THE SGB AND DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN

INTRODUCTION

Research is a process of steps used to collect and analyse information to increase our understanding of a topic or issue (Creswell, 2008). Creswell (2008) divides research into three fundamental steps: 1) pose a question, 2) collect data to answer the question, and 3) present the answer to the question. My questions relate to the experiences of educator ELs of their role in learner disciplinary hearings. Disciplinary Hearings (DHs) create a platform for the SGB to succeed in its role to establish democratic principles when disciplining learners. The person who plays a central part in the disciplinary process and DHs is the evidence leader (EL).
I conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposively sampled group of twelve participants in an attempt to answer my research question (Huberman & Miles, 2002). This allowed me to formulate an answer through the views of those acting in this role as EL. With this research I aimed to clarify managing due process in learner discipline and the role an EL plays in this process.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND SUB-QUESTIONS

The following research question and sub-questions were used during the semi-structured interviews to generate the transcribed data.

Primary research question

What are the experiences of educator evidence leaders of their role in learner disciplinary hearings?

Secondary research questions

1. What is the role of the EL during disciplinary hearings?
2. What support systems are there for the EL to manage the process?
3. What influence does the DH have in changing learner behaviour?
4. What influence does the DH have on the management of learner discipline?
5. What stakeholders are involved in the process of managing learner discipline?
6. How do ELs ensure a fair disciplinary process and DHs?
7. What are the challenges the EL face?

 RESEARCH AIMS

The main aim of this research is to investigate the experiences and the opinions of educator evidence leaders (ELs) of their role in learner DHs (Leedy & Ormrod, 2001). Firstly I aimed to discover what influence the DH has on the management of learner discipline and what role the EL has during the DH. According to Beckmann and Prinsloo (2013) as well as Joubert (2008) the DH can be regarded as a quasi-judicial hearing, or in terms of Hopkins’s opinion (2006), the DH is a tribunal to mediate when resolving the transgression made by the learner.
The second aim was to discover the support systems the EL has to manage this process, for example policy documents. I aimed to understand the knowledge and experience the participants had in terms of law, for example, the Bill of Rights (Republic of South Africa, 1996b), the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000 (PAJA) (Republic of South Africa, 2000) or Sections 8, 9 and 10 of SASA (Republic of South Africa, 1996a). ELs have a need for training in law relating to managing learner discipline.
My third aim was to discover what influence the DH has on changing learner behaviour. Since 1995 leaners in South Africa are no longer punished with the rod to change poor behaviour (S v Williams, 1995), and such punishment is a violation of Section 10 of SASA (Republic of South Africa, 1996a). I aimed to discover if the DH is reaching its goal to change leaner behaviour in an educational and democratic manner (Möller, 2000).
Fourthly it was the aim to discover which stakeholders have an important role in the process of managing learner discipline. The first and foremost was the EL and then the SGB’s role in policy making in terms of adopting a CoC (Republic of South Africa, 1998a). The SGB has a role to play in the DH as DC as an impartial body to make fair decisions regarding transgression disputes (Valente, 1994). Other stakeholders that play an active role in disciplining the learner include the principal and parents. I also wanted to determine how these stakeholders support the EL to manage a due process.
As a fifth aim I tried to ascertain the influence of the EL’s role on managing a fair disciplinary process and DH. This implies that fair procedures are to be followed when a learner has transgressed a school rule, as set out in the CoC (Beckmann & Prinsloo, 2013). Beckmann et al. (2010) and Joubert (2008) declare that in a fair process the learner will be informed, as well as given an opportunity to defend or state his/her case. I was interested in whether the participants can distinguish between substantively fair process and procedurally fair due process (Beckmann & Prinsloo, 2013). The EL’s ability to manage a due process may adversely influence the outcome of the DH.
Lastly I aimed to gain insight into the challenges and complexity of the EL’s role. In practice the invidious position of the EL may be completely different from that for which the individual signed up. In my analysis of various case studies I identified some challenges that an EL may experience, for example distinguishing between minor and serious cases (Ward and Board of the Blaine Lake School Unit No 57, 1971), or the hopelessness while presenting a case against a lawyer (AMCI, 2013), or ignorance of the law (Beckmann & Prinsloo, 2013).

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Figure 3.1 illustrates the central role the EL plays in the process of managing learner discipline. It is a representation of the different areas where the EL plays a role and how these areas are interlinked with one another. The five areas are the following:

1. Role of the educator evidence leader
2. Fair and justifiable disciplinary hearings
3. Role of the DC in DHs
4. Management of the disciplinary process
5. Training for the role as EL

Role of the educator evidence leader

The EL is also known as the prosecutor in DHs and is expected to manage an unprejudiced disciplinary process at school (Jacobs, 2001). After transcribing the interviews the data was coded in different lines (See paragraph 3.6.4) where my discourse analysis refers to the line of the participant. For example “participant D (line 250)” means that I’m quoting from line 250 of the transcription of the interview with participant D. According to participant K (line 72) “I should not make up the case. I should present it, because that ensures the fairness of it all.” Figure 1.1 illustrates that the EL is the pivot of a due process when managing learner discipline, and therefore linked to the DC, disciplinary process and DH. The process preceding the DH includes the initial investigation, writing of the charge sheet, preparing witnesses and evidence in support of the case and presenting the former in the DH (Joubert, 2008). The EL has the responsibility to put together a DC at the behest of the SGB consisting of SGB members to manage the DH. It is the role of the DC to ensure a fair DH, which includes the principle of audi alteram partem (Beckmann et al., 2010; Joubert, 2008).
The quality work done by the EL is dependent on his or her knowledge of relevant acts, for example the Constitution (Republic of South Africa, 1996b) and SASA (Republic of South Africa, 1996a), as guidance to a just and fair disciplinary process. Knowledge of law and policy was identified as some of the biggest challenges by the participants. Participant D (line 223): “It’s about the interpretation of what it means and what you have to do.” Training of the EL remains a key concept in managing due process and DHs. According to participant B (line 152) being trained “makes it easier” when the EL has to manage learner discipline.

Fair and justifiable disciplinary hearings

Disciplinary hearings are similar to a court case (Joubert, 2008) or could also be seen as a quasi-judicial hearing to resolve learner misconduct (Beckmann & Prinsloo, 2013). For the purpose of this study the DH is regarded as a quasi-judicial hearing or tribunal at school, where an EL presents a case before a DC to judge serious misconduct cases (Beckmann & Prinsloo, 2013; Hopkins, 2006). The main focus of DHs is to ensure that the disciplining of learners is fair and justifiable.
The DH is one part of a process that starts with an incident of alleged misconduct and concludes with the alleged offender being found not guilty or guilty and if guilty, sanctioned as in Section 12 (1) of the Constitution (Republic of South Africa, 1996b). The EL is a very important link in this process from the moment of the incident until the DH and appeal process. Disciplinary action is instituted against a learner when there is substantive evidence of misconduct or when it is in the best interest of the school and its learners (GDE, 2007). It is the task of the EL to gather information with regard to a disciplinary case and to refer serious cases for a DH (GDE, 2007). The SGB, in terms of the DC, enforces corrective action regarding serious misconduct only after the learner has been granted a fair and justifiable hearing as stipulated in Section 8 (5) of SASA (Republic of South Africa, 1996a). Important to a fair DH is due process and to adhere to the principles of natural justice (Republic of South Africa, 1996a: Sec. 9).

Role of the disciplinary committee in DHs

The DC must be appointed by the SGB to adjudicate disputes about serious transgression cases during DHs. This committee must comprise three persons who are members of the SGB, and includes a chairperson (participant A, line 33), where the chairperson or presiding officer has to be a parent member of the SGB (GDE, 2007). The unique composition of the DC as pointed out by participant A (line 33) is not the general rule in South Africa. The SGB can decide on the composition of the DC whether it is a single person or a panel and if this committee can finalise the case or submit their recommendations to the full SGB as prescribed in General Notice 2591 of 2001 (GDE, 2007). This particular composition of the DC is intended to ensure that the committee is objective and unprejudiced towards all cases presented during DHs, but primarily that learners are treated fairly and justly and safeguarded against unfair and arbitrary treatment (Joubert, 2008).
The DC is to ensure a fair and just hearing to see that justice is done when disciplining the learner, but also to act in the best interest of the learner (Van Staden and Alston, 2000). Beckmann and Prinsloo (2013) explain that the role of the DC is to perform a quasi-judicial function as tribunal when managing a DH. It is the role of the DC to follow procedural requirements to make a reasonable and fair decision. There are procedures (or checklist) to guide the DC during a DH as prescribed in Annexure B of Oosthuizen (2006) and Section 5 of General Notice 2591 of 2001 (GDE, 2007). These procedures include the reading of the charge(s) against the learner, confirming details of attendees, presenting evidence and witness which concludes with the DC deciding on a suitable sanction. Continuity in decision making by the DC is a concern and challenge as discovered after the analysis of the transcribed data.

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
ETHICAL CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE 
DEDICATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 
ABSTRACT 
KEY WORDS 
CHAPTER 1: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.4 RATIONALE
1.5 PRELIMINARY LITERATURE ANALYSIS
1.6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.7 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
1.8 WORKING ASSUMPTION
1.9 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.10 RESEARCH DESIGN
1.10.1 Methodology
1.10.2 Data collection
1.10.3 Data analysis and interpretation
1.10.4 Sampling
1.10.5 Ethical considerations
1.11 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
1.12 LIMITATIONS
1.13 DIVISION OF CHAPTERS
1.14 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 DUE PROCESS
2.3 THE ROLE OF THE EVIDENCE LEADER
2.4 TRAINING OF THE EVIDENCE LEADER
2.5 LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF DISCIPLIN
2.6 THE SGB AND DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS
2.7 QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
2.8 LEGAL LITERACY
2.9 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN 
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND SUB-QUESTIONS
3.3 RESEARCH AIMS .
3.4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
3.5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.6 DESIGN
3.7 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4: DATA PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 ANALYSING THE DATA
4.3 ANALYSIS OF DATA
4.4 INTERPRETATION OF DATA
4.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5: OVERVIEW, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 OVERVIEW
5.3 FINDINGS
5.4 CONCLUSION ABOUT WORKING ASSUMPTION
5.5 LIMITATIONS
5.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
5.7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
5.8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF PRACTICE
5.9 CONCLUDING REMARKS
REFERENCES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT