an asset management policy nor do they have any formalized the procurement and utilization process of resources. One of the possible reasons for schools falling into this category was due to the SGBs not requesting for additional functions in terms of section 21 of the SASA. The section 21 functions would entitle schools to manage the state’s resource allocation themselves, instead of allowing the district offices to manage their financial functions. Giddens theory emphasizes the importance of institutions having rules (policies) and processes when managing physical or educational resources.

Table 3.

Effective procurement process of physical resources (FB1.2).

Item	Description	Mean
B12	Schools that are better resourced attract more learners	4.13
B19	The GDE’s allocation of funds for LTSM is spent according to the GDE’s prescribed policy	3.76
B13	The effectiveness of our school depends on how our physical resources are utilized	3.80
B3	Our LTSM committee ensures that resources are fairly distributed to educators	3.67
B11	Approving payments is a joint decision between the principal and SGB of our school	3.85
B8	Our school uses a procurement policy which guides the acquisition of all physical resources	3.49
B5	There are proper systems in place when distributing textbooks to our learners	3.87
B10	Cheque authorization from the SGB chairperson is needed before cheques are issued	3.75
B27	The GDE should be responsible for training school principals to manage physical resources	3.66
B7	Textbook retrieval from our learners is very good (above 90% of textbooks returned)	3.39
B4	Textbooks are purchased according to the recommendations of the LTSM committee	3.53
Average		3.73

The third factor described as ‘The provision of physical resources by the GDE’ (Table 4) had a factor mean score of 2.90 signifies that the respondents tend to disagree with the items of this factor. The state, according to the Schools Act (Republic of South Africa, 1996) has an obligation of providing funding and physical resources to public schools. The respondents from both affluent and poor schools were however, dissatisfied with how the GDE funded public schools, and the process of providing physical resources from the GDE. Although the Norms and Standards for School Funding policy (Republic of South Africa, 1998) makes provision for funding to be allocated according to quintiles, most of the respondents were of the opinion that the state should allocate more funds to schools. Furthermore, the state should not prescribe how their resource allocation should be spent, and that SGBs should be authorized to spend the funds that they deem fit for educational purposes and in the best interest of learners. The schools should have discretionary powers to purchase educational resources based on their needs, and which will contribute to effective teaching and learning. It also appears that the building of storerooms, installing high-level security devices and the cost of insurance are not covered by GDE’s budget for schools.

Table 4.

Provision of physical resources by the GDE (FB1.3).

Item	Description	Mean
B20	The GDE’s allocation of funds for services (water and lights) is sufficient	2.56
B21	The GDE provides our school with the necessary physical resources for teaching	2.69
B9	Our school provides stationery to all our learners	3.45
Average		2.90

Having completed a representation of the factors above, we can now move forward to testing the hypotheses. Owing to length restrictions, the hypothesis for only one example of two independent groups and one example of three or more independent groups will be discussed.

Testing for Differences between Two Independent Groups

When two independent groups such as ‘type of school’ are involved, the statistically significant difference between factor mean scores were determined using Levene’s test. This is a modified version of the t-test, which is usually undertaken. The hypotheses for testing this difference would be as follows.

Ho: There is statistically no significant difference between the factor mean scores of primary school and secondary school respondents with respect to the three first-order factors.

Ha: There is a statistically significant difference between the factor mean scores of primary school and secondary school respondents with respect to the three first-order factors.

A significant difference was found in the three first-order factors and hence the null hypotheses could not be rejected for any of the three factors. This is reflected in Table 5.

Table 5.

Significance of differences between primary and secondary school respondents regarding the three first-order factors.

Factor	Group	Mean score	p-value	Effect size
The effective management of physical resources (FB1.1)	Primary	3.33	0.0000	0.21
The effective management of physical resources (FB1.1)	Secondary	2.97	**
The effective procurement of physical resources by the SGB (FB1.2)	Primary	4.05	0.0000	0.38
	Secondary	3.47	**
The provision of physical resources by the Gauteng Dept. of Education (FB1.3)	Primary	3.29	0.0000	0.34
	Secondary	2.52	**

Note: **Statistically significant at 1% level (p < 0.0005).

Differences with Respect to Type of School (A7)

The respondents from primary schools partially agreed that SGBs effectively managed the physical resources of schools, while secondary schools’ respondents partially disagreed that SGBs effectively managed the physical resources in their schools. Secondary schools probably need more physical resources and consequently greater efforts at effectively managing them than do primary schools, and hence secondary school respondents tend to disagree more strongly that the governing body effectively manages the physical resources. In most secondary schools, the heads of departments take full responsibility for managing the LTSM and other physical resources whereas the SGBs merely approve the budget for the procurement of these resources. Both primary and secondary school respondents agree that there is effective procurement of physical resources by the governing body, but secondary school respondents agreed to a smaller extent that it is effectively accomplished. The practical significance of this finding probably lies in the greater complexity of the management of procurement of physical resources at secondary schools. Secondary schools are more specialized in terms of subject choices and hence, resourcing is more complex. With respect to the provision of physical resources by the GDE, primary schools partially agreed and secondary school respondents partially disagreed. This effect is important and possibly points to the communication structures between GDE and the schools regarding the provision of resources.

Testing for Differences between Three or More Independent Groups

When three or more independent groups is investigated for possible statistically significant differences in their factor mean scores, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used at the univariate level. If there should be any statistically, significant difference found at this level then a pair-wise comparison between the various pairs can be investigated using Dunnett T3 tests. Only mother tongue groups where statistically significant differences were found are discussed.

Mother Tongue Groups

Since its democracy in 1994, South Africa has 12 official home languages, which include English and Afrikaans. In this study, we grouped the 10 black languages into two due to the small responses from some of the other language groups. The two groups are the Nguni group which includes Xhosa, Zulu, Swazi, Hlubi, Phuthi, and Southern and Northern Ndebele, and the Sotho group which comprises of Southern Sotho, Northern Sotho, and Tswana. Tests were thus conducted on the English, Afrikaans, Nguni and Sotho groups.

If the ANOVA test indicates significance between the factor mean scores of the four mother tongue groups then a pair-wise test (A vs B, A vs C, A vs D, B vs C, B vs D and C vs D) is conducted to ascertain which mother-tongue groups differ from one another. The data for mother tongue groups are given in Table 6.

Table 6.

Significance of differences between the four mother-tongue groups in respect of the three first-order factors.

Factor	Group	Mean score	ANOVA (p-value)	Dunnett T3
Factor	Group	Mean score	ANOVA (p-value)	A	B	C	D	Effect size
The effective management of physical resources (FB1.1)	A	2.82	0.000 **		–	**	**	0.32
	B	2.93		–		**	**
	C	3.39		**	**		–
	D	3.43		**	**	–
The effective procurement of physical resources by the SGB (FB1.1.2)	A	3.48	0.000 **		–	**	**	0.23
	B	3.70		–		–	–
	C	3.86		**	–		–
	D	3.92		**	–	–
Adequate provision of physical resources by Gauteng Dept. of Education (FB1.3)	A	3.06	0.000 **		*	**	**	0.40
	B	3.47		*		**	**
	C	2.40		**	**		–
	D	2.88		**	**	–

Notes: A (Nguni) = 147 B (Sotho) = 113 C (English) = 75 D (Afrikaans) = 127. **Statistically significant at 1% level (p < 0.0005) Effective size – 0.1 = small 0.3 = medium 0.5 = large.

The data in Table 6 indicate a gradual increase in factor mean scores of the two factors (FB1.1 and FB1.2) as one goes from Nguni, to Sotho, to English and to Afrikaans mother-tongue speakers. In the third factor, ‘The provision of physical resources’ (FB1.3), English and Afrikaans mother-tongue speakers achieved the lowest factor mean scores. The most likely reason for this disparity is that the English and Afrikaans mother-tongue speakers belong mostly to the former Model C schools³, which were government schools created by the apartheid government specifically for the white population, and they presently receive a much smaller grant (subsidy) from the government, as well as proportionately fewer physical resources. These schools have to charge higher school fees in order to provide many of the physical resources and hence, it is logical that they partially disagree with the factor ‘Adequate provision of physical resources from the GDE’. The English mother-tongue speakers also have many previously disadvantaged learners coming from township schools but they do not receive substantial financial grants because the quintile groupings do not make allowance for this. English and Afrikaans mother-tongue speakers also agree to a greater extent that their governing bodies are effectively managing (FB1.1) and procuring (FB1.2) physical resources than do Nguni and Sotho mother-tongue groups. With respect to the effect size, the largest effect size recorded is that of ‘The provision of physical resources by the GDE’, indicating a more pragmatic approach that that funding should follow the learner and not funding schools according to their quintile grouping. Although English and Afrikaans mother-tongue groups mostly work in previously advantaged schools, they also carry the greatest burden regarding the payment of income tax, which the government uses to finance schools, and may perceive the additional school fees as an unfair burden on them.

We now analyse responses to the questions contained in Section C of the structured questionnaire.

In Section C (Table 7) respondents were required to state their opinion on how often aspects concerning physical resources were carried out at your school on a five-point scale where: 1 = never; 2 = seldom; 3 = sometimes; 4 = often; 5 = always.

Table 7.

Section C of the questionnaire.

Item	Description	Never	Seldom	Sometimes	Often	Always
1.	Our photocopier is serviced on time	1	2	3	4	5	Not Sure
2.	Our asset register is updated whenever new assets are purchased	1	2	3	4	5	Not Sure
3.	After each transaction, the Consumable stock register is updated	1	2	3	4	5	Not Sure
4.	Our SGB receives income and expenditure reports at SGB meetings	1	2	3	4	5	Not Sure
5.	Audit control measures are applied at our school to avoid fraud and misuse of funds	1	2	3	4	5	Not Sure
6.	We try to get good value for our money whenever we purchase physical resources	1	2	3	4	5	Not Sure
7.	At our school, purchases of physical resources above R 2000 require a written requisition	1	2	3	4	5	Not Sure
8.	Our school requires three quotations for a purchase of physical resources above R 2000	1	2	3	4	5	Not Sure
9.	Our School Development Plan (SDP) places our expenditure for physical resources in priority order	1	2	3	4	5	Not Sure
10.	Purchases of physical resources is guided by our SDP	1	2	3	4	5	Not Sure
11.	We do an analysis of strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats (SWOT) for our physical resource management	1	2	3	4	5	Not Sure

The 11 questions were subjected to a factor analytic procedure. The KMO value was 0.945 and Bartlett’s sphericity was p = 0.000. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy (MSA) is an index that compares the sizes the observed correlation coefficients to the partial correlation coefficients. A ratio of close to 1 means that all the partial correlation coefficients are small compared to the ordinary correlation coefficients (Field, 2005; Norusis, 2009: 394). A value close to 1 indicates that the variables are linearly related. A rule of thumb is that KMO values should be at least 0.7 or above and the MSA above 0.6 for factor analysis to proceed. None of the items had MSA values < 0.60 and hence, a factor analysis resulted in a meaningful factor, which had a Cronbach-alpha coefficient reliability of 0.96. This factor named, ‘Effective financial management of physical resources at schools’ had a mean score of 3.96 on a five-point scale, and this indicated that the respondents had the perception that most of the public schools often ensured an effective financial management of physical resources. The items, their factor loadings⁴ and mean scores are indicated in Table 8.

Table 8.

Items contained in the factor effective financial management of physical resources at schools.

Item	Description: At our school:	Factor loading	Mean score
C9	the School Development Plan (SDP) places our expenditure for physical resources in priority order	.895	3.96
C7	purchases of physical resources above R 2000 require a written requisition	.871	4.17
C10	purchases of physical resources is guided by our SDP	.865	3.89
C6	we try to get good value for our money whenever we purchase physical resources	.858	4.08
C5	audit control measures are applied at our school to avoid fraud and misuse of funds	.856	4.05
C11	we do an analysis of strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats (SWOT) for our physical resource management	.843	3.85
C2	our asset register is updated whenever new assets are purchased	.807	3.88
C4	our SGB receives income and expenditure reports at SGB meetings	.805	3.98
C8	our school requires three quotations for a purchase of physical resources above R 2000	.794	4.02
C3	after each transaction, the Consumable stock register is updated	.772	3.86
C1	our photocopier is serviced on time	.590	3.84
Average			3.96

The mean score was obtained on removing the ‘not sure’ response and, 3.96 on a five-point scale stretching from ‘never’ at the one pole to ‘always’ on the other pole, indicates that the respondents have the perception that there is often effective financial management of physical resources at their schools. However, this is likely to give rise to a negatively skewed distribution of scores as indicated in Figure 1. The Mann–Whitney U test, a non-parametric procedure was thus utilized when the various independent groups with respect to FC1 were analysed. The Mann-Whitney U test, which is the equivalent of the t-test was performed to establish the statistically significant differences between two independent groups.

Figure 1.

A histogram of the Effective financial management of physical resources at schools.

Owing to length restrictions, the hypothesis for only one example of two independent groups, namely, ‘types of schools’, will be discussed.

Differences between Types of School Groups

The hypotheses ‘types of schools’ are stated as follows,

HoF1.MW: There is statistically no significant differences between the sums of the ranked scores of the ‘types of schools’ group with respect to the effective financial management of physical resources (FC1).

HaF1.MW: There is statistically significant difference between the sums of the ranked scores of the ‘type of schools’ group with respect to the effective financial management of physical resources (FC1).

Statistically significant differences were found between the mean ranks of the two groups regarding the effectiveness of the financial management of physical resources (U = 14842.0; z = –5.72; p = 0.000; r = 0.26).

Using a Mann-Whitney U analysis, it was found that primary school respondents scored higher on items measuring perception of ‘Effective financial management of physical resources’ in their schools (mean rank = 3.33) compared to secondary school respondents (mean rank = 2.97); Mann–Whitney U = 14842.0 (Z = -5.72) p < 0.001. The primary school respondents thus perceived that their schools’ financial management of physical resources occurs more while respondents from secondary schools were not confident that their schools’ financial management of physical resources was sound. This could be down to the primary schools spending patterns and needs for physical resources being less demanding than those in secondary schools. Consequently, more processes and procedures are implemented at secondary schools, and hence the perception of teachers in the secondary schools is that they disagree more strongly that effective financial management of physical resources occurs. The practical significance of this finding probably lies in the greater complexity of the financial management of physical resources at secondary schools. Secondary schools are more specialized in terms of subject choices and hence, the resourcing is more complex.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study investigated the perceptions and experiences of SMTs and teachers on physical resource management in public schools. Owing to limited funding and the lack of physical resources in many township and rural schools, the effective management of resources has become high priority for schools. The results of this study allow us to better understand the process of budgeting, acquiring, storing and utilizing, maintaining, controlling and monitoring physical and other educational resources in a South African context, considering the past disparities and current redress strategies. The management of physical resources in all South African schools plays a significant role in furthering the progression of effective teaching and learning. In pursuance of quality education, the asset management policy should become mandatory for all public schools. This policy will give schools, and more particularly the governing body, a detailed strategy of how to deal with the management of physical and other educational resources, and facilitate decision making of physical resource management on an ongoing basis. Coupled with the asset management policy, a fully functional asset management committee must be established at all schools. The committee should comprise of a governing body member as chairperson; a senior SMT member; the finance officer (bookkeeper); a senior general assistant as a hands-on staff member; and a technical person from the school or community with knowledge about buildings and equipment for guidance on technical matters. The best people (people who at least have some governance and management experience, and knowledge of legislation pertaining to school matters) should be encouraged to take on leadership roles in school governance. To many elected governors, school governance is not only new to them but also complex and multi-faceted. It is imperative for the PEDs to empower governors through regular training and development programmes. Training in basic accounting, fundraising, budgeting, business plans, resource management and meeting procedures may go a long way to enhance the work of school governors.

With retrieval rates in many schools as low as 50%, the annual cost to the education system is unacceptably high and therefore, a ‘textbook deposit scheme’ in which books are ‘rented’ to learners at an affordable fee is proposed. In this way, the schools could ensure a better retrieval rate of textbooks, ensuring more learners benefitting from the possession of all textbooks. The funds derived from this deposit scheme could be used to replace lost books and purchase additional textbooks. In the event of learners losing textbooks, the deposit is forfeited and used to replenish the lost books.

The PEDs should subsidize all poor schools including farm schools to install computerized asset management software to maintain an effective database of all physical assets under their care.

There is also an acute need for the PEDs to build storerooms, including similar building structures together with improved security such as alarms, burglar guards and even CCTV in order to preserve the assets at schools. The PEDs should factor into their budgets, the building of storerooms, installing high level security devices and costs to also cover insurance and burglaries. Disposal or alienation of physical resources should be a formalized process at all schools. Every school should constitute a ‘board of survey’, whose purpose would be to inspect and assess the material condition of all physical resources.

Footnotes

Notes

References

Altekar

(2005) Supply Chain Management: Concepts and Cases. New Delhi: PHI Learning.

Anderson

Briggs

Burton

(2001) Managing Finance, Resources and Stakeholders in Education. London: Paul Chapman.

Beckmann

(2006) The state's liability for damage or loss in connection with educational activity in public schools. Perspectives in Education 24(2): 181–184.

Bisschoff

Mestry

(2003) Financial School Management Explained: 2nd Ed. Cape Town: Maskew Miller Longman.

Bisschoff

Thurlow

(2005) Resources for schooling. In: Anderson

Lumby

(eds) Managing Finance and External Relations in South African Schools. Wakefield: Commonwealth Secretariat, pp. 3–22.

Borg

Gall

(1993) Applying Educational Research: a Practical Guide, 3rd edn. New York: Longman.

Bush

(2004) Enhancing school leadership: management development and governor training in Gauteng. Paper presented at the Matthew Goniwe School of Leadership and Governance conference, Johannesburg, August.

Campher

Preez

Grobler

Loock

Shaba

(2003) Managing School Finances (Module 5: Effective Education Management Series). Sandown: Heinemann.

Choonara

(2005) Effective school budgeting for the optimum utilization of physical resources. Unpublished MEd dissertation, University of Johannesburg.

10.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2007) Research Methods in Education. Abingdon: Routledge.

11.

Coleman

Bush

Glover

(1994) Managing Finance and External Relations. Harlow: Longman.

12.

Coleman

Thurlow

Bush

(2003) Leadership and Strategic Management in South African Schools. Johannesburg: Commonwealth Secretariat.

13.

Conradie

Fourie

(2011) Basic Financial Management, 2nd edn. Claremont: Juta.

14.

Creswell

(2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

15.

Department of Education (2008) Lead and Manage Organizational Systems, Physical and Financial Resources. Pretoria: Government Printers.

16.

Department of Basic Education (2010) Report to the Ministerial Committee for LTSM Report. Pretoria: Government Printers.

17.

Department of Education and Training (2010) Procurement Policy. New South Wales: Department of Education and Training. https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/administrative/admin_procedures/procurepol/PD20050294.shtml (accessed on 16 April 2012).

18.

Field

(2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS: Book Plus Code for E Version of Text, 3rd edn. London: SAGE.

19.

Foskett

Lumby

(2003) Leading and Managing Education. London: Paul Chapman.

20.

Gauteng Department of Education (2012) The Learning and Teaching Support Materials (LTSM) Handbook. Johannesburg: Government Printers.

21.

Giddens

(1986) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. California: University of California Press.

22.

Govender

(2005) Headmaster accused of squandering fees. Sunday Times 3 July: 13.

23.

Hair

Anderson

(2010) Multivariate Data Analysis. Cornell University Press.

24.

Hastings

(2010) Physical Asset Management. Brisbane: Springer.

25.

Heystek

(2004) School governing bodies – the principal's burden or the light of his/her life. South African Journal of Education 24 (4): 308–312.

26.

Kerzner

(2009) Project Management: A Systems Approach to Planning, Scheduling, and Controlling. Upper Saddle River, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

27.

Lamb

Merna

(2004) A Guide to the Procurement of Privately Financed Projects: an Indicative Assessment of the Procurement Process. London: Telford Publishing.

28.

Levacic

Ross

Caldwell

Odden

(2000) Funding schools by formula: compatign practice in five countries. Journal of Education Finance 25 (4): 489.

29.

Mabasa

Themane

(2002) Stakeholder participation in school governance in South Africa. Perspectives in Education 20 (3): 111–116.

30.

Media 24. (2013) Some schools still without textbooks. 13 April 2013. http://m.news24.com/news24/SouthAfrica/News/Some-schools-still-without-textbooks-20130403 (accessed 20 December 2013).

31.

Mestry

(2005) Budgeting. In: Anderson

Lumby

(eds) Managing Finance and External Relations in South African Schools. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

32.

Mestry

Bisschoff

(2009) Financial School Management Explained, 3rd edn. Cape Town: Pearson Education South Africa.

33.

Moeti

(2007) Public Finance Fundamentals. Cape Town: Juta.

34.

Moloi

(2002) The School as a Learning Organization: Reconceptualizing School Practices in South Africa . Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

35.

Moloi

Grobler

Gravett

(2002) Educators’ perceptions of the school as a learning organization in the Vanderbijlpark–North District, South Africa. South African Journal of Education 22 (2): 88–94.

36.

Naidu

Joubert

Mestry

Mosoge

Ngcobo

(2008) Education Management and Leadership: A South African perspective. Cape Town: Oxford Univesity Press.

37.

National Treasury (1999a) Local Government Capital Asset Management Guideline. Pretoria: National Treasury.

38.

National Treasury (1999b) Public Financial Management Act No 1 of 1999. South Africa: South African Government.

39.

Ngcongo

RGP

Chetty

(2000) Issues in School Management and Governance in Critical issues in South African education – after 1994. Johannesburg: Juta.

40.

Ngidi

(2004) Educators’ perceptions of the efficiency of school governing bodies. South African Journal of Education 24(4): 260–263.

41.

Norusis

(2009) SPSS 16.0 Guide to Data Analysis, 2nd edn). University of Michigan: Prentice Hall.

42.

OECD (2008) Reviews of National Policies for Education: South Africa. Paris: OECD.

43.

Republic of South Africa (1996a) South African Schools Act: No 84 of 1996. Pretoria: Government Printers.

44.

Republic of South Africa (1996b) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Pretoria: Government Printers

45.

Republic of South Africa (1998) National Norms and Standards for School Funding. Pretoria: Government Printers.

46.

Republic of South Africa (2003) Report to the Minister: Review of the Financing, Resourcing and Costs of Education in Public Schools. Pretoria: Government Printer.

47.

Republic of South Africa (2007) Education Laws Amendment Act, No 31. Pretoria: Government Printers.

48.

Ribeiro

(2009) Procurement of Goods, Works and Services in Development Projects. Toronto: Presses Internationales Polytechnique.

49.

Serrao

(2007) R13 for each pencil. South Africa: The Star, 16 November.

50.

Singh

(2010) Handbook of Business Practices and Growth in Emerging Markets. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

51.

Somekh

(2007. Pedagogy and Learning with ICT: Researching the Art of Innovation. Abingdon: Routledge.

52.

Squelch

(2001) Do school governing bodies have a duty to create safe schools? An education law perspective. Perspectives in Education 19 (4): 137–149.

53.

Steyn

(2003) Cardinal shifts in School management in South Africa. Education 124 (2): 329–339.

54.

Turner

(1986) The theory of structuration. American Journal of Sociology 91 (4): 969–977.

55.

Van Rooyen

(2012) Financial Management in Education in South Africa. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.

56.

Van der Westhuizen

Bruyn

(2002) Schools as Organizations. Pretoria: Van Schaik.