ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND

MANAGEMENT

Practices and Problems of School Improvement Program in

Government Secondary Schools in Majang Zone of Gambella
Region

By

Abebaw Belachew

A Thesis Submitted to School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa

University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Masters of Arts in Leadership and Management

June, 2018

Addis Ababa

iv
Practices and Problems of School Improvement Program in
Government Secondary School in Majang Zone of Gambella
Region

BY

Abebaw Belachew

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT

Advisor; Hussein Kider (PHD)

June, 2018

Addis Ababa

iv
 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT
This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Abebaw Belachew, on the Practices and
Problems of School Improvement Program in Majang Zone of Gambella Region
Secondary schools and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Master of Arts Leadership and Management complies with the regulation of the
University and meets the accepted standards with respect to originality and quality.

Approved by Board of Examiners

_____________ _______________ ____________

Chairman, Department Signature Date

Hussein Kedir(PHD) ________________ _____________

Advisor Signature Date

________________ _______________ ___________

Internal examiner Signature Date

_______________ ______________ __________

External examiner Signature Date

iv
Acknowledgements

I would like to express my heartfelt and deepest appreciation to my advisor Dr. Hussein
Kedir, for helping me make this thesis appear in this form Dr. Hussein‟s professional
guidance and assistance in reshaping the title and continuously encouraging my work
great role for the completion of this thesis.

I would like to express gratitude to Bizuayhu Belachew, Yalew Belachew for unreserved
material and financial support. I would like to thanks to Mengestu Hailu,and all intimate
friends for friendly encouragement.

I would like to thanks my friends Berhnu Wbetu, Teshom Adem, Berhnu Legess,
Youhans Mekuria for their support and help for the distribution, collecting of
questionnaire and thanks for all respondents for participation and to giving the reliable
information for the contribution to success this study.

Finally, this thesis is the contribution of many individuals and groups. Hence, I would
like to thank all those who contributed to the success full completion of the study.

i
 Table of contents

Content page

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................................................i

Table of contents .....................................................................................................................................................................ii

List of tables ............................................................................................................................................................................ v

Acronyms ...............................................................................................................................................................................vi

Abstract vii ........................................................................................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background of the Study ......................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................................ 3

1.3. Objective of the Study ............................................................................................................. 6

1.3.1 . General Objective ............................................................................................... 6

1.3.2. Specific Objective ................................................................................................ 6

1.4 Significance of the Study ......................................................................................................... 7

1.5. Delimitation of the Study ........................................................................................................ 7

1.6.Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................... 8

1.7.Operational of Key Terms ....................................................................................................... 8

1.8Organization of the Study ......................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................................................................ 10

2.1. The Concept of School Improvement Program (SIP) ............................................................ 10

2.2. Definition of School Improvement ........................................................................................ 11

2.3. Principle and Domain for School Improvement Program ..................................................... 12

2.4. Modern Education in Ethiopia............................................................................................... 18

2.4.1. Ethiopian Educational Policy ............................................................................... 19

ii
 2.4.2. The General Quality Education Improvement Program (GEQIP) ....................... 20

2.4.3. Education Sector Development Program (ESDP) ............................................... 21

2.5. School Improvement and Teachers Professional Development ............................................. 23

2.6. School Improvement Plan ..................................................................................................... 25

2.7. School Improvement Committee ........................................................................................... 27

2.8. Practices of School Improvement Program ........................................................................... 28

2.9. Problems of School Improvement Program (SIP) ................................................................. 29

2.10. School Facilities as Factors of School Improvement program............................................. 30

2.11. Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms of School Improvement Program ........................ 31

2.12. School Improvement Process Cycle .................................................................................... 32

2.13. School Improvement Framework ........................................................................................ 33

2.14. Countries Experiences about School Improvement Program .................................. 34

2.15.School Improvement Program in Ethiopia ........................................................................... 36

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 39

3.1. Research Design ................................................................................................................... 39

3.2. Research Method .................................................................................................................. 39

3.3. Sources of the Data .............................................................................................................. 40

3.4. Sampling and Sampling Techniques ................................................................................... 41

3.5. Instruments and Procedures of Data Collection .................................................................... 42

3.5.1. Instruments of the Data Collection .................................................................... 42

3.5.2. Procedures of Data Collection............................................................................ 44

3.6. Methods of Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 44

3.7. Validity ................................................................................................................................. 45

3.8. Reliability.............................................................................................................................. 45

iii
3.9. Ethical Consideration ........................................................................................................... 46

CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA .......... 47

4.1 Characteristics of the Respondents ...................................................................................... 47

4.2. Planning the School Improvement Program Practices ........................................................... 51

4.3. The Practices of School Improvement Program ................................................................... 56

4.3.2. School Learning Environment Domain............................................................ 63

4.3.3. Community Participation Domain .................................................................... 68

4.3.4. School Leadership and Management Domain ................................................... 72

4.4. Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms of SIP Practices ..................................................... 79

4.5.Factors Affecting for the Practices of SIP .............................................................................. 85

CHAPTER FIVESUMMARY OF THE MAJOR FINDING, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .............. 90

5.1. Summary of the Major Findings............................................................................................ 90

5.2. Major Findings ...................................................................................................................... 91

5.3. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 95

5.4. Recommendation .................................................................................................................. 97

References ............................................................................................................................................................................. 99

Appendix

iv
 List of tables
Table 1: Population and sampling size of teachers by Secondary schools ...................... 42

Table.2. Characteristics of respondents by Sex and Age .................................................. 48

Table.3. Characteristics of respondents by academic qualification .................................. 49

Table 4 Characteristics of respondents by working experiences ...................................... 50

Table.5. Respondents views on Collaborative planning of SIP ........................................ 52

Table 6 Respondents views on the planning of SIP implementation ................................ 54

Table.7. Respondents views on Teaching and learning domain ....................................... 63

Table 8. Respondents view of the practices School learning environment domain ........ 58

Table 9. The Respondent response on the community participation domain ................... 68

Table 10: Respondents views on leadership and management domain ............................ 73

Table 11. Respondents views on activity of monitoring and evaluation .......................... 80

Table12. Respondent‟s views on factors affect school improvement program ............... 85

v
 Acronyms
ARM Annual Review Meeting

CHSC Committee on Home-School Co-operation

ESDP Educational Sector Development Program

ETP Education Training policy

FGD Focusing Group Dissuasion

EMIS Educational Management Improvement System

GEQIP General Education Quality Improvement Program

GREOB Gambella Region Education Office Bureau

MOE Ministry of Education

MAP Management Administration Program

PTA Parent Teacher Association

SIC School Improvement Committee

SIP School I improvement Program

SPSS Statical Package for Social Science

TDP Teacher Development Program

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

WEO Woreda Education Office

ZEO Zone Education Office

vi
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to assess the Practices and Problems of School
improvement Programme for implementation in Gambella of Majng Zone.
Methodologically descriptive survey design and mixed research method was employed.
Quantitative and qualitative data was used. The study was conducted in 4 secondary
schools of the 2 woreda. From each sampled schools, teachers are selected in simple
random sampling whereas principals, vice principals, supervisors, School Improvement
Committee, Woreda Education heads, PTA members and zone educational head was
selected in purposive sampling technique. For this study data collection Instruments
included questionnaires, interview, and observation check list and document review. 113
respondents are participated in the study, from these 78 copies including close-ended and
open- ended questionnaires are distributed for teachers, supervisors, vice principals and
principals and the data obtained from questionnaires were analyzed using statistical
tools such as frequency count, percentages, weighted mean score and ANOVA test
values. Additionally the qualitative data obtained through interviews, FGD and
observation were analyzed qualitatively to substantiate the result of quantitative analysis.
The finding indicated that low collaborative planning of school improvement. Shortage of
allocating budget for the implementation of SIP, absences of school teaching facilities
like; laboratory with equipment and chemicals, computer center, plasma, shortage of
qualified teachers in each class level and subject area. However to alleviate the problems
and to improve quality of education it was suggested that WEO should allocate adequate
budget and schools should design income generating mechanism, fulfill school facilities,
making active participation of stakeholders on planning\and to practices SIP, making
monitoring and evaluation on school improvement program implementation.

vii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with background of the study, statement of the problem, objectives of
the study, significance of the study, delimitation of the study, organization of the study
and operational definition of key terms.

1.1 Background of the Study

Education plays a significant role in sustainable socio-economic and political

developments that lend itself to transformational advancement in a country. It also fosters
citizens acquiring new quality knowledge, attitude and skills that capacitate their
competence and realize the overall country‟s development. It is the bedrock of all forms
of development (social, economic, technological and political) of any nation (UNESCO,
2005).Then, Knowledge and skills are the engines of economic growth and social
development. As indicated by UNESCO (2005), education enables us to get new
knowledge, skills, and insight that help to bring about development. The rapid growth
and change of the needs of the society, enforces schools to update their system in
accordance with the growth and varying necessity of the society. Harris and Chrispeels
(2006:3) explained that the pressure upon schools to improve performance has resulted in
a wide range of school improvement programmes and initiatives in Ethiopia being one of
them. Education is recognized as a key instrument for over all development of every
nation. According to World Bank (1995), education is a major instrument for economic
growth and social development. In relation to this, Lockheed and Verspoor (1991, p: 50)
state that “Education is a corner stone of Economic and Social development. And it
improves the productive capacity of societies and their political, economic and scientific
institutions. ”Therefore quality education is the base for all rounded development of any
nation who has a dream of change. So improving schools in a well designed manner is
the only alternative of nations in a globalized world.

Educators around the world have been trying to make changes in schools and trying to
make schools to more efficient and effective. Throughout the mid and late 1970s school

1
improvement efforts were directed at improving students‟ basic skills and implementing
statewide testing Programs to ensuring acquisitions of these skills (Carlson, 1996).

School improvement is at the centre of education reform and is perceived by many as a

key to social and economic advance. Hopkins (2001) defines school improvement as a
form of educational change that aims to enhance student outcomes as well as
strengthening the school‟s capacity for managing change. And he explains that, central
focus for development in these schools was the learning and achievement of their
students. as indicated by the MOE (2007), the objectives of school improvement program
are: to improve the capacity of schools to prioritize needs and develop a school
improvement plan; to enhance school and community participation in resource
utilization, decisions and resource generation; to improve government‟s capacity to
deliver specified amount of schools grant at woreda level; and to improve the learning
environment by providing basic operational resources to school.

According to MOE (2010), school improvement program is aimed to support schools in

addressing four school domains: - teaching learning, school leadership and management,
parents-community school relationship, and safe and healthy school environment. Each
of these domains is equally important, if anyone is weak, the strength and the success of
the whole will be affected. Thus the schools should give due attention for each domain.
Then, the practices and problems of school improvement programs in the schools with
different school domains and self-assessment, help to improve the inputs, process and
the schools this facilitate the teaching learning process of the school to increase academic
performance of the students and to realize the students result.

According to the MOE‟s(2007), school improvement program blue print document, the
timely and the basic aim of the program is improving students‟ academic achievement
through creating conducive teaching and learning environment and with active
involvement of parents in the teaching learning process. Then, for the success of school
improvement program it needs the commitment and actively participation of all the
school stakeholders especially, schools principals, supervisors, SIP committee, teachers
and Students. Those, stakeholders are a responsibility to identify the barriers as the

2
problems of to practice school improvement program so as takes corrective measurement
on time. Therefore, all the above explanation is the researcher‟s needs to investigate the
practice and problems of school improvement program of Gambella Region in Majange
Zone government secondary schools.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Educational quality in developing countries has become a topic of intense interest,

primarily because of countries‟ efforts to maintain quality. From this, Education reform
and school improvement reform programmes in particular are mainly the responsibility of
school leadership and management. Therefore, to implement the school improvement
programme, school leaders and school governing bodies need to have theoretical
knowledge, skill and adequate experience in the areas of the school improvement
components. Leithwood (2002) cited in Marishane (2011:95-97) states that a critical
aspect of educational reform is linking the schools‟ internal structures, strategies,
capacities, and processes in a coherent manner to advance student achievements in
schools.

Ayalew Shebeshi (2009), Ethiopian secondary schools have been facing challenges for a
long time regarding the quality of Education in enhancing students academic
achievement due to a shortage of facilities, a shortage of qualified teachers, poor
leadership and management, absence of attractive learning environments and
unsatisfactory parents and local community involvement. Nevertheless, to minimize the
challenges in the education system, the Education Quality Improvement Program (EQIP)
was designed and the School Improvement Program (SIP) as a sub-main component was
launched in 1999 so as to enhance quality at all levels to improve secondary school
education.

3
According to the MOE, (2007), is widely acknowledged that in general, achievements in
access have not been accompanied by sufficient improvements in quality- in fact in some
areas quality has deteriorated at least partly as a result of rapid expansion. However, the
education system in Ethiopia has been suffering from quality and relevance, efficiency,
educational leadership practices and organization problems (MOE, 2005).

These problems caused dissatisfactions from stakeholders and suggestions and

recommendations from educators for change in the education system at national level.
This condition in turn calls for reform or improvement at schools. The government in
undertaking national level education reform through the implementation of SIP in the
following programmes: support to the education sector development plan (ESDP), to
study teacher utilisation in the regions of Ethiopia (STURE), technical assistance to the
teacher development programme, technical assistance to the review of secondary
education evaluation of learning achievement in selected woreda.

In response to this MOE (2010) stated that schools to experience sustained improvement,
it is probably necessary that school staff and their surrounding communities take
responsibility for their own improvement. But for schools to be able to take such
improvement actions they need to be supported by experts and supervisors in
administration and they need to receive some funds (MOE, 2010). Therefore, To improve
the quality of education through school improvement program the strategies on ESDP IV
focus on guide lines and instruments on how to prepare a school improvement plan is
prepared and distributed to schools, Giving training for the Woreda education office and
regional bureau experts to support schools and communities for the practices of school
improvement program.

According to MOE (2007), the school improvement program required schools to do the
major activities such as: preparation and collecting of information, system survey,
deciding performance level of school, designing SIP plan, implementation of the plan,
monitoring and evaluation as well as reporting. From the explanation of MOE (2005) in
ESDPII, the quality of education needs to be improved in order to enhance completion
rates, maintain the confidence of parents in school system and increase student‟s results.

4
To implement effective school improvement programme in secondary schools (9-12th) of
Majang zone improving students‟ achievement, the school community and stakeholders
must also have the knowledge and understanding of school improvement strategy.
Otherwise, secondary schools will experience immense problems. Despite school
improvement changes taking place at secondary school level, the researcher feels that
most school communities and stakeholders in Ethiopia particularly in majang zone
currently seem to be lacking effectiveness and understanding with regard school
improvement programme. The schools, therefore, perform below government
expectations with respect to the achievement of secondary school improvement
programme goals.

To follow proper implementation of the education sector development programme that

was designed to realize the objectives put in the education and training policy, the
ministry of education and development partners conduct annual review meetings. These
meetings discussed thoroughly the strengths and limitations of the system and identify
measures that have to be taken to correct the drawbacks after assessing the
implementation of ESDPs. The General Education Quality Improvement Package
(GEQIP) has been implemented since 2005/6. There exist organizational, managerial,
educational leadership, resource scarcity and others limitations of in implementing the
package.

Thus, Gambella Regional states, where General Educational Quality Improvement

program is implemented in particularly school improvement program was being practice
and lacks basic education facilities and a well trained workforce in secondary schools.
However, no one has been conducted in this zone on the practices and problems of school
improvement program. Hence, the major purpose of this study is to assess the practice of
SIP and find out the major problems that affect in the implementation of school
improvement program in government secondary school of Majange zone. Accordingly
the Study was answered the following basic questions:

1. What are the existing practices of school improvement program in Majange zone
secondary schools?

5
 2. What are the major factors that affect for the practices school improvement in
secondary school of Majang zone?
3. What monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are put in place to follow the proper
practice SIP in Majange zone secondary schools?
4. To what extent have teachers, students and parents participating in school
improvement planning and practices SIP in the secondary schools?
5. To what extent are practices and problems of school improvement program
implementation secondary schools?

1.3 Objective of the Study

This study has the following general and specific objective;

1.3.1 . General Objective

This study was to assess the practices and problems of school improvement program in
government secondary school of Majange Zone.

1.3.2 Specific Objective

The specific objectives of the study are the following;

1. To assess the existing practices of school improvement program in Majange zone

secondary schools

2. To identify the major problems that affects the practices of school improvement
program in Majange zone secondary school.
3. To assess the method of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms in the practices
and problems of school improvement program in Majange zone
4. To assess the participation of stakeholders in the contribution of school plan
development and the practices of school improvement program.
5. To identify the practices and problems for the implantation of SIP in Majange zone.

6
1.4 Significance of the Study

To assess the practices and Problems of school improvement program and to determine
the difference to practice and Problems that face the school improvement program. This
study has identified the problems in the areas of teaching and learning process, the school
learning environment, school leadership and management, and community involvement
in the practices of school improvement programme. The results of the study can help
policymakers in Ethiopia, mainly in Gambella region and Majang zone, to make
informed decisions about reform in secondary schools. It has also recommended possible
solutions to the problems facing the practices of school improvement programme. This
recommendation has hopefully contributed to better practices of school improvement
programmes in Majang zone. This study is significant especially at secondary school
level because it can add to the existing knowledge base on the practices of school
improvement programmes. Furthermore, it has informed the school principals and school
governing bodies of the performance gap in the practices of the school improvement
programme. The study has hopefully improved the practice of teaching and learning,
thereby contributing to the success of students. The study will also help to explore
challenges and opportunities and pave ways for improving secondary school reform to
influence school principals, school governing bodies, teachers, students, parents and other
partners to take on their roles in an effective and efficient way that will inevitably
improve the secondary school quality of education.

1.5 . Delimitation of the Study

This study is delimited in Majang zone of Gambella region on the practices and problems
of school improvement program. The zone has six secondary schools. However the study
in four governmental secondary schools in Majng zone due to time and financial
constraint. Moreover, this study focuses on investigating Participation of teachers,
principals, supervisors, community and parents in planning and Practices of SIP,
monitoring and evaluation mechanism of stakeholders and the factor affecting the school
improvement program in government secondary schools of Majang zone.

7
1.6. Limitations of the Study
Due to time and financial constraint, the researcher had to be limited only to the above
four secondary schools. The other limitation was that the Woreda education office heads
were busy in engaging in various meetings and some PTA members and SIC committee
members in other businesses, it was not easy to get them for an interview and FGD. Other
limitation was the sampled schools teachers, principals and supervisors were difficult to
fail questioners and involved in interview, because of due to lat salary payment.
However, the researcher tolerated the problems and repeatedly communicated with them
going to Woreda education office and schools and conducted the interviews and
attempted to make the study as complete as possible.

1.7. Operational of Key Terms

General Education Quality Improvement Program (GEQIP): this is a programme

designed to improve the quality of education in the schools. It is one of the Ethiopian
education strategies to remove fundamental obstacles that stand in the way of quality
education (MOE, 2010:5).

School Improvement program - The program with the objective to improve students‟
achievement by creating a positive learning environment (MOE, 2007)

Improvement: Is the action of providing better than previous situation

Schools: are considered learning communities with active stakeholder engagement in

learning and problem-solving

Woreda: the lowest administrative unit in the government stricture

School Improvement Committee:-It is committee which established from the school

Community and parents to support implementation of SIP in the schools (MOE,
2006)

8
1.8 Organization of the Study

The study has included five chapters. In Chapter one includes introduction, background
of the study, statement of the problem, objective of the study, significance of the study,
delimitation of the study, organization of the study and definition of key terms , the
second chapter presents reviews of related literature. Chapter three deals with the
research design and Methodology of the study, source of data, sample and sampling
techniques, the study of population, instrument of the study and data collection, method
of data analysis, procedures of data collection. Chapter four deals presentation and
analysis of findings, the final chapter‟s deals contains major finding, conclusion and
recommendation of the study.

9
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter deals with concept of school improvement, definition of school

improvement, School improvement initiative in Ethiopia, school improvement
committee, frame work for school improvement, principle and domains of the school
improvement, school improvement process cycle, school improvement planning, school
facility are as factors of SIP, Monitoring and evaluation of school improvement program,
problems of school improvement program, school improvement and teacher professional
development, modern education in Ethiopia.

2.1. The Concept of School Improvement Program (SIP)

The Concept of the school and school system is the basic issues to be discussed in the
context of school improvement. And also School system is a dynamic system where
input, throughput, output and process are continually. This continually changing feature
of school system demands it for continuous improvement. To this extent different authors
are define in different way of expression. the MOE(2005) indicted that school
improvement as a process, it is continuous activity of fulfilling different inputs,
upgrading school performance and bringing better learning outcomes at school level. This
improvement is not routine practices which can be performed in day to day activity in the
school.

Another major notion of school improvement is that, school improvement cannot be

simply equated with educational change in general. Harris and Chrispeels (2008) have
argued that school improvement is largely concerned with system level changes through
collaboration and networking across schools and districts. As indicated by Hopkins
(2005), school improvement is not only the teaching and learning activities of the
schools, but also its organizational norms, professional learning system, knowledge-
transform process, leadership arrangements and its receptiveness to external learning.
Then, School improvement is about strengthening schools organizational capacity and
implementing educational reform.

10
Gray (2001) citied in Zijian and Williams (2006) stated that school improvement is the
process of improving the way that schools organize, promote and support learning. It
includes changing aims, expectations, organization (sometimes people), and ways of
learning and methods of teaching and organizational culture. School improvement is
commonly defined as the general efforts to make schools better places for pupils to learn
in and the distinct approach for educational change that enhance student out come as well
as for managing change.

According to Harris (2005), school improvement is defined as “a distinct approach to

educational change that enhances student‟s outcomes as well as strengthens the school‟s
capacity for managing improvement initiatives”. Hopkins support and more elaborated
that school improvement is about raising student‟s achievement through focusing on the
teaching and learning process and those conditions which support it. Hopkins‟ (2011) the
review of the variables in any regional approach to school improvement that relates
directly to increases in student achievement. Through ; Clear and comprehensive model
of reform, Strong leadership at the regional level, Substantive training related to the goals
of the program, Implementation support at the school level, An increasingly
differentiated approach to school improvement.

2.2. Definition of School Improvement

The word Schools are considered learning communities with active stakeholder
engagement in learning and problem-solving and Improvement is defined as a continuous
and evolving process, „the way things are around here‟ (Mitchell et al., 2002). „School
improvement‟ means making schools better places for learning. Jeilu (2010) states school
improvement is an activity to improve the input and process in order to improve teaching
learning and students result .In this context school improvement is not only about the
outcome, but also the importance of input. school improvement is commonly defined as
the general efforts to make schools better places for pupils to learn in and the distinct
approach for educational change that enhance students outcome as well as managing
change .

11
According to MOE (2011) indicated School Improvement is a current and important
concept focusing on the review of the overall status of schools in terms of different
school domains and conduct self-evaluation to improve the educational inputs and
process whereby enabling students to score excellent results. And he continues, The main
focus of School Improvement lies on student learning and the learning outcome. To this
effect, schools should primarily identify their weakness and strength and prioritize each
school domain and set goals; similarly, it is a continuous process wherein all members of
the school community and other stakeholders contribute for the student learning and
improvement of their results.

Generally, School Improvement Program is designed to assist schools to: identify priority
needs through a process of self-assessment; develop an effective and practical School
Improvement Plan to address those needs; and then monitor and assess implementation,
coordinated efforts made both within and out of classroom and school levels to change
factors that are related to students learning with the ultimate goal of maximizing the level
of learners‟ achievement and school capacity to manage change.

2.3. Principle and Domain for School Improvement Program

2.3.1. Principle of School Improvement

The school improvement process is a systematic approach that follows its own principles.
Luneburg & Ornstein (1991) cited in MOE (2010) have listed the following guiding
principles that need to: Schools should employ a set of goals and mission which are easy
to understand; Student achievement must be continuously checked and evaluated;
Schools need to help specially the low achievers need to be tutored and enrichment
programmes should be opened for high talented students; Principals and staff should
actively be involved in continuous capacity building to update their knowledge,
information and to develop positive thinking; Every teacher needs to contribute to
successful implementation of the school improvement programme; Teachers must be
involved in staff development by planning and implementing the school improvement
programme; School environment has to be safe, healthy and pupil friendly; School

12
community relationships should be strengthened so that community and parents need to
be involve in school improvement programme implementation.

School leadership should be shared among staff, student and parents. In line with the
school improvement principles above the study were weigh up the practices of current
school improvement programme practices in secondary schools (grades 9 th-12th) of the
Majang Zone.

2.3.2. School improvement Domain and Element

School improvement program needs to be planned and managed to take place over a
period of several years. Then has it to be related to the schools procedure, role allocations
and resource use that support the teaching and learning process (Hopkins, 2005:10-12).
The school capacity determines the provision of quality learning for all students. Thus,
schools need to apply the four domains and with the elements to provide quality
education for all students. Regarding to this, The MOE (2011) indicated that the main
focus of School Improvement lies on student learning and the learning outcome. To this
effect, schools should primarily identify their weakness and strength and prioritize each
school domain and set goals; similarly, it is a continuous process wherein all members of
the school community and other stakeholders contribute for the student learning and
improvement of their results. The four school domains are indicated below with in
description:-

2.3.2.1. Teaching and Learning Domain

Promoting the learning and achievement of student is the main objective of school
education. The school improvement research highlights the centrality of teaching and
learning in the pursuit of sustained school improvement (Hopkins, et al,1994).Because
,teaching and learning is what ultimately make a difference in the mind of the learner,
and affect knowledge, skills, attitudes and the capacity of pupils to contribute to
contemporary societies.

13
High quality learning occurs when teachers make appropriate decisions about what is
taught, how to engage students in meaningful experiences and how progress will be
assessed to inform future actions. According to Hopkins (1994) pointed out the main
focus for school improvement action should be on teaching and learning process in the
class room. It is also further noted such class room practice can be sustained through
ongoing staff development prefer ability on areas such as teaching skill and knowledge of
curriculum content, It also stressed on collaboration as necessary condition for practices
to occur when group of teachers adopt education ideas to their own context and
professional.

Classroom conditions are the critical facts in teaching and learning process. Student and
teacher related factors are among the major classroom conditions that influences teaching
and learning (Hopkins, 2002:89). If the teacher is to provide the kind of teaching best
suited for each learner, he/she must be well familiar with their abilities, potentialities,
background, problems, and needs. Without this knowledge the problem of motivation,
provision for individual differences and adjusting methods to meet students‟ needs, and
selecting instructional strategies becomes very difficult (Clark and Starr, 1967).

Hence, teachers are the key role players in teaching and learning processes to ensure the
achievement of instructional objectives with in turn improve students‟ achievement. For
the achievement of student, Planning is one of the first steps for effective teaching .In
educational context, planning help teachers to produce well organized class and to create
conducive classroom atmosphere by reducing disciple problems. Moreover, planning
guide the teacher to answer what, who, when, were, and how questions.

Assessment is also part of the process of learning by which pupils recognize a gap
between the state of their knowledge and the expected learning outcomes to be achieved
during instruction. It also helps teachers to understand the level of pupils achievement
improve teaching techniques, and give constructive feedback to them. According to
James and Gipps(1998), Assessment influences learning in four main ways: (I) provide
learning ;(II) helping pupils and teachers decide what to learn;(III) helping pupils how to
learn; and (IV)helping pupils to learn how the effectiveness of their learning. Thus,
14
assessment can be seen by teachers and students as an enabling process that create a
learning environment in which teachers and students take action to close that gap helping
learner to learn how to learn and judge effectiveness.

The strategy of teaching is that, the teaching methods used by a teacher influence student
learning either positively or negativity. Harris (2002:3) suggested with successful school
improvement, “There is an emphasis up on well defined student learning out comes along
with the providing of clear instruction frame work”. Currently, different studies show
how the use of diversified student centered teaching and learning strategies is more
important than sole reliance on the teacher as the only source of knowledge.

Even though, there is no one best strategy, the importance of active learning is highly
emphasized in support of active method Aggrawal,(1996) and ICDR (1999) argue that
children learn best when they are active and strategies used by the teachers are in
accordance with their development pattern and meet their interests and needs. Under the
elements of teaching and learning domain describe (I) Use of Teaching method in the
class room (II) Curriculum (III) Teachers‟ Professional Development and (IV) Learning
and Evaluation system in the class room.

2.3.2.2. Leadership and Management Domain

The basic functions of Leadership is about having vision and articulating, ordering
priorities, getting other to go with you, constantly reviewing what you are doing and
holding on to things you value (Adesina,1990). Whereas Management can be defined as
the organization and mobilization of all human and material resource in a particular
system. And also management are planning, organizing, staffing, evaluating and
developing. Then leading and managing domain is concerned with communicating a clear
vision for a school and establishing effective management structures. Leaders set
directions and guide the school community in alignment of its purpose and practice.
Effective leadership within the school is collegial, student centre and teacher focused,
promoting a collective responsibility for improvement.

15
In school, the quality improvement can be determined by quality of leadership.
According to Rao (2003), the quality of leadership has the following components. (I)
Sensitivity: active listening, giving feedback, negotiation, giving praise, managing
conflict, networking and empathizing. (II) Creativity: in order to make the vision live,
leadership has to be creative; to find solution to problems and to generate solutions that
address the issue. (III) Empowerment: release the potential of individuals, allowing them
to flourish and grow as people rather than as employees to release their capacity for finite
improvement. (IV) Managing change. The elements of Leadership and management are;
Administrative regulation and staff structure, Strategic direction, Strategic planning of
SIP, Consultation and communication, Financial management, management of
infrastructure and physical resources, human resources management, building the
leadership capacity of the school community, establishing a positive relationship to
sustain good practices, monitoring and evaluation.

2.3.2.3. School Learning Environment Domain

Schools are a place where students acquire education. A safe and suitable school
environment fosters smooth relationship based on mutual respect and understanding.
According to Mick Zais (2011), School Environment means the extent to which school
settings promote student safety and student health, which may include topics such as the
physical plant, the academic environment, available physical and mental health supports
and services, and the fairness and adequacy of disciplinary procedures, as supported by
relevant research and an assessment of validity. Environment plays a vital role in the
development of the personality of the students. Physical environments or the places, in
which formal learning occurs, range from relatively modern and well-equipped buildings
to open-air gathering places. Learning environment are made up of physical,
psychosocial and service delivery elements (UNICEF, 2000).

If students are empowered and feel safe in their schools, they can learn with interest. In
safe and attractive educational learning environments students willingly engage and
participate in the broad range of learning opportunities. When school environment is
suitable for learning and teaching process, it contributes greatly for the quality of
education (MOE, 2007:7).So, the environment should stimulate purposeful students‟
16
activity, and they should allow for a depth and ranges of activities that facilitate learning.
They contribute to decisions about their learning and their contributions are valued.
School safety requires a broad-based effort by the entire community including leaders,
teachers, students and parents. Meyer also suggested that by adopting a comprehensive
approach to addressing school safety focusing on presentation, intervention, and
response, schools can increase the safety and security of students. All conscious and
concerted efforts undertaken at any level of the educational system are ultimately to
create an enabling environment the school level so that the school as a mission center
realizes the objectives of educational system (MOE, 2002 ).

Under the School learning environment domain different elements are describe. The
elements are activate how; quality learning environments are created to focus on student
needs and foster potential skills and interests, schools create opportunities for students to
develop into self-regulating learners within and beyond the classroom and Schools value
participation, and support student expression of new knowledge and understanding.

2.3.2.4. Community participation Domain

The community participation domain describes the development quality, ongoing,

community partnerships and networks. Schools are responsive to community
expectations, suitable environment for learning, school administration and community
participation. MOE (2010), indicate community involvement of parents in the school
activities will create strong and cordial home/school relationships required for the growth
and development of the secondary school learners. The community involvement domain
in educational affairs is one of the most important and it is a process through which
stakeholders shared control over development initiatives.

MOE (1998) listed the following basic principles of community involvement strategies in
schools: several village meetings must be held in order to discuss with the villages what
their interest and problems are with the schooling of their children; a leader for any
school based on community should be necessarily identified; and normally it is necessary
to give a real role to the parents in the day to day management of a school . According to
Kruger,A.G.(1996); community involvement is as a means of activated parents to get

17
involved in schools; helping children with homework, fund raising; maintenance building
and grounds; transporting of pupil‟s; Organizing functions at school helping with
extracurricular activities and supporting school activities.

From this, the Ministry of Education(1996) indicated that the following activities as a
means for parents to get school; helping children with homework, fund raising ;
maintenance building and supporting of pupil„s; organization functions at school helping
with extracurricular and supporting school activities. In addition to this The MOE (2006)
report indicated that, school in general and teacher and students in particular benefit a lot
from the involvement of community in the issue of schools. These elements describe
how; (i) Working together with parents (ii) Involving the communities (iii) Promoting
school improvement

2.4. Modern Education in Ethiopia

Ethiopia is one of the countries with the highest scarcity of having educated man power
who can enable the country to achieve the millennium development goals and facilitate
the economic development of the country. World Bank (2001) report indicated that
Ethiopia is one of the most educationally disadvantaged countries of the World, and the
education sector is characterized by extremely low participation rates and low quality at
all levels. Thus, the Education and Training Policy document of 1994 was designed to
achieve the future economic development goals that identified clear strategies for the
education system to achieve the mission and goals entrusted to it (ETP, 1994).

According to the Education and Training Policy of 1994 in Ethiopia, primary education
lasts for eight years and is divided into grades 1-4 (primary first cycle) and grades (5-8)
second primary education cycle. Secondary education is also divided into two cycles,
each with its own specific goals. The structures of the education system for secondary
school are as follows: grades 9-10 (secondary first cycle) and grades 11-12th (secondary
second cycle). The first secondary cycle provide general secondary education and, upon
completion of grade 10, students are then streamed based on their performance in the
secondary education completion certificate examination, and enter either into grades 11-

18
12th preparatory as preparation for university, or into technical and vocational education
and training (TVET).

The Ethiopian Education and Training policy decentralized power, authority and the
management of services to schools, where the provision of education is the concurrent
responsibility of federal, regional, and local governments. This is explained by the
Education and Training Policy that the federal government plays a dominant role in the
provision of post-secondary education, while also setting standards and providing overall
policy guidance, monitoring and evaluation, and support for the entire sector (MOE,
1994). Managing the work of colleges of teacher education which supply primary
teachers; adapting the curriculum to the region; examining students at the end of primary
school; and overall supervision and monitoring (MOE, 2010:6). Districts are largely
responsible for the implementation of all educational activities and are responsible for
recruiting personnel and paying the salaries of primary and secondary school teachers,
visiting schools to supervise teachers and delivering non-salary inputs (either in cash or
in kind) to schools (MOE, 2008).

2.4.1. Ethiopian Educational Policy

The Government presented the national education and Training Policy (ETP) in 1994,
within the framework of the ETP launched the first five year Education Sector
Development Program (ESDP I) in 1997 as part of a twenty- year education sector plan.
As indicated above the policy document, the main objective of the education sector is to
provide good quality education with an ultimate aim of achieving universal primary
education over a period of 20 years. The police also education aims to make education
more relevant by emphasizing problem solving skills, providing vocational education and
training at different education levels in line with human resource requirements of the
economy, providing good quality secondary and higher education in equitable way , and
make special and non-formal education available in line with the needs and capability of
the country.

19
Moreover, the policy also aims at improving the training and career development of
teachers, decentralizing the management and administration of education, increasing
resource by encouraging community participation , introducing cost sharing mechanisms
and increasing the involvement of the private sectors, and improving the collaboration of
the education sector with others sectors (MOE, 1994).Thus, as the expansion of the
education system resulted in decline of quality , the policy document gives due attention
to quality issues for different levels of education by recognizing that education plays a
key role to bring about economic development to the country.

To come to the point ;that is to the center of attention of this study, undoubtedly, there
was deterioration of quality of education as there was expansion in poor school
environment during the course of practices of the education sector Development
programs. It is widely acknowledged that achievement in access have not been
accompanied by Sufficient improvements in quality.

2.4.2. The General Quality Education Improvement Program (GEQIP)

The General Quality Education Improvement Program (GEQIP) as a government

education strategy was started during the Education Sector Development Program (ESDP
III) to give high priority to quality improvement at all levels of the education system
(GEQIP, 2008:2-3). The General Education Quality Improvement Program (GEQIP)
concentrates on quality reforms such as the new curriculum implementation, text book
development and provision, school grants to enhance school-based development reforms,
as well as institutional development at the federal, regional and district levels. The overall
purpose of the General Education Quality Improvement Program (GEQIP) is to improve
the quality of general education (grades 1-12th) throughout the country in the areas of
teaching and learning conditions in primary and secondary education; and to improve the
management, planning and budget capacity of the Ministry of Education and Regional
Education Bureaus (GEQIP, 2008:5).

20
MOE (2005) pointed out that in response to quality deterioration; ESDP III gives high
priority to quality improvement at all level of the education system. regarding to theses
the draft of general educational quality improvement program 2007 shows that the reform
package, the General Education Quality Improvement (GEQIP), encompasses four key
areas of intervention (I) the Teacher Development program (II) Curriculum Development
,(III)Leadership and Management ,and (IV)the school Improvement program- and two
complementary package „Civics and Ethical Education„ and „Information
communications Technology‟. A key recommendation of the Education Sector Annual
Review meeting (ARM) in 2007 was that, MOE and Development partners (DPs)work
together to implement the GEQIP through a pooled funding mechanism. During the
annual review meeting of MOE 2007 the proposed program will support the
implementation of the first four of the six components of the GEQIP, namely: Teacher
Development Program (TDP) including English Language Quality Improvement Program
(ELQIP); Curriculum, Textbooks and Assessment; Management and Administration
program (MAP) with an Education Management Information System (EMIS) sub-
component; and School Improvement program (SIP) with a school Grant sub-component.
The overall objective of the proposed program is to improve the quality of general
education (Grade 9th-12th) throughout the country.

2.4.3. Education Sector Development Program (ESDP)

The Education Sector Development Program (ESDP) is a programme of action for the
realization of the goals of the Education Training Policy. The Education Sector
Development Program was introduced in 1997 as a vehicle for implementing the 1994
Education and Training policy, which envisaged to improve education quality, relevance,
efficiency, equity and expand access to education, with special emphasis on primary
education in rural and disadvantage areas, as well as the promotion of education for girls
as a first step to achieve universal primary education by 2015 (MOE, ESDP I, 1997).

21
It has been noted by different writers that the education sector development programme
in Ethiopia has its own rationale. The World Bank(2001) indicated that , from
government perspective, the problems of education were massive , and isolated project
were felt to provide inadequate out comes for improving the situation .The sector wide
approach was preferred as it was likely to identify ,address ,and have success in solving
the most critical problems of education as a whole.MOE believed that education sector
development programme is the best approach as it covers all areas of education
(MOE,2002:and MOE,2004).

The educational Sector Development Programme (ESDPI, 1997/98-2001/02) was

launched in 1997. ESDP I was the first of a series of medium term plans that aim to
achieve the Government‟s long term goal of universal primary education but the year
2015 (ESDP,I 1997).ESDP II spans for three years similar the PRSP (from 2002/03 to
2004/05) this was to align the planning schedules for the education sector with that of the
strategic planning for the government as a whole (ESDP II, 2002).This document
encourages Regions and Woredas to provide block grant to schools. It also indicated that
issuance of MOE “Directive for educational management, organization, public
participation and Financing “which outlines education management roles and
responsibilities in line with the country‟s federal decentralized from of governance.

The Ethiopian Government has launched ESDP I, ESDP II, ESDP III, and ESDP IV.
These successive five year nationwide Education Sector Development Programs (ESDP
I, ESDP II, and ESDP III) have already been implemented and now ESDP IV is being
implemented (2010/11 -2015/16). Ethiopia realizes that increasing the coverage of
education is only part of the battle and the push to increase coverage has been
accompanied, in recent years, by a national program to improve the quality of education
delivered, to keep children in school and reduce dropout rates. ESDP III (2005/06 – 2009
/10) was launched in August 2005. As the PASDEP document explained, during the
period of implementation of ESDP III , the overall goal of the education sector was “to
achieve the MDGs and meet the objective of National Development plan through
supplying qualified trained work force with the necessary quantify and qualify at all
levels”. The specific objectives of ESDP III were to: Increase access to and participation

22
in education and training and ensure equity; Ensure education and training quality and
relevance; lower education inefficiency; prevent HIV/AIDS; and Increase the
participation of stakeholders.

Under ESDP III Ethiopia made significant progress in education .Access at all levels of
the education system increased at a rapid rate, in line with a sharp increase in the number
of teachers, schools and institutions. Woreda education offices and communities have
strengthened their involvement in education planning, management and delivery. Proxy
indicators for quality show that there is a considerable challenge to meet the ESDPIII
target set for 2009/10. In line with these, the 2007 NLA identified the following factors
relating to low student learning outcomes: (i) school organization and management ;(ii)
teacher training on new techniques; (iii) school supplies; (iv) availability of text books;
(v) curricular and instructional materials; and (vi) language of instruction ESDP IV
(2010/11-2015/16) was released in 2009. The priorities for general education under
ESDP IV relate to two major objectives: to improve the quality of general education and
to increase access and equity. The quality improvement program integrates core priorities
such as “teacher and leader development” and “Information and communication
Technologies” (ICT) (MOE, 2007).

Under ESDP IV the overall goals for general Education are: to generalize access to
quality basic education in order to make sure that all children, youngsters and adults
acquire the competencies, skills, values, and attitudes enabling them to participate fully in
social, economic and political development of Ethiopia; and to sustain equitable access to
quality, secondary education service as the basis and bridge to the demand of the
economy for middle level and higher level human resources.

2.5. School Improvement and Teachers Professional Development

Continuing teacher‟s professional development in education is the means by which

teachers maintain their knowledge and skills related to their professional lives. The
school improvement program is the cumulative and collaborative effort of all responsible
stakeholders such as, teachers, school leaders, students, parents, education officers,

23
NGOs and other community members towards the goal of sustaining quality education.
School improvement program is one of the six pillars of achieving quality education, one
of which is the strategy for Teachers‟ Development Program (TDP) in which CPD is at
the centre (MOE, 2007).

The quality of education to a great extent depends on the success of school improvement
program which in turn depends on the quality and competence of teachers in their
professional development. From those stakeholders, Teachers are the nucleus of school
partners for school improvement program (SIP) and school based CPD is the crucial
component of school improvement program. MOE (2009) indicated that, In the process
of raising pupils‟ achievement, CPD and SIP cannot be seen separately, but used together
to provide a holistic approach to the improvement of learning and teaching in each
school. And also According to Simpkins (2009) view, SIP is not a separate process led by
higher level administrators. Rather, it is the flip side of the coin of the school based CPD.
Hence, school improvement activities are most effective when carried out in
collaboration with consolidated teacher professional development program.

Professional development should necessarily be integrated with the comprehensive plan

for school improvement. Too often, professional development is episodic response to an
immediate problem which deals with only part of the problem teachers confront when
trying to improve student achievement. According to Simpkins, (2009) if professional
development is to be effective, it must deal with real problems and needs to do so over
time. Moreover, unless professional development is carried out in the context of a plan
for school improvement, it is unlikely that teachers will have the resources and support
they need to fully utilize what they have learned.

Teacher Professional development should be connected to a comprehensive change

process focused on specific goals of school improvement. Mastery of Education and
Training Policy, curriculum and other program development initiatives is also significant
to determine how teachers develop and apply an understanding of the policy to contribute
to curriculum and/or other program development initiatives, and finally, forming
partnership with the school community in order to guide how teachers build, facilitate
and maintain working relationships with students, colleagues, parents and other care

24
givers to enhance student learning. In the literature on professional development, one sees
an increasing attention to embedding teacher learning opportunities in the day-to-day
work of schools (Little, 1994).

Almost School improvement program always calls for enhancing the knowledge, skills,
and dispositions of teachers and supporting staff. According to MOE, (2008:47) further
proclaims that the school leadership team has to have strategies in place to assist teachers
to continue to develop and share deep understandings of how students learn
subject/content, including prerequisite skills and knowledge, common student
misunderstanding and errors, learning difficulties and effective interventions. Whatever
course of action a school adopts, success usually is central to providing support and
resources for teachers to strengthen existing expertise or to learn new practices. Teacher
knowledge and skills are at stake as well, as their beliefs and attitudes, their motivations,
their willingness to commit, and their capacity to apply new knowledge to their particular
school and classrooms. Professional development and implementation usually should not
be separate steps in the process of change in the school improvement program (Simpkins,
2009).

Teacher professional development needs of other members of school community,

including school administrators and support personnel, must also be addressed to ensure a
focus on continuous learning and to create the conditions necessary for closing them
achievement gap and improving the achievement of all students. These standards provide
guidance for achieving high quality professional development planning, design, delivery
and assessment, and should serve as a foundation for all professional development in
schools. Little (1994), Research indicates that teacher quality is the single most powerful
influence on student achievement; it is essential to ensure that teachers are provided with
ongoing, high quality professional development to sustain and enhance their practice.

2.6. School Improvement Plan

Plan is a corner stone for any effective implementation. School improvement planning is
considered as road Map that sets out change school needs to make improve the level of
student achievement (ElC, 2000). It is a continuous process that brings improvement in

25
schools. Others consider it both as a mechanism to measure improvement and document
for monitoring progress. This happens when plan preparation is governed by leading
principles. In this regard MOE (2006) indicated the following key principles in school
improvement plan preparation. The target for school improvement is to achieve student
outcome; School principal is the leader of school improvement; Students and parents
have adequate knowledge about school improvement; School improvement planning
process is a team work that demands stake holder‟s adequate understanding about the
task to actively participate in the development.; School improvement planning a
continuous process that requires follow up to take immediate corrective measures; School
improvement plan target/goals are set based on reliable data sources , the quality of
school improvement plan document is determined by the quality and efficiency of those
professionals involved in the development of the process.

School planning is a dynamic and systematic process. Schools should ensure that their
processes allow planning to evolve to meet changing needs and circumstances. School
Improvement Framework Schools will establish a school improvement committee who
will work with the principal to develop and monitor the school‟s planning and
improvement processes (ACT, 2004). Based on principles, school which implements
school improvement programs pay attention to the following six issues for plan and
implement (MOE, 2006, 2007). These are contextual understanding, collecting, and
organizing, analyzing, setting goals prioritization and issue of concern, selecting best
practice, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Throughout the process without
active involvement of key school improvement stake holders such as parents, community
members, principals, teachers and students; attainment of the objective of the school
improvement is unthinkable. In strategic and the annual preparation all the concerned
need to work collaboratively with strong sense of team. Strategic planning is the central
role of school; hence, participatory sense of ownership, clear understanding of the
process and commitment are among factors that need to deserve attention during strategic
plan preparation on the part of school improvement plan.

26
2.7. School Improvement Committee

School improvement is work that requires collaborative efforts of stake holders, form
plan preparation through implementation and evaluation. To begin with school
improvement process the first step should be establishing school improvement
committee/team. Barnes (2004:5) suggest that the way to start school improvement is to
create a school improvement team and the team is a group of people who work together
to develop lead, and coordinate the school improvement process. According to the same
author the responsibility of school improvement team/committee includes: meet with
each other members of the school community to inform them of self study and its
objectives and process: obtain the input of faculty and staff and incorporate in to self
study process, collect data, meet regularly to discuss progress, make preliminary
conclusions and reflect on what data shows ,as well as on the process itself; assist with
documentation and evaluation of self study ;and assign and negotiate collection tasks
with in school community (Barnes, 2004).

According to MOE (2006), the school committee members are comprised of teachers,
management personnel, students, parents and community and the principal of each
schools works as the committee chairman. The MOE (2006), indicated, The school
improvement committee responsibilities in the school in the document includes; to be
prepare school improvement plan ,they out line strategies through which the school
community contribute substantially to the school improvement; the organize a system
which a school community participates in the school improvement program starting from
self evaluation to implementation and assessment ;and they implement such systems
closely supervises school improvement plan provide the necessary assistance and
support; and at the end academic year present a report to the school community on the
improvement activities carried out by the school. Based on the evaluation report they
inform the schools‟ status to the local community (MOE, 2006). The school
improvement team/committee conducts school self evaluation that is the starting point to
draft school improvement plan it gives direction to what issues should be addressed first
and what follows based on the priority given by school leaders, students and parents.
School can plan and implement their school improvement programs only when they are

27
aware of their current status in respect to the four domains based on reliable and accurate
information and when they design and perform their improvement plan (MOE, 2006).

2.8. Practices of School Improvement Program

In Ethiopia with the intension of improving the quality of education, much effort has
been exerted. For instance, during supervision of the program many efforts were made to
assess the experience of the best promoting school with in the country and experiences of
other countries. Different guidelines and frame works were developed and awareness
raising training was conducted at different level (MOE, 2007:47).Thus the secondary
schools are expected to successfully implement the school improvement program.
However, SIP is a very wide spread phenomenon and a wide variety of improvement
efforts can be found. to be any importance for school effectiveness school improvement
should use the school effectiveness, knowledge base and be directed to the application of
this knowledge as focused intervention, emphasizing implementation, emphasis outcomes
and evaluation techniques to practice school improvement program.

Implementation in the first year: preparation the school improvement unit decides how to
implement and guide the frame work. The school improvement committees and all
stakeholders of the school will help for implementation of the framework and school
preparation; collect evidences regarding the school domains making system survey:
regarding current school work efficiency assess the views of stakeholders (students,
parents and teachers). It is duties which school engage feedback regarding the four
domains of schools using survey decide and reach in agreement by investigating the
collected data for school work efficiency. The key stakeholders (teachers, students and
parents) should participate in the annual school evaluation.

In this respect the school improvement framework implementation will relate with
teaching & learning activities; and prepare plan of the school, the improvement unit,
using the result of evaluation will prepare plan for three years and annual plans. The plan
incorporates goals of objectives and priorities of the activities. Implementation of the
school plan: implementing the plan will start when the school improvement committee is
believed that the plan prepared is ready for implementation. This means that using

28
feedback transfer from the previous plan and new improved plan, follow-up and control
the committee itself and other stakeholders will make followed up and control system,
report of the implementation, the school improvement committee will present the annual
report for the school community and for the responsible bodies. Implementation in the
second year: - schools will evaluate their improvement regarding the goal sets and
priorities differentiate where there are new priorities, select where there are standards
which are not evaluated, lastly the committee will report the progress of the SIP.

Implementation of the third year: - schools will control then improvement through
evaluation; implementation of strategic plan will continue; making follow up and
evaluation; schools activities and results will be evaluated and provided feedback by out
of school unit using the concrete evidences of the schools by identifying their strengths
and weakness recommendation will be provided and feedback will be reported to the
school (MOE, 1999:6).

2.9. Problems of School Improvement Program (SIP)

The school improvement is complex process which can be challenged by different factors
during its implementation. In this respect, Fullan (2001:89-90) has noted that when a new
initiative is introduced undoable it will create difficult to both individuals and
institutions. Thus for success of the program it need to consider challenging factors prior
to the implementation of the program and in due process. It is even more serious in
developing countries like ours. A lot of attempts made in reform and improvement to
change endeavor has been facing challenge.

Some of the problems identified by Khosa (2009) include; many schools are
dysfunctional, and are not transforming time, teaching, physical and financial resources
in learning outcomes. Next curriculum delivery is poor; teachers do not complete the
curriculum, and pitch their teaching at levels than those demanded by the curriculum. In
addition, district support and monitoring functions are inadequate and in effective. Last
but not least, community supports of schools are low.

29
Earl et al. (2003) the challenges to school improve attempts are: although pressure is
often necessary to focus improvement and push beyond trivial changes. Next, as school
improvement networks evolve, the challenge to motivate the involvement of a critical
mass of teachers intensifies. Along with the routine challenge of getting staff to “buy in “
we heard about the complications that came from routine changes in staff over time,
Besides schools were certainly collecting and trying to use data in to their planning and
decision making. This is an area that appears to need ongoing and focused attention for
all schools.

As school improvement manual (MOE, 2007) states about the obstacles of SIP
implementation Includes lack of commitment to depart from traditional practices,
absence of responsible organized effort at all levels which could direct and monitor the
program implementation ,shortage of training ,lack of initiative and good look on the part
of some teachers and school leaders, absence of awareness creations among stakeholders
and absence of clearly stated role about the participation level of each stake holders
.Similarly, Harris in Hopkins (2002:19) has noted difficult to change school management
arrangement and working culture as challenge to SIP in developing countries. In our case
too, school improvement was challenged by lack of necessary input, lack of commitment,
low level of motivation, poor leadership and the like are expected challenges in the
implementation of school improvement program.

2.10. School Facilities as Factors of School Improvement program

In fact clean, quiet, full equipment, comfortable and healthy environment are an
important of successful teaching and learning. Bishop (1995:111) point out there is a
relation that exists between school facilities and students learning. The author states that
the availability of school facilities such as teaching materials and equipment, laboratory
apparatus, specialist work rooms, the media of communication, the design of the class
room, the climate of the school have an acceleration or a deadening influence on the
students learning. From the view of the above authors, it is clear that school facilities

30
enhance or affect students learning. This in turn that school facilities can affect school
improvement program implementation.

2.11. Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms of School Improvement

Program

In school improvement program to raise the question like; what does it mean to be
improving school? How can it be measured? This point stretched to the evaluation
process of school improvement. Earl el al (2003), although school effectiveness and
school improvement research have been areas of intense activity for several decades, they
are, in many ways, still in their infancy. Certainly, the work that has been done in many
different countries extended our knowledge and understanding about ways in which
education and the broader and community can engage in process to improve school.
Goldstein (1998) in Earl et al. (2003) indicate that the academic research community is
just beginning to establish some comprehensive models of how school can change to
become more effective and to develop research methodologies and analysis techniques
that capture the complexity of change. The implication of measuring school improvement
is for reaching with regard to the trends in evaluating of school improvement initiatives .

Monitoring and evaluation consist in measuring the status of objective or activity against
an “expected target” that allows judgment or comparison (UNESCO, 2006).with this
regard, school improvement guide line prepared by MOE has given emphasis monitoring
and evaluation.

According to MOE (2006), conducting that evaluation, documentation and reporting

activities that are connected with national curriculum evaluation and learning capacity
studies supervising improvements in student result and providing assistant as a needed;
making sure that teacher and other staff members have developed s sufficient skill in
monitoring and evaluation and assessments conducted and using them in plan
preparation; supervising the progress of students according to the outlined targets;
identifying low academic performance in individual student level, section, class level and

31
subject type. This shows that monitoring and evaluation is an integral part of school
improvement plan implementation.

2.12. School Improvement Process Cycle

To attain high student achievement level, schools set goals for improvement and make
decision on how and when this goal may be achieved, create positive environment for
learning and increase the degree to which parents are involved in their children‟s learning
at school and in home (EIC, 2000). School improvement by its nature is continuous
process that can systematically put in to the reality. MOE (2006), on SIP training manual
out lined different stages that the school needs to pass through to realize the improvement
effort. The Coordination of this evidence-base is a continuous process, designed to
efficiently and effectively distribute effort and resources to best meet changing needs and
address school and system priorities. From this, MOE (2007, b & c), indicated that, the
preliminary stages such as formation of school improvement team/committee,
understanding the context and setting issue of concern and other phases like, preparation
of school improvement plan implementation, follow up and monitoring the
implementation as well as Evaluation.

The Improvement Cycle uses an evidence-based model that helps schools to implement a
more effective continuous Improvement Cycle. The process as depicted in the Ethiopian
school improvement Frame work document has shown in the following three year school
improvement cycle (MOE, 2007c).

32
 1st year

-Self evaluation
- planning
- Implementation
3rd year -Monitoring &evaluation 2nd year
-self evaluation
- Yearly self evaluation -Planning
- Planning - Implementation
- Implementation -Following &
monitoring
- Monitoring and evaluation -External
Validation
- reporting
Source: MOE (2011)

2.13. School Improvement Framework

The School Improvement Framework provides ACT public schools with a structure for
raising quality, achieving excellence and delivering better schools for better futures. The
framework sets up a dynamic relationship between research and planning that will assist
schools to undertake self-assessment which is context-specific, evidence-informed and
outcomes-focused.

MOE, (2010:26) framework which states that some specific activities that involve a high
degree of participation in a wider school plan development context, which can be applied
in the school improvement programme, include: collecting and analyzing information;
defining priorities and strategic goals; assessing available resources; deciding on and
planning of the school improvement programmes; designing strategies to implement
school improvement programmes and dividing responsibilities among participants;

33
managing school improvement programmes; monitoring progress of the school
improvement programmes; and evaluating the results and impacts, among others.
Excellent schools direct their energies and resources towards the improvement of
learning to maximize achievement and realize the potential of all students. They are
committed to making a difference and doing things better.

2.14. Countries Experiences about School Improvement Program

2.14.1. School Improvement in Australia

School improvement program in Australia has a large extent been due to state education
system initiatives (Marsha, 1988:13). The emergence of a very different, decentralized
system in Victoria in the 1980s warrants special mention. The incoming labor
government introduced series of ministerial papers during 1982-1984 to announce the
creation of school council, a state board of education (Marsha, 1998:14). Moreover, this
authority described that it is evident that other states education system in Australia are
likely to follow the lead given by the act school authority and the Victorian education
ministry in devolving decision making to the local school level. Many different patterns
many emerge during the next decade, but highly likely that parents and students will be
encouraged to be more closely involved in local school decision-making. School
improvement ventures in the future are therefore likely to involve and should involve
parents and community members and students, as well as teachers and related
professional group.
This program by and large has many similarities to the Ethiopian school improvement
program and it seems that the Ethiopian SIP might have been developed from the
Australian one; the teaching learning process; School leadership of management; Safe
and healthy school environment, and Relation among parents, community involvement
domain (MOE, 1999 E.C).The elements and indicators of SIP are interdependent and
complementally to each other, which are directed towards attaining the major goal of
improving student‟s performance.

34
 2.14.2. School Improvement in United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, improving the quality of education for All (IQEA)‟is considered
as one of the successful school improvement attempts in the world. The project was
established initially based at Cambridge University. Since then it has operated in over
fifty schools across England and Wales and additionally has incorporate schools in
Iceland, Puerto Rico and South Africa in to the program. The project is currently led by
staff at two Universities in the United Kingdom, Cambridge and northern kingdom. Both
these Universities provide the academic leadership and vision for the program and
represent the focal point for IQEA schools.

The IQEA model of school improvement is based up on for fundamental belief in the
relationship between teacher‟s professional growth and school development. It is the
projects view that schools are more likely to strengthen their ability to provide enhanced
outcomes for all purples when they adopt ways of working that are consistent both with
their own aspiration as school community with the demands of external change. As
research evidence consistently demonstrates that successful schools use external change
agendas for internal purposes. The project believes in harassing the possibility for
internal change through external pressure. It is central promise is that without an equal
focus on the development of capacity, or internal conditions of the school, innovative
work quickly becomes marginalized (MOE, 1998 E.C).

2.14.3. School Improvement in Kenya

School improvement in Kenya is a program based on the assumption that effective

change consists of a focus on the individual school, clinical methods of teacher
development, and improved school management. An evaluation of this program by
collecting data through class room observation; semi structured interviews with project
administrators, teachers and parents; informal interviews with project manager‟s staff and
teachers; surveys of teachers of parents; and pupil tests has shown that on the over all, the
program was found to be highly successful. However, it was also recommended that the
program need to ensure that professional development strategies remain in place, improve

35
the coast effectiveness of clinical staff development, and provide more focused training
of head teachers. The emphasis on individual schools and child –centered learning were
effective. In addition, the new teaching strategies did not lead to lower standards of
student attainment and facilitate student‟s development of non cognitive and social skills
(Harry B., 2000)

Other school improvement program initiatives which focused on sustained teacher

development have also been implemented in east Africa since 1985 by Aga khan
Foundation. The program include school and district wide improvement project (SIPS)
supported by the Aga khan foundation in Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda grounded in a
common set of strategic principles. The strategic principles embody the belief that the
chances for quality improvement in teaching and learning are greater when change efforts
are school based; involve whole schools as the unit of change. Emphasis the ongoing
professional development of teachers attend to school management and organizational
conditions affecting the capacity of teachers to implement change, prepare for the
institutionalization of organizational structures and processes that enable continues
school development, and evolve through partnerships among relevant education stake
holders (Aga Khan Foundation, 2002).

2.15. School Improvement Program in Ethiopia

Ethiopia has embarked on a new education and training policy which was issued by the
transitional government of Ethiopia (TGE) following the military regime in 1991. The
other program is that the 1994 education and training policy document were formulated
to achieve the economic developmental goals of the country and for this practices the
Ethiopian education and training policy is launched the first Education Sector
Development Program (ESDP-I) in 1997.The objective of ESDP is to improve
educational quality, relevance, efficiency, equity and expand access to education with
special emphasis on primary education in rural and underserved areas, as well as the
promotion of education for girls as a first step to achieve universal primary education by
2015(MOE, 2005 E.C).

36
In its attempt to ensure the quality of education in the country, the government of
Ethiopia has been engaged in formulating and implementing different policies and
programs. One of the programs recently developed and currently under implementation is
the general education quality improvement package (GEQIP) which has the following six
important pillars: teacher development program (TDP), school improvement program
(SIP)|, civic and ethical education, curriculum improvement program (CIP), information
and communication technology (ICT), and management and administration program
(MAP).

Even though there are six different pillars as indicted above, all of the other five pillars
are there to strengthen school improvement program because all of them are inputs for
school improvement program which is reflected by student achievement. The school
improvement program comprises four domains, 12 elements, 29 standards and 150
indicators; all of which are targeting at improving students performance to achieve the
educational goal (MOE, 2007c).

According to MOE (2007), school improvement is an essential program to the realization

of quality education. Hence, it should be implemented in the schools of throughout the
day. The program is expected to help schools in enhancing the academic performance of
their students. The main focus of SIP in Ethiopia is to enhance the student achievement
by improving the student learning and other conditions associated with in (MOE, 2007).
The document also points out that the need for SIP is to make schools accountable for
parents, community and government to develop the responsibility and accountability of
educational personnel„s working at different level of the education system.

MOE (2010) also points out that access at all levels of the education system increased at a
rapid rate in line with a sharp increase in the number of teachers, schools and institutions.
There were also important improvements in the availability of trained teachers and some
other inputs which are indispensable for a high quality education system, challenges,
however, in order to realize quality and internal efficiency. Hence, the focus of education
polices under ESDP-IV shifts towards priority programs which address these challenges.

37
As to the MOE (2007) document, it was necessary to shift attention to quality concerns in
general and to those inputs and processes which translate more directly into improved
Student learning and which help change the school into a genuine learning environment
in particular. In order to improve the short comings related to quality, MOE launched the
general education quality improvement package (GEQIP) in 2007. Hence, school
improvement program is among the programs designed to improve quality of education
in the country. The SIP being practices in Ethiopia to improve quality of education was
adopted from the Australian school excellence initiatives and it consisted of four domains
and twelve elements (MOE, 2007c).

38
 CHAPTER THREE
THE RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The chapter describes the appropriate research design and suitable research method was
employed for the topic. It also described the sources of data, Instruments and data
collection method, Sample and Sampling techniques, and Method of data analysis.

3.1. Research Design

In this study descriptive survey design was employed on the ground that it was found to
be helpful able and relevant information from variety of group on the actual practices of
SIP. Descriptive survey involves acquiring information about one or more groups of
people perhaps about their characteristics, opinions, attitudes or previous experience -by
asking those questions and tabulating their answer (Leedy and Ormrod, 2005).Therefore
to assess the current practice and problems of school improvement program mixed
methods research design was employed. It is a procedure for collecting, analyzing, and
“mixing” both quantitative and qualitative methods in a single study or a series of studies
to understand a research problem (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).This research method
design is used when both quantitative and qualitative data together provide a better
understanding of our research problem than either type by itself. The kind of mixed
research design is embedded sequential design were used. The purpose of the embedded
design is to collect quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously or sequentially, but to
have one form of data play a supportive role to the other form of data. The reason for
collecting the second form of data is that it augments or supports the primary form of
data.

3.2. Research Method

In this study mixed research method (both quantitative and qualitative approach) was
employed. The quantitative approach asks specific questions, and collects quantitative
data from a large number of participants; analyses these results using statistics; and
conducts the inquiry in an unbiased and objective manner. This research method is used
to take advantages of using quantitative and qualitative data collection approach to assess
problems faced and practices of school improvement programme in the secondary

39
schools. In the study, quantitative data collection of questionnaires carried more weight
than qualitative data collection instruments like interviews, observation, focus group
discussion and document reviews. Accordingly, quantitative data was collected first
followed by qualitative data collection, analysis and interpretation.

While qualitative data in a second phase as a follows to answer new questions emerged
from the quantitative results that required the researcher to use sequential design, it is
usually to use qualitative results to help explain the quantitative data results. The qualitative
approach in mixed research methods is a type of research in which the researcher relies
on the views of participants; asks broad, general questions; collects data consisting
largely of words or text from participants; describes and analyses these words and them.
The data collected by qualitative method was triangulated with the quantitative data.
Therefore, interview, FGD, observation and document analysis are qualitative data
gathering tools employed in the study to obtain qualitative information from respondents.
The findings of the study together with the broad information acquired from the
quantitative and qualitative data was used to inform educators at national level, teachers,
school principals, secondary school supervisors, zone education experts, district
education office experts, parents and local community on how to maximize the school
improvement programme implementation in the secondary education sector.

3.3. Sources of the Data

The data source was obtained from primary and secondary. The primary sources of data
are secondary school principals, teachers, vice principals, Schools improvement
committee, secondary schools supervisors, Woreda and Zone education office heads and
PTA members. Whereas the secondary source of data was secondary Schools
improvement documents, data which is prepared for this purpose like ESDP guide line
are considered.

40
3.4. Sampling and Sampling Techniques
3.4.1. Population Sampling
The study of target population was secondary school principals, vice principals,
teachers, supervisors, Woreda education office heads, secondary schools SIC members
and PTA members. In this study the researcher believed that they are tangible and real
source of data on the practices and problems of school improvement program in
Gambella region of Majang zone.

3.4.2. Sampling Techniques

A total of two Woredas in Majang zone including Godera and Godera Mission woreda
and six secondary schools. Out of these schools, however, four of them (Tenshu metti,
Jain, Gelasha and Kumi) were included in sampling, The schools were selected by simple
random sampling technique so as to gives equal chance of being included in the study for
all first cycle secondary and second cycle secondary schools from each woreda in the
area under investigation. Accordingly total of 113 respondents were involved in the
study. From these, out of 172 teachers, 68(43.8%) teachers was selected in simple
random sampling, school principals, vice principals, supervisors, woreda education office
heads, zone education office head, 20 students and teachers who are school improvement
committee and 12 PTA members were taken as sample school by selected in Purposive
sampling technique was employed.

41
 Table 1: Population and sampling size of teachers by Secondary schools
No School Name Target population of Sampled teachers
teachers

M F T M F T

1 Jain 43 5 48 16 2 18
2 Tenshu metti 72 12 84 32 3 30

3 Kumi 19 4 23 6 2 10

4 Gelasha 14 3 17 6 1 9

Total 148 24 172 59 9 68

3.5. Instruments and Procedures of Data Collection

3.5.1. Instruments of the Data Collection

Different data collecting instrument were employed in this study to gather reliable and
appropriate information from respondent. Therefore the study mainly employed
Questionnaires, Interview, observation list; focusing group discussion and document
analysis data collection are used

Questionnaires; According to Gay (1992) Questionnaires give for the respondents

the freedom to express their views and opinion and also to make suggestions. The
Questionnaire including both close-ended and open-ended items. It is prepared and
administer for principals, supervisors, vice principals and Teachers in the purpose of to
assess the practice and problems of school improvement program. It included 9 open-
ended and 48 close ended items which are basically aimed at exploring the
implementation of school improvement program. In close-ended questionnaires the five
point Likert scale is used; from Vary high to very low. (And open-ended questionnaires
were important in order to giving an opportunity for the respondents to express the filling
and insight of related to the practices of school improvement program. Best and Kahan,
(2003) Open ended questions are necessary due to the fact that it calls for a free response

42
in the respondents. Then, the questionnaire consists two parts, the respondents‟ personal
characteristics and items relevant the School Improvement Program. This was prepared in
English Language.

Interviews; Gubrium and Holstein (2001) also stated that interview is useful
instrument to generate often important and crucial information. It is qualitative data
collection tool from the selected sampled schools. According to Best, J.W., and Kahan,
J.V. (2003) The reason for using interview was that they could permit the exploration of
issues, which might be too complex to investigate through questionnaires and also
justified as it allows better chance to explain more explicitly what he/she knows on the
issue. This method of data gathering were preparing for school principals, Woreda and
Zone Education office head and secondary school supervisors , get reliable information
about the SIP. The question is prepared in English language.

Observation; It is important to observe the accessibilities of classroom and teaching

learning input, the preparation of school SIP plan document and whether the school
environments is attractive to teaching and learning for the practice of SIP and to find out
the problems that face for the implementation of School improvement program.

Focusing Group Discussions; It is suitable to gather qualitative data that goes in

step further than interview. This tool was used to explore the level of stakeholder‟s
awareness on the practices and problems of school improvement program. FGD were
prepared for School improvement committee and PTA committee to generate in depth
information from community and which give an insight in to attitude and perception in
the social status whereas peoples can be their own view of point in the perspective of
other, in case of this, new idea can be create and making in group of discussion. The
question guide lines were prepared in English language and for PTA committee translated
in Amharic Language in a sake of reliable information from the respondents.

43
Document Review; Is used to see the availability of the entire essential General
Education Quality Improvement Package documents for instance, policy guidelines,
handbooks, school grants guideline and others.

3.5.2. Procedures of Data Collection

To ensure the data collection, the necessary relationship should be created with the
concerned bodies in the schools and woreda education offices. This was done by
providing official letter to them and informing the objective of the study. Then when to
get appropriate respondents and relevant documents for data collection was set.
Unfortunately, contact was made and orientation was given to selected respondents on
how to fill the questionnaires, conduct interview. After giving the orientation, the set of
questionnaire was distributed to be filled and collected back by the researcher and to
gathering with conducted documents analysis.

3.6. Methods of Data Analysis

The data which was collected through questionnaires, interviews, and observation and
focus group discussions was analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. With regards
to questionnaire data, it was presented in tables. The respondents were mainly grouped
into the following categories teachers, principals, secondary school supervisors, vice
principals. The quantitative data which was collected through questionnaires from
principals, teachers, supervisors and vice principals are analyzed and interpreted using
statistical software SPSS table in terms of data measure of descriptive spastics such as
frequency percentage, mean and standard deviation and to check the differences between
the response of respondents about the practices and problems of SIP to use ANOVA test.
The purpose of ANOVA is to test for multiple group comparisons between respondents
on the status of practices and problems of school improvement programme. Beside this,
the qualitative data collected through interview, open -ended questions, observation and
document analysis was also analysis technique for triangulation and justification purpose
by narrated under quantitative data (items) related to it.

44
3.7. Validity

Validity means checking the accuracy of the findings by employing different procedures,
that is, the credibility and trustworthiness of the data would be checked to address
validity (Bailey, 2007:180). Cohen et al. (2005:105) and Best and Kahn (2005:208),
validity presupposes that an instrument measures what it is supposed to measure and that
validity supports the researcher to decide on the scale measuring what it is meant to
measure. To assess the validity of the school improvement programme, the validity of the
instrument was analysed to get the difference between the performance gap scores and
participants‟ ratings on the measures by using a 5 point Likert scale which ranges
between very high, high, medium, low and very low.

3.8. Reliability

Reliability refers to the “extent to which a measure, procedure or instrument provides the
same results on repeated trials.” reliability as the extent to which the instrument measures
whatever it is measuring consistently (Best and Kahan 2005). From 48closs ended and 9
open ended items of the questionnaire, the collected data accuracy was checked by
Cronbach‟s alpha coefficient statistically calculated was 0.92. Ethical issues were
addressed during data collection and writing of this thesis and these are discussed below.

45
3.9. Ethical Consideration

Under Ethical consideration the following points to be considered; the respondents

should always be treated with respect. Is especially important in qualitative study to seek
the cooperation of all subjects in the research. And usually subject should told the
researchers interest and should give their permission to proceed the study. The
researchers should never lie to subjects nor record conversation and using hidden tape
recorder. Care should be carried out to ensure that none information collected would
unnecessary. If confidentiality cannot be maintained respondents must be informed. In
every data gathering occasions, I used to inform my respondents that the purpose of the
study and the information they give is used only for study purposes, so that we all benefit
from the outcome. I told them that, if they are not willing to participate they have a right
to withdraw from the study. In order to get their full permission I tried my best to treat
them with respect. I did not attempt anything that makes the participants lose confidence
in me. Therefore, I claim that ethical issues which should be addressed are properly
treated in this research.

46
 CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

As indicated in the previous chapters, the objective of the study was to assess the
Practices and problems of school improvement program in secondary schools of
Gambella region Majange zone. Therefore, this chapter deals with Presentation Analysis
and Interpretation of the data obtained from the sample schools by using the data
gathering tools like questionnaire, interview, focus group discussion and document
observation review to search for appropriate solutions to the basic questions of the study.
The data collected through closed- ended questions from school principals, supervisors,
teachers and Woreda education office experts were presented in tables and analyzed
using mean, standard deviation score and ANOVA test. The qualitative data obtained
through interview and observation was presented and analyzed in descriptive form
together with the quantitative analyses of related questionnaire items. This section of the
research report is categorized in to two major parts. The first part presents the
characteristics of respondents and the second part deals with the analysis and
interpretation of the school improvement program (SIP) based on the data collected.

4.1 . Characteristics of the Respondents

Secondary schools principals, supervisors, teachers and vice principals were involved in
filing the questionnaire. Besides, school principals, supervisors, woreda education office
head and zone education office heads are participated in providing response for the
interview and SIC members and PTA members involved in focusing group discussion. A
total of 113 respondents were involved in the study and used for analysis.

47
 Table.2. Characteristics of respondents by Sex and Age

Variable P SU T VP WEOH ZONE SIC PTA

N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

M 4 100 2 100 59 86.8 4 100 2 100 1 100 14 70 8 66.6

Sex F - - - - 9 13.2 - - - - - - 6 30 4 33.4

Total 4 100 2 100 68 100 4 100 2 100 1 100 20 100 12 100

18-30 - - - - 29 41.6 - - - - - - 8 40 - -

31-40 3 75 1 50 33 48.5 3 75 1 50 - - 4 20 5 41.6

41-50 1 25 1 50 5 7.4 1 25 1 50 1 100 - - 6 58.4
Age
51-60 - - - - 1 1.5 - - - - - - - - - -

Total 4 100 2 100 68 100 4 100 2 100 1 100 12 70 12 100

As indicated in table 1. All the school principals, supervisors, vice principals, WEOH and
ZEOH are male. There is domination male teachers in sampled schools; it is advisable to
work on issue to bring them to act as principals, supervisors, vice principals and office
head. 69 (87.3%) and 10(12.7) of teachers are male and female. it shows numbers of
female teachers are encouraging by government. This indicated that the majority of
teachers in Majang zone are male. And 14(70%) and 6(30%) of School improvement
committee 8(66.6%) and 4(33.4%) of PTA members are male and female it indicate that
moderate level respectively.

Regarding to age distribution, 3(75%) school principals were in the age category of 31-
40years but the rest principal were between 41-50years. These shows as the majority of
school principals are young to perform the given task. One school supervisor was 31-40
years while the other supervisors between 41-50 years. 29(41.6%), 33(48.3%), 5(7.4%)
and 1(1.5%) of teachers were in between 18-30, 31-40, 41-50 and 51-60 years
respectively. it indicated that the majority of sampled schools teachers was young. Vice
principals age category were 3(75%) in between 31-40 while the other was in 41-50
years. WEOH were between 31-40 and 41-50 respectively. SIC age distribution was

48
8(40%) were below 18 years, 8(40%) and 4(20%) were in between 18-30 and 31-40 years
respectively. Therefore, the respondents are mature to answer the question properly while
PTA members were 5(41.6%) and 6(58.4%) were in between 31-40 and 41-50
respectively.

Table.3. Characteristics of respondents by academic qualification

Variable P SU V.P T WEO ZEO Total
H H
N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

MA
3 75 2 100 - - - - - - - 5 6.3

BA/BSC/
1 25 - - 4 100 51 75 - - - - 56 70.9
Qualifi BED
cation Diploma
- - - 7 25 2 1 10 12.6
Students
8 10.1
Grad 9-12

Total 4 100 2 100 4 100 68 100 2 100 1 100 79 100

Key; P = principals, SU = supervisor, T = teachers, VP = vice principals WEO =

Woreda education office, ZEO = zone education office, SIC =school improvement
committee.

In terms of academic qualification, 3(75%) of school principals and 2(100%) of

supervisors were masters degree and 1(25%) of school principals were first degree.
Therefore, the data indicated that the majority of the respondents had the qualification
required to perform their educational qualification for their respected position.25% of the
school principals were not qualified for the required position they hold regard to field of
specialization as it is indicated in the table. 4(100%) of vice principals were first degree
holder. It indicated that is not enough of educational qualification in regard to perform
the activity. 51(75%) and 7(25%) of teachers were first degree and diploma holder
respectively. This indicated that 75% of teachers were maximum qualified for first cycle
secondary school and 25% of were under qualification for the position. Therefore, from

49
the study we conclude that minimum requirement to be secondary school principal,
supervisor and vice principals is almost satisfactory. While minimum requirement to be
second cycle secondary school teacher is not satisfactory. 2(100%) of WEOH were
diploma and the field of specialization is not directly related to their responsibility. It
shows as low understanding about SIP and focus on political work. On the other hand
7(35%) and 5(25%) of SIC members of teachers were first degree and diploma and
8(40%) of SIC members of students were grade 9th-12th. This indicates that relatively all
grade level of students were taken as sample from grade 9-12th. And 4(41.6%) of PTA
members were in grade 9-10th while the rest 8(58.4%) were below grade 9th.

Table 4 Characteristics of respondents by working experiences

Variable Total P Su Vp T WEOH ZEOH

service
years N % N % N % N % N % N %

<5 - - - - - - 8 11.8 1 50 - -
Working
6-10 3 75 1 50 4 100 52 76.5 1 50 1 100
Experienc 11-15 1 25 1 50 - 6 8.8 - - - -
es
16-20 - - - - - - 2 2.9 - - - --
21-25 - - - - - - - - - - -
>26 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 4 100 2 100 4 100 68 100 2 100 1 100

As concerning to working experiences of respondents, 3(75%) and 1(50%) of school

principals and supervisors were in between 6-10years experiences whereas 1(25%) and
1(50%) of principals and supervisors were in between the experiences of 11-15 years
respectively. While all vice principals were in between 6-10 years. 8(11.8%) of teachers
were below 5 years experiences and The majority of the teachers 52 (76.5%) were in the
service category of 6-10 years and others 6(8.8%) and 2(2.9%) of teachers were in
between 11-15years and 16-20years respectively . This depicts that more teachers have

50
average years of teaching experience. 1(50%) of WEOH were less than 5years services
without taking any kind of educational leadership and 1(50%) were in between 6-10
years experiences without any kind of knowledge to lead education sectors.1(100%) of
zone office head were in the category of 6-10years services. It indicated that for the
successful of educational sectors, educational leader had adequate work experience with
related educational background to enhance capacity. With this in mind, as it can be seen
in table 4.2, educational office head working from zone bureau and Woreda level were
less than those of sit worker by service. 4(33.3%) of SIC members of teachers were less
than 5years and 8(66.7%) of SIC members of teachers were in between 6-10years
services. then majority of teachers members were in services category to perform the
program.

4.2. Planning the School Improvement Program Practices

School development planning is a collective effort on the part of stakeholders at school

and it is a never ending and cyclical process aimed at achieving the vision of the school.
the success of SIP planning to implement schools has conducting self evaluation and
prioritizing the problems accordingly, participating school stakeholders, providing
training in the planning of SIP and allocating budgets (resources) for the practices of SIP
planning.

51
Table.5. Respondents views on Collaborative planning of SIP
No Items Respondents Ove P
r all val
P Su VP T
X ue
X SD X SD X SD X SD
1 The preparation of school 4 4 3.75 0.5 3.41 0.9 3.79 0.5
strategic l improvement plan
The participation of
2 teachers, students and 2.5 0.6 2.5 0.7 2.75 0.5 2.18 0.6 2.48 0.2
parents in developing
school improvement
plan
the encouragement of
3 Community to be 2.5 0.6 2.5 0.7 2.25 0.5 2.25 0.6 2.43 0.8
involved in the
planning of SIP

Key; 5=very high, 4=high=3 =medium, 2= low and 1 very low. X= mean, SD=standard
deviation, P-value at α=0.05 level and degree of freedom=103, Scales: - ≤ 1.49 = very
low, 1.5 – 2.49 = low 2.5 – 3.49 = medium, 3.5 –4.49 = high, ≥ 4.5 = very high.

In item 1, the school principals, supervisors and vice principals respondents replied that,
school strategic improvement plan was good with mean value of 4, 4 and 3.75, SD= 0.5
respectively. Whereas teachers respondents indicate strategic improvement plan in the
school was moderate with mean value of 3.41, SD= 0.9. The average mean values of
3.79, indicating that strategic school improvement plan were good. Additionally data
obtained from interview question and document review shows schools have well strategic
school improvement plan; this is due to school principals have the commitment about the
strategic plan. The significance level (p=0.46) is greater than 0.05, this means there is no
difference between the views of teachers, principals, vice principals and supervisors with
the given issue. Therefore, we conclude that school encouraged to prepared strategic
improvement plan.

Table 5 of item 2, the extent to which teachers, students and PTA members participated
in developing SIP plan. Respondents of principals, supervisors and vice principals was
replied moderate with the mean value of 2.5, SD =0.5, 2.5, SD =0.7 and 2.75, SD =0.5
and teachers with mean value of 2.18, SD =0.6 shows low teachers students and PTA

52
members in the participation of developing SIP plan. Furthermore the data gathered
through FGD from PTA and SIC indicating that, relatively one school (Tenshu Metti
secondary school) PTA members were participated in school planning, the rest of the
sampled schools were not encouraged teachers and students in school improvement plan.
This is due to school principals have not understood the aims and the value of school
community participation in implementation of SI plan. The overall mean value of 2.48. It
indicates the majority of respondents agree low participation of teachers, student and
PTA members with the given issue. This data clearly shows that, those who participated
in the planning developed the sense of accountability and ownership and it is crucial for
all learning school community to be involved in the issues of planning since
implementation of the program is not only the issues of those few planners but also the
issue of entire learning community and all stakeholders. The significance level (p= 0.2) is
greater than 0.05, it means there is no difference between the views of principals,
teachers, supervisors and vice principals with the participation of teachers and students in
the improvement plan were unsatisfactory.

The extent to which community encouraged to be involved in the planning of SIP. The
respondents of principals, supervisors, vice principals and teachers replied that medium
community encouragement in SIP planning with mean value of =2.5, SD =0.5, 2.5, SD
=0.7, 2.5, SD =0.5 and 2.5, SD =0.6. Additionally data obtained from interview question
from principal‟s shows as community involvement has low in school planning process.
During planning school leaders must assign the key responsible planner boobies for the
practices. As school principals replied in the interview - In fact there is community
participation in giving positive ideas for better performance of schools and also support
in labor activities to some extent. However, participation through the
contribution/extraction/ of money and material was low though it differs from school to
school.

MOE, (2010:26) framework which states that some specific activities that involve a high
degree of participation in a wider school plan development context, which can be applied
in the school improvement programme, include: collecting and analyzing information;
defining priorities and strategic goals; assessing available resources; deciding on and

53
planning of the school improvement programmes; designing strategies to implement
school improvement programmes and dividing responsibilities among participants;
managing school improvement programmes; monitoring progress of the school
improvement programmes; and evaluating the results and impacts, among others. The
averages mean value of 2.43, indicating majority respondents were low agreement of
with the given issue. This is due to the school principals were not give attention for
community involvement .The significance level (p= 0.8) is greater than 0.05, it means
there is difference between the views of respondents the encouragement of community in
the school planning has not actively involved. Therefore it concludes that low community
encouragement in developing Sip planning. Then the school principals and stakeholders‟
has expected to responsible for encourage and mobilize in the school improvement
planning.

Table 6 Respondents views on the planning of SIP implementation

No Items Respondents Ove P

P Su VP T r all valu
X SD X SD X SD X SD X e
1 providing Trainings
in School Improvement
Program planning for all 2.5 0.6 2.5 0.7 3 0.8 2.13 0.5 2.53 0.02
staff in the school
2 School allocation budget
for the achievement of
teaching learning 3.5 0.5 3.5 0.7 3.25 0.5 2.72 0.7 3.24 0.03
3 school conducting self-
evaluation by prioritizes
the problems at the 2.5 0.5 2.5 0.7 2.25 0.5 2.25 0.6 3.11 0.10
beginning of the year

Table 6 of item 1, to realize measurable gains in school performance and to ensure at

wide understanding on how to implement SIP, the provision of considerable capacity
building training play vital roles. Regarding to item 2 respondents of principals,
supervisors and vice principals has training providing for all staff members were
moderate with weighted mean value of 2.5,SD=0.6, 2.5, SD=0.7 and 3, SD=0.8
respectively. Thus, the results on the provision of training in order to ensure a wide

54
understanding on SIP implementation shows that the expected result are not achieved.
The averages mean value 2.53 indicating the majority of the respondents were medium
agreement with the given issue. As interview result reveals that secondary school
supervisors, and school principals give capacity building training on SIP planning to
school community once a year; but this is not enough to implement SIP. The training
given was especially on GEQIP which includes SIP. Mostly the schools directors
explained that the training given was not continuous; the attention given by concerned
bodies to these issues is not as should have been; they only left for the schools. From this
one can deduce that training given in sample schools were at low level. Hence, still it
needs more consideration for more success of SIP implementation.

With regarding to item 2 of table 6, the respondents of principals, supervisors, vice

principals and teachers replied that allocation of budget were moderate for the
achievements of SIP plan with the mean value of 3.5, SD= 0.6, 3.5, SD =0.7, 3.25, SD
=0.5 and 2.72, SD =0.7 respectively. The average mean X= 3.24, indicating medium
agreement of majority respondents with the given issue. Furthermore data obtained from
interview question shows that there is lack of budget allocating from woreda education
and finance office for schools, in this regard for schools allocating only school grantee
budget and additionally schools has to use internal income and to solve their problems.
From this schools has lack of allocating budget but schools has to be encouraged to
generate and promoting internal income to solve the problems. The government also has
responsible for allocate sufficient budget because school improvement program has wide
and it needed sufficient materials. Therefore is difficult to achieve the Goal monished by
ministry of education without budget. The significance level (p= 0.03) is less than 0.05,
it means there is difference between the views of teachers, principals, vice principals and
supervisors with regarding to the allocation of budget has unsatisfactory.

In item 3 of table 6, respondents school conducting self- evaluation and prioritization of

the problem. The respondents of principals, supervisors and teachers replied that
moderate level of school conducting self evaluation and prioritize the problem with mean
value of 3.25, SD =0.96, 3, SD =1.41and 2.71, SD =0.71 respectively. Vice principals
with mean value of 3.5, SD= 0.57 indicated schools high self evaluation were conduct

55
and prioritize problem accordingly. The averages mean value of 3.11, indicating medium
of the majority respondents with the given issue. This data might indicate that conducting
self -evaluation and prioritizing problems were not considered as the main activities to be
accomplished among the leaders of the schools.

Similarly, an interview held with secondary school principals and supervisors depicted
that schools did not carry out self-evaluation. Only school directors prepare and present
for approval by school committee at the beginning of the years. Especially secondary
school supervisors stressed that without conducting self-evaluation and identifying
specific problems areas SIP implementing is difficult. So it can be deduced that the plan
was not put in to action. Therefore, from this no school self-evaluation during preparation
of strategic plan in sample schools. Hence, it is clear that inadequate self-evaluation in
SIP planning was taken as one of the major constraints that affects implementation of
SIP. Bry (2012:5) argues that a school can learn by continually planning its development.
They define school development planning as the process of planning the improvement
and then implementing the plans over a specified period that encompasses the
performance indicators to make it easy for the progress to be monitored.

4.3. The Practices of School Improvement Program

MOE (2010) stated that, the use of effective teaching methods engages students in the
learning process and helps them develop critical thinking skills.

56
 4.3.1. Teaching Learning Domain

Table.7. Respondents views on Teaching and learning domain

No Items Respo Frequency and percentage X SD Over P
ndent all X value

5 4 3 2 1
The extent to P n 1 1 2 - -
which school % 25 25 50 3.75 0.9
1 practices
SU n 2 3.0 0.0
continues 3.37 0.77
% 100
assessment
V.P n 2 2 3.5 0.5
% 50 50
T n 7 21 26 10 4 3.25 1.0
% 10.3 30.9 38.2 14.7 5.9
The extent to P n 2 2 3.5 0.5
2 which Class work % 50 50 8
and home work 3.46 0.99
Su n 1 1 3.5 0.7
are regularly
given by teacher % 50 50
to the students V.P n 2 2 3.5 0.5
% 50 50
T n 9 24 21 10 4 3.35 1.0
% 13.2 35.3 30.9 14.7 5.9
Availability of P n 1 3 2.25 0.5
3 laboratory with % 25 75
sufficient Su n 2 2. 0.0 2 0.0
equipment and % 100
adequate chemic VP n 4 2.0 0.0
% 100
T n 3 10 23 32 1.72 0.8
%
4.4 14.7 33.8 47.1
Library services is P n 2 2 2.5 0.5
available to the % 50 50 77
4 students with Su n 2 2.0 0.0
sufficient book 2.35 0.93
% 100
VP n 2 2 2.5 0.5
% 50 50 8
T n 4 10 14 29 11 2.5 1.1
% 5.9 14.7 20.6 42.6 16.2 1
Availability of P n 4 2.0 0.0
pedagogical % 100
5 center and enough Su 1 1 2.5 0.7 2.19 0.74
teaching aid
50 50

57
No Items Respo Frequency and percentage X SD Over P
ndent all X value

5 4 3 2 1
VP n 1 3 2.25 0.5
% 25 75
T n 3 10 40 15 2.01 0.7
% 4.4 14.7 58.8 22.1
Student centered P n 2 2 3.5 0.5
teaching method % 50 50
6 is practice in the 3.52 0.90
Su n 1 1 3.5 0.7
school
% 50 50
VP n 2 2 3.5 0.5
% 50 50
T n 5 23 28 10 2 3.28 0.9
% 7.6 33.8 41.2 14.7 2.9
The extent to P n 2 2 3.5 0.5
7 which Tutorial % 50 50
support is given to Su n 2 3.0 0.0 3.18 0.29
the lower learner
% 100
and female
students by V.P n 2 2 3.5 0.5
teacher % 50 50
T n 5 11 20 26 6 2.75 1.0
% 7.6 16. 29.4 38.2 8.8

Key: 5 very High 4: High 3: Medium 2: low 1: very low

As observed in item 1of table 7, the respondents were asked to indicate their agreement
on the extent to which school practices continues assessment. 1(25%)of principal and
7(10.3%) of teachers respondents school practices of continues assessment were very
high , while 2(50%)of school principals and 2(100%) of supervisors, 2(50%) of vice
principals and 26(38.2%) of teachers respondents school practices continues assessment
were medium, . 2(50%) of vice principals, 1(25%0 of principal and 21(30.9%) of
teachers respondents were high continues assessment has practices and In other hand
10(13.2%) and 4 (5.9%) of teachers low and very low school practices continues
assessment respectively. The rating of principals with (X =3.75, SD =0.96) and vice
principals with the (X =3.5, SD =0.58) shows that of continues assessment being
implemented and teachers (X =3.25, SD =1.02) and supervisors with (X =3) were
practices of continues assessment were medium. The average mean X =3.37 it indicate
that the schools practices medium continues assessment. The significance level (p=0.77)

58
is greater than 0.05, it show no significance difference between the views of teachers,
principals, vice principals and supervisors regarding to school practices continues
assessment were unsatisfactory. MOE (ESDP IV, 2010) outlined that teachers have to
achieve measurable improvements in student results and a range of assessment methods
must be used in each grade to assess student learning.

As it is revealed in item 2 of table 7, respondents were asked the extent to which class
work and home work are regularly given by teacher to the students. 2(50%) of school
principals, 1(50%) of supervisors , 2(50%) of vice principals and 24(35.3%) of teachers
respondents high class work and home work are regularly given by the teachers to the
students and 2(50%) of principals,1(50%) of supervisors, 2(50%) of vice principals and
21(30.9%) of teachers respondents medium class work and home work are regularly
given by teachers to the students ,while 9(13.2%) ,10(14.7%) and 4(5.9%) of teachers
respondents that class work and home work are regularly given by teacher to the students
were very high, low and very low respectively. For item 3 they have rating moderate of
principals, supervisor and vice principals replied (X=3.5, SD=0.58), (X=3.5, SD= 0.70),
(X=3.5, SD=0.58) respectively replied that teachers giving class and home work were
high and teachers with (X=3.35, SD 1.029) were medium class and home work are given
by teachers to the students. The average mean value X =3.46, it shows that the majority
of respondents medium agreement with in the given issue .then, the significance level (p=
0.99) is greater than 0.05, it is there is no difference between the views of teachers,
supervisors, vice principals and principals on with regarding of class and home work
given by teachers to students were unsatisfactory.

In item 3 of table 7 the respondents were requested availability of laboratory with

sufficient equipment and adequate chemical. 1(25%) of principal and 10(14.7%0 of
teachers respondents medium laboratory with sufficient equipment and adequate
chemical is available, 3(75%) of principals, 2(100%) of supervisors, 4(100%) of vice
principals and 23(33.8%) of teachers respondents low availability of laboratory with
sufficient equipment and adequate chemicals, the rest 3(4.4%) and 32(47.1%) of
teachers respondents availability of laboratory with sufficient equipment and adequate
chemical were very high and very low respectively. The rating of principals expressed

59
with (X 2.25, SD =0.50), supervisors with (X =2), vice principals the (X =2) and
teachers with the (X =1.75, SD =0.86) shows that the majority respondents were low
availability of laboratory with sufficient equipment. The average mean value X = 2, it
indicating that there is low availability of laboratory with sufficient equipment and
adequate chemicals. . In addition to this data obtained through interview question from
principals and supervisors as well as observation shows as there was no laboratory
available in the sampled school, they had no equipments and chemicals in the selected
school.. Availability of facilities such as teaching material equipment and laboratory
apparatus in the school have an acceleration or deadening influence in the student
learning that in turn affect the student achievement (Bishop, 1995).Therefore we
conclude that most the sample schools had the availability of laboratory with sufficient
equipment and adequate chemicals and it influenced on the student result. They are
expected to initiate students to have active roles in laboratory, give class work, home
work, individual or group project work to their students and use participatory teaching
methods. The significance level (p=0.41) is greater than 0.05, this indicate that there is
no significance difference between the views of principals, vice principals, supervisors
and teachers with the given issue. Therefore, we conclude that there is no laboratory
equipment and chemicals then it affect the implementation of SIP.

As it has indicated in table 7 of item 4 are about Library services is available to the
students with sufficient book. 2(50%) of principals, 2(50%) of vice principals and
14(20.6%) of teachers respondents were medium library services and sufficient book,
3(75%) of principals, 2(100%) of supervisors, 2(50%) of vice principals and 29(42.6%0
of teachers respondents low library services to the students with sufficient books, only
4(5.9%), 10(14.7%) and 11(16.2%) of teachers respondents library services with
sufficient book were very high, high and very low respectively. The rating of principals
with (X =2.5, SD =0.57), vice principals (X =2.5, SD =0.58) and teachers with (X =2.5,
SD =1.11) medium agreements of majority respondents about the given issue. But
supervisors with the (X =2) availability of library service were low. The average mean
value X =2.35, it indicate that the majority respondents were low library service and
adequate books. Additionally data gathered through interview question from schools
principals and supervisors, observation check list, FGD with school improvement
60
committee and open ended question shows as there was shortage of library service and
sufficient books. Even though in the selected subjects (support and physical education)
was not text books in the sampled schools. The rest text book like Amharic, physics and
civic and ethical education were not enough. This is due to lack of access from woreda
book store. The significance level (P=0.93) is greater than 0.05, this indicate there is no
difference between the views of principals, supervisors, vice principals and teachers in
the regard of library service with students sufficient books were unsatisfactory to achieve
school improvement program.

With regard to table 7 of item , respondents were requested the Availability of

pedagogical center and enough teaching aid, , the only 1(50%) of supervisor, 1(25%),of
vice principals and 10(14.7)of teachers respondents respond that the availability of
pedagogical center and teaching aid in the school is medium, while 4(100%) of
principals, 1(50%) of supervisor 3(75%) of vice principals and 40(58.8%) of teachers
respondents were low available of pedagogical center and teaching aid in the school,
Finally 3(4.4%) and 15(22.1%)of teachers respondents pedagogical center and teaching
aid were very high and very low respectively. The agreement of principals, vice
principals and teachers reported that (X=2.0), and (X=1.89, SD=0.599), (X =2.01, SD
=0.74) respectively that pedagogical center and teaching aid were being low and,
supervisor, with (X=2.5, SD=0.70) medium pedagogical center and teaching aid. The
average mean value X =2.19, the majority respondents were low agreement with the
given issue. The data obtained through interview question from principals and Woreda
education office heads, observation shows that, as Majang zone there is a lack of
pedagogical center room with available teaching aide. This, it show that, in the sample
secondary school they have no pedagogical center. From this we conclude that Low
commitment of teachers to prepare teaching aid and a lack of pedagogical center room in
the school. That why teachers and school not motivated. They are expected to teachers
use teaching aid in the class room, by giving project work for the students, drowning
different teaching aid in the school wools. The significance level (p =0.74) is greater
than0.05, it indicate that there is no significance difference between the views of teachers,
principals, vice principals and supervisor with the regard the availability of pedagogical
center and teaching aid were unsatisfactory.
61
The data of table 7 of item 6, 2(50%) of principals, 2(50%) of vice principals 1(50%) of
supervisor and 23(33.8%) of teachers respondents high student centered teaching method
were school practices, 2(50%) o principals, 1(50%) of supervisors,2(50%) of vice
principals and 28(41.2%) of teachers respondents medium students center teaching
method were school practices, while only 5(7.4%), 10(14.7%) and 2(2.9%) of teachers
respondents student centered teaching method is practice in the school were very high,
low and very low respectively. Consequently principals, vice principals and supervisors
expressed their agreement (X=3.5, SD =0.58), (X=3.5, SD =0.58) and (X =3.5, SD
=0.70) and also teachers (X =3.58 SD =0.99) replied there is high student center teaching
method were practices. The average men value X =3.52, it indicated that the majority
respondents were high agreement with the given issue. The data gathered through FGD
from SIC members, teachers was mostly use student centered teaching method is
employed. This means that the schools understand the benefits of student centered
teaching method and encourage the participation of students in the class room and the
school effort in promoting teaching learning method. Meyers &Jones,(1993), students
construct their own meaning by talking, listening, writing, reading, and reflecting on
content, ideas ,issues and concerns. The significance level (p =0.90) is greater than 0.05,
this means there is no difference between the views position of teachers, principals,
supervisors and vice principals to the regard of students centered teaching method were
encouraged.

As shown in item 7 of table 7, the respondents were asked, the extent to which Tutorial
support is given to the lower learner and female students by teacher. 2(50%) of
principals, 2(50%) of vice principals and 11(16.2%) of teachers respondents replied that,
high tutorial support for lower learner and female students, 2(100%) of supervisors,
2(50%0 of principals, 2950%) of vice principals and 20(29.4%) of teachers respondents
medium were tutorial support to the lower learner and female students, while 5(7.4%),
26(38.2%) and 6(8.8%) of teachers replied tutorial support for the lower learner and
female students very high, low and very low respectively. Accordingly, the rating of
principals and vice principals (X=3.5, SD =0.58), (X =3.5, SD =0.58) and have high
tutorial support is given to female and lower learner respectively and supervisors with the
(X =3.0) teachers with (X =2.75, SD=1.07) replied medium tutorial support of female and
62
lower learner students. The average mean value X =3.18, it indicated that the majority of
respondents medium agreement about the given issue. The significance level (p=0.29) is
greater than 0.05, this indicate there is no difference between the views of principals,
teachers, vice principals and supervisors to the regarding issue. Therefore the score
value, it can be conclude that the teacher supportive technique for lower learner and
female students are motivating at these schools were not much enough

4.3.2. School Learning Environment Domain

Safety and suitable environments is makes sense that students would do better when they
learn in positive environment. Safety and conducive-learning environment helps school
leaders, teachers and students to feel secured and contributed to their maximum potential
for teaching and learning process.

Table 8. Respondents view of the practices School learning environment domain

No Items Respond Frequency and percentage X S.D Overall P valu
ents lX

5 4 3 2 1

School has access of P n 2 2 2.25 0.57

toilet room for female %
1 and male separately 50 50
2.63 0.53
SU n 1 1 2.5 0.70
%
50 50
VP n 3 1 2.75 0.50
%
75 25

T n 8 11 26 22 1 3.04 1.14
%
11.8 16.2 38.2 32.4 1.1
School environment is P n 1 3 3.25 0.50
safety, suitable and % 25 75
2 Attractive for the
support student Su n 1 1 3.5 0.707
% 3.06 0.4
50 50
VP n 2 2 2.5 0.57
% 50 50
T n 1 17 32 17 1 3 0.8
% 1.5 25 47.1 25 1.5
The school has enough P n 2 2 2.5 0.57
3 class room with ,safety % 50 50
and suitable for the
students Su n 1 1 2.5 0.70 3.04 0.39
%
50 50
V.P n 2 2 2.5 0.57
% 50 50
T n 13 37 17 1 2.91 0.70
% 19.1 54.4 25 1.5

63
No Items Respond Frequency and percentage X S.D Overall P valu
ents lX

5 4 3 2 1

School has access of P n 2 2 2.25 0.57

toilet room for female %
1 and male separately 50 50
2.63 0.53
Healthy relationship P n 1 2 1 3.0 0.81
% 25 50 25
4 between teacher,
Su n 1 1 2.5 0.70
students and principal % 50 50 3.22 0.29
in the school VP n 1 2 1 3 0.81
% 25 50 25
T n 6 25 29 7 1 3.41 0.85

% 8.8 36.8 42.6 10.3 1.5

P n 2 2 2.5 0.57
%
5 Adequate
50 50
teachinglearning 2.4 0.53
Su n 1 1 2.5 0.70
materials(e.g.text %
book, reference book, 50 50
teacher guiding book VP n 1 3 2.5 0.57
% 25 75
T n 1 14 46 7 2.13 0.59
% 1.5 20.6 67.6 10.3

Availability of pure P n 1 3 2.25 0.50

%
water supply in the 25 75
6 school Su n 1 1 2.5 0.70 2.9 0.81
%
50 50
VP n 2 2 2.25 0.50
% 50 50
T n 1 3 14 39 11 2.18 0.80
% 1.5 4.4 20.6 57.4 16.2

As shown in table 8 of item 1, 2(50%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisors, 1(25%) of

vice principals and 22(32.4% ) of teachers respondents responded that the access of toilet
for male and female separately is low, 2(50%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisors,
3(75%) of vice principals and 26(38.2) of teachers respondents replied that, access of
toilet room for male and female students were medium in the sampled schools, on the
other hand , 8(11.8%) and 11(16.2%) of teachers responded that very high and high
access of toilet for male and female is separately. Only 1(1.1%) of teacher respondent
was very low the access of male and female toilet room. The rating of principals with (X
=2.25, SD=0.57), there is low access of toilet room for male and female students
separately, the rating of teachers (X=3.04, SD =1.14), vice principals (X =2.75, SD
=0.50) and supervisors with (X =2.5, SD =0.707) respectively this indicated that access

64
of toilet room is medium. The average mean value = 2.63, it shows that medium access of
toilet for male and female separately. The significance level (p= 0.58) is greater than
0.05, this indicated that there is no significance difference between the position of
principals, supervisors, vice principals and teachers in regarding on the issue. It is
possible to conclude that in the sample school has low access of student toilet room
separately for male and female.

Item 2 of table 8 the respondents were asked to school environment is safety, suitable and
support for students. 1(25%) and 3(75%) of principals and 1(50%) and 1(50%) of
supervisors respondents the existence of safety and suitable school environment were
high and medium for the students, 2(50%) and 2(50%) of vice principals medium and
low the safety and suitability of school environment for the students, while
1(1.5%),17(25%) , 32(47.1%) and 17(25%) of teachers respondents the safety and
suitability of learning environment is very high, high, medium and low respectively. Only
1(1.5%) of teachers very low of school safety and suitability for the student. The rating
has expressed Principals with (X =3.25, SD =0.50), vice principals with (X=2.5, SD
=0.577) and teachers agreement with (X =3.0, SD =0.792) were medium school safety
and suitability for teaching learning process and supervisors with (X =3.5, SD 0.707)
indicate high school safety and suitability. The average mean value =3.06 it indicate that
medium agreement of respondents with the issue. The significance level of the groups
(p= 0.4) is greater than 0.05, there is no significance difference between the position of
respondents. Therefore we conclude that there is safety and suitable school environment
for the students. The data gathered through observation of the sampled school 75% of the
school has toilet but 50% of the sampled school has toilet for female and male separately.
The other 2(50%) has together with male and female toilet in the school.MOE, (2006)
states school environment consists of students focus, student‟s empowerment and
students support and decisive domain for the implementation of school improvement
program.

As item 3 of table 8, 1(25%) of principals and 1(50%) of supervisor respondents respond

that, the school learning class room is high, 3(75%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisors
and 2(50%) of vice principals respondents the student learning class room were medium,

65
2(50%) of vice principals replied low student learning class room, 13(19.1%), 37(54.4)
and 17(25%) of teachers respondents student learning class room were high, medium and
low respectively. while 1(1.5%) of teacher very low of student learning class room in the
sampled schools. The rating agreement of principals (X =3.25, SD0.50), teachers with (X
=2.91, SD =0.577) and vice principals with (X =2.5, SD =0.57) replied that medium
student learning class room, while supervisors (X =3.5, SD= 0.50) shows high learning
class room. The average mean value X=3.04, it shows majority of the respondents
medium attitudes with the given issue. In addition, the observation check list data
collection tools, the rural secondary school like Gelash and Kumi secondary school has
enough students learning class room but it is not attractive for teaching and learning.
While the rest two schools (Jaine and Tenshu metti secondary and preparatory school) the
class room is overcrowded. The significance level (p =0.39) is greater than 0.05, it shows
there is no significance difference between the opinions of principals, teachers,
supervisors and vice principals in regarding to learning class room. This indicates that in
the sampled school student leaning class room unsatisfactory for the outcome

In table 8 of item 4, 1(25%) of principal, 1(50%) of supervisor and 1(25%) of teacher

respondents high relation between students, teachers and principals, 2(50%) 0f
principals,1(50%) of supervisor and 2(50%) of vice principals respond that medium
relationship between student, teacher and principals. Only 1(25%) of principal, 1(25%) of
vice principal and 7(10.3) of teachers replied low relationship between students, teachers
and principals. On the other hand 6(8.8%), 25(36.8%), and 29(42.6) of teachers
respondents the relationship between students, teachers and principals were very high,
high and medium in the sampled schools respectively. while 1(1.5%) of teacher respond
the relationship between students, teachers and principals is very low. The agreement
with principals (X =3.0, SD=0.816), vice principals (X =3.0, SD =0.816) and teachers
with the (X =3.41, SD =0.851) were medium relationship between the issue but
supervisors (X =3.5, SD =0.70) shows the Relationship between teachers, students and
principals were high. The average mean value X =3.22 It shows majority of the
respondents were medium agreement with the relationship of teachers, students and
principals in the sampled schools. Then the significance level is (p =0.29) is greater than
0.05, this indicates that there is no significance difference between principals, teachers,

66
supervisors and vice principals. Therefore, we conclude that the relationship between
students, teachers and principals were not satisfactory.

With regarding to table 8 of item5, the respondents were asked teaching learning
materials ( text book, reference book, teacher guiding book is adequate. 2(50%) of
principals,1(50%) of supervisor,1(25%) of vice principals and 14(20.6%) of teachers
respondents respond medium adequacy of teaching learning materials(text book,
reference and teacher guidance book),2(50%) of principals,1(50%) of supervisors,
3(75%) of vice principals and 46(67.6%) of teachers replied low adequate of teaching
learning materials (reference, text, and teacher guidance book) in the sampled schools,
while 7(10.3%) of teachers responds very low teaching learning materials. Only 1(1.5%)
of teacher respond the adequate of teaching learning materials like text book, teacher
guidance and reference book were high. principals with (X =2.5, SD =0.577), supervisors
with(X =2.5, SD =0.707) and vice principals with the (X =2.5, SD =0.577) it indicates
that in adequate teaching learning materials (e.g. text book, reference book and teacher
guiding book) were medium whereas teachers with the (X =2.13, SD =0.596) shows the
teaching learning materials were low. The average mean value X =2.4 it shows that most
of the respondents were low agreement with the given issue. Data gathered through
observation check list, there is lack of student text book and teacher guiding books in the
sampled schools. Even in the selecting subject there is no any text book (sport and
physical education), and other (ICT, English and Amharic text book) were insufficient of
access. The significance level (p = 0.53) is greater than 0.05, this means there is no
significance difference between the views of teachers, principals, vice principals and
supervisors in the regarding of lack of adequate teaching learning material (text book,
reference book and teacher guiding books).

In item 6 of table 8, only 1(1.5%) and 3(4.4%) of teachers respondents respond the
availability of pure water in the school were very high and high respectively, while
1(25%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisors, 2(50%) of vice principals and 14(20.6%) of
teachers respondents replied the availability of pure water were medium, on the other
hand, 3(75%) of principals,1(50%) of supervisors, 2(50%) of vice principals and 39(57.4)
of teachers respondents respond low availability of pure water supply in the school

67
compound, even 11(16.2%) of teachers responded the availability of pure water supply
were very low in the sampled schools. The agreement of principals with (X =2.25, SD
=0.50), vice principals with (X =2.25, SD =0.50) and teachers expressed with (X= 2.18,
SD =0.809), there is low availability of pure water supply and cluster supervisors with(X
=2.5, SD =0.707) medium availability of pure water supply. Average mean value X
=2.29 indicating the majority of respondents low agreement with the issue. Furthermore
the information obtained through observation except one secondary school (Jain
secondary school) the rest schools were not water supply. From this we conclude that
lack of pure water supply were impacts of SIP. The significance level (p=0.81) is greater
than 0.05.it indicated that there is no significance difference between the position of
principals, supervisor, vice principals and teachers on the issue of pure water supply in
the selected schools. it is possible to conclude that insufficient of pure water in the school
compounds

4.3.3. Community Participation Domain

Community participation is considered as an integral part of the quality of education.
Parents and community are the key stake holders for school improvement endeavor.

Table 9. The Respondent response on the community participation domain

Respo Frequency and percentage X S.D Over P
No Items ndents all X value
5 4 3 2 1

Teacher collect P n 1 2 1 3 0.81

the result of % 25 50 25
1 student and 3.75 0.9
communicate SU n 1 1 2.5 0.70
with parents % 50 50
V.P n 3 1 2.75 0.50
% 75 25
T n 2 16 22 21 7 2.78 1.02
%
2.9 23.5 32.4 30.9 10.3
Parents provide p n 1 3 2.25 0.50
comment and % 25 75
2 following upon Su n 2 2 0.0 2.18 0.98
their students %
learning and 100
their result V.P n 1 3 2.25 0.50
% 25 75
T n 5 19 30 14 2.22 0.86
% 7.6 27.9 44.1 20.6

68
 Community P n 1 2 1 3 0.81
3 involved in % 25 50 25
school 2.6 0.73
improvement Su n 1 1 2.5 0.70
program %
50 50
planning and its VP n 2 2 2.5 0.57
practices % 50 50
T n 9 24 27 8 2.5 0.87
% 13.2 35.3 39.7 11.8
The school P n 2 2 2.5 0.81
4 leader conduct % 50 50
evaluation and Su n 1 1 2.5 0.70 2.41 0.63
meeting with % 50 50
PTA members
VP n 2 2 2.5 0.81
% 75 25
T n 3 26 17 22 2.15 0.93
%
4.4 38.2 25 32.4
Parents monitor P n 1 3 2.25 0.50
and % 25 75
5 visittheteaching Su n 1 1 2.5 0.70
learning % 2.25 0.66
activityof the 50 50
school and their VP n 1 3 2.5 0.57
students % 25 75
T n 3 9 41 14 2.01 0.72
% 4.4 13.2 60.3 20.6
PTA members is P n 1 3 2.25 0.50
actively % 25 75
6 participate in
school Su n 2 2.0 0.0 2.22 0.95
management % 100
VP n 1 3 2.25 0.50
% 50 50
T n 8 19 32 9 2.38 0.864
% 11.8 27.9 47.1 13.2

As shown in table 9 of item 1, 1(25%) of principals and 16(23.5%) of teachers

respondents high communication of teacher towards the student result with parents,
2(50%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisor, 3(75%) of vice principals and 22(32.4%) of
teachers respondents the communication of student result with parents has medium,
1(25%) of principal, 1(50%) of supervisor, 1(25%) of vice principal and 21(30.9%) of
teachers responded that low communication of teacher in the result of student with
parents, while 2(2.9%) and 7(10.3) of teachers respondents replied that the
communication of teacher on the student result has very high and very low respectively.
The rating agreement expressed (X =2.5, SD =0.70), (X =3, SD =0.81), (X =2.75, SD
=0.50) and (X =2.78, SD =0.50) of supervisors, principals, vice principals and teachers
respectively medium communication between teachers and parents with student result.

69
The average mean value X= 2.75 shows that the majority of respondents medium
agreement with the given issue. Depending on the respondents view the communication
of teacher on the result of student with parents were not enough it is encouraged. The
significance level (p =0.9) is greater than 0.05, it indicated that there is no significance
difference between the respondent view on the issue.

In item 2, 1(25%) of principals, 1(25%) of vice principals and 19(27.9%) of teachers

respondents the comment of parents up on their students learning and their result were
medium, 3(75%) of principals, 2(100%) of supervisors,3(75%) vice principals and
30(44.1%) of teachers respondents respond parents providing comment up on their
student learning result were low, on the other hand 5(7.6%) and 14(20.6) of teachers
replied that parents comment up on their student learning result were very high and very
low respectively. The rating of expresses ion with (X =2.25, SD =0.50), (X =2), (2.25,
SD =0.50) and (X =2.22, SD =0.86) of principals, supervisors, vice principals and
teachers respectively show as parents providing comment up on the student learning
result were low. The average mean value X= 2.18, it indicate low agreement of the
respondents with the problems. Thus, to conclude this, parents not giving comment up on
the student learning and their result. The significance level (p = 0.98) is greater than 0.05,
it show there is not any significance difference between the views of parents have
providing comment up on their learning result.

As shown in table 9 of item 3, respondents were asked the involvement of parents in the
school improvement program planning and its practices. 1(25%) of teacher and 9(13.2%)
of teachers respond high involvement of parents in the school improvement program
planning, 2(50%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisor, 2(50%) of vice principals and
24(35.3%) of teachers respondents the involvement of parent in the improvement
program planning were medium,1(25%) of principal, 1(50%) 0f supervisor, 2(50%) of
vice principals and 27(39.7) of teachers replied low involvement of parents in the school
improvement program planning and their practices, while only 8(11.8%) of teachers
respond the involvement of parents in school improvement planning were very low. The
rating agreement of principals with(X =3, SD =0.86), supervisors with (X =2.5, SD
=0.70), vice principals with(X =2.5, SD =0.57) and teachers with(X =2.5, SD =0.87)

70
were medium that parents involved in school improvement program planning. The
average mean value X =2.6, it show the neutrality of the majority of the respondents with
the issue. The significance level (P = 0.73) is greater than 0.05, it indicate that there is no
significance difference between the respondents opinion on the issue. Therefore, possible
to conclude that, parents involved in school improvement program planning were
unsatisfactory.

With regard in item 4 of table 9, 2(50%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisor, 2(50%) of

vice principals and 26(38.2%) of teachers respondents respond school leader conduct
meeting with PTA were medium, 2(50%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisor, 2(50%)
vice principals and 17(25%) of teachers respond low school leader conduct with meeting
with PTA, while, 4(5.9) and 21(30.9) of teachers respondents very high and very low
school leader conduct meeting with PTA. The rating of principals, supervisors and vice
principals (X =2.5, SD =0.82), (2.5, SD =0.70), (2.5, SD =0.82) respectively replied that
school leader conduct meeting medium with PTA also teachers with (X =2.15, SD =0.93)
replied school leader low meeting were conduct with PTA. The average mean value X
=2.41, it indicate that of majority of respondents with low conducting evaluation and
meeting of leader with PTA. The significance level (p = 0.67) is greater than 0.05, it
show there is no significance difference between the respondents opinion with the issue.
Therefore, we conclude that school leaders have low conducting evaluation and meeting
with PTA members.

In item number 5 of table 9, respondents were asked parents monitor and visit the
teaching learning activity of the school and their students. 1(25) of principal, 1(50%) of
supervisor, (25%) of vice principals and 9(13.2%) of teachers respondents respond
medium monitoring and visit the teaching learning activity, 3(75%) of principals, 1(50%)
of supervisor, 3(75%) of vice principals and 41(60.3) of teachers respondents low parents
monitoring and visit the teaching learning activity, while 3(4.4%) and 14(20.6%) of
teachers respond very high and high respectively parents monitor and visit of teaching
learning activity parents. The rating with principals (X =2.25, SD =0.50), vice principals
with (X =2.25, SD=0.50) and teachers (X =2.01, SD =0.73) replied low parents monitor
and visit the teaching learning activity and also supervisors with(X= 2.5, SD =0.71)

71
parents visit and monitor of school activity were medium. The average mean value X
=2.25, indicating majority of respondents low agreement with the issue. In addition to the
information gathered from interview, FGD of PTA members, and open ended question
shows that the parents were not monitor and visit the teaching learning activity regularly
bases just visit in only once a year. So we conclude that parents have not visit and
monitor the teaching learning activity. Then, the significance level (p= 0.66) is greater
than 0.05, it indicate that there is no difference between the respondents view with the
issue.

In table 5 of item 9, 1(25%) of principal, 1(25%) of vice principal, 19(27.9%) of teachers

respondents medium participation of PTA in school management, 3(75%) of principals,
2(100%) of supervisors, 3(75%) of vice principals and 32(47.1%) of teachers respondents
low participation of PTA in the school management, on the other hand 8(11.8%) and
9(13.2%) of teachers respondents the participation of PTA in school improvement
program were very high and very low respectively. The rating of expression with
principals(X =2.25, SD =0.50), supervisors with(X =2), vice principals(X =2.25, SD
=0.50) and teachers with (X =2.38, SD =0.86) replied that low participation of PTA in the
school management. The average mean X= 2.22, it shows majority of respondents with
low participation of PTA in school management. In addition to this, the data obtain
through FGD of PTA and interview question for school principals shows that PTA
members has not actively participate in the school management. From this it conclude
that the participation of PTA in the school management were unsatisfactory. The
significance level (p= 0.95) is greater than 0.05, it indicate there is no any significance
difference between the respondents view with the problem. The involvement of parents in
the school activities will create strong and cordial home/school relationships required for
the growth and development of the secondary school learners (MOE, 2010:34). The next
section examines parent involvement in secondary school activities.

4.3.4. School Leadership and Management Domain

Effective and efficient school leadership and management play a vital role in
implementing the school improvement program by putting the schools strategic vision
and creating a strong collaborative bond among the school community.

72
 Table 10: Respondents views on leadership and management domain
Respo Frequency and percentage X S.D Over P
No Items ndents all value

5 4 3 2 1

School mangers P n 2 2 3.5 0.5

and officials % 50 50
1 have acquired 3.24 0.67
educational SU n 1 1 3.5 0.7
management %
50 50
capacity to
effectively VP n 1 3 3.25 0.5
practices SIP % 25 75
T n 3 10 30 21 4 2.81 0.9
4.4 14.7 44.1 30.9 5.9
School leader P n 2 2 2.5 0.57
mange and direct % 50 50
2 the activity of Su n 2 3 0.0
school % 2.43 0.58
improvement 100
committee V.P n 4 3 0.0
% 100
T n 1 16 49 2 2.24 0.52
% 1.5 23.5 72.1 2.9
P n 3 1 3.75 0.81
3 School has % 75 25 6
vision, mission, Su n 1 1 3.5 0.70
objective to % 3.6 0.45
improve the 50 50
student learning VP n 3 1 3.75 0.50
% 75 25
T n 3 19 32 8 6 3.07 0.96
% 4.4 27.9 47.1 11.8 8.8
The school P n 2 2 2.5 0.57
4 mobilize and % 50 50
support teacher Su n 1 1 2.5 0.70
to practice % 50 50 7 0.72
school VP n 3 1 2.75 0.50 2.64
improvement % 75 25
program T n 5 27 34 2 2.51 0.68
% 7.4 39.7 50 2.9
The competency P n 2 2 3.5 0.57
of school leader % 50 50
5 to lead and Su n 2 3 0.0 3.04 0.2
coordinate the %
practice of 100
school VP n 3 1 2.75 0.50
improvement % 75 25
program T n 7 42 17 2 2.8 0.66
% 10.3 61.8 25 2.9

73
 School has P n 2 2 2.5 0.57
effective % 50 50
6 communication Su n 2 2.0 0.0
about school % 100
improvement 2.43 0.72
with teachers and VP n 3 1 2.75 0.50
students % 75 25
T n 6 26 31 5 2.49 0.76
% 8.8 38.2 45.6 7.4
P n 1 3 2.5 0.50
School have % 25 75
7 adequate skilled Su n 1 1 2.5 0.70
man powers to % 2.44 0.75
practices SIP 50 50
plan VP n 1 3 2.25 0.50
% 25 75
T n 3 35 25 5 2.53 0.70
% 4.4 51.5 36.8 7.4
School principals P n 2 2 3.75 0.81
have acquired % 50 50
adequate 3.61 0.56
8 educational Su n 1 1 3.5 0.70
management % 50 50
skill
VP n 2 2 3.75 0.81
% 50 50
T n 1 17 33 17 3.38 0.57
%
1.5 25 48 25

As to be shown in table 10 of item 1, respondents were asked whether school manager

and official have acquired educational management capacity to the effectiveness of
SIP.2(50%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisor, 1(25%) of vice principal and 10(14.7%)
of teachers respondents the capacity of school manager and officials to acquired
educational management for the practices of SIP were high, 2(50%) of principals, 1(50%)
of supervisor, 3(75%) of vice principals and 30(44.1%) of teachers respondents medium
capacity of school manager and officials to acquired educational management to practices
SIP, 21(30.9) of teachers respondents response that low capacity of educational manager
and officials to practices SIP, only 3(4.4%) and 4(5.9%) of teacher respondents
educational manager and officials to acquire the capacity of educational management
were very high and very low respectively. The rating of Principals expressed with(X=
3.5, SD0.57) and supervisors with (X = 3.5, SD =0.70) school manger and official high
educational management capacity and vice principals with (X =3.25, SD =0.50) and (X

74
=2.81, SD =0.92) replied that school officials and managers have acquire medium
educational capacity to implement SIP. The average mean value X =3.26, it show of the
majority of respondents medium agreement with the given issue. The data gathered from
interview question, in the sampled school leader‟s school managers is not acquired
educational management capacity. The significance level (p =0.67) is greater than 0.05, it
indicate that there is no difference between the respondents view on the given issue.
Therefore it is possible to conclude that, the school manager and officials acquire
educational management capacity to implement SIP were unsatisfactory.

In table 10 of item 2, 2(50%0 of principals, 1(50%) of supervisor, 2(50%) of vice

principals and 16(23.5%) of teachers respondents medium activity of school leader to
mange and direct the school improvement committee, and again 2(50%) of
principals,1(50%) of supervisor, 2(50%) of vice principals and 49(72.1%) of teachers
respondents low school leader activity to mange and direct school improvement
committee, the other 1(1.5%) and 2(2.9) of teachers respondents the activity of school
leader mange and direct SIC were very high and very low respectively. The rating of
principals with(X =2.5, SD =0.57), supervisors with (X =2.5, SD =0.70) and vice
principals (X =2.5, SD =0.57) medium of school leader to mange and direct SIC. And
teachers with (X =2.24, SD =0.52) replied that the activity of school leader to mange and
direct school improvement committee were low. The average mean value X= 2.43, this
indicate that majority of the respondents low agreement with the given issue. The
significance level (p =0.58) is greater than 0.05, shows no difference between the
respondents views of principals, supervisors, vice principals and teachers. According to
Ayalew, (2009:3) school leadership involves a social influence process whereby
intentional influence is exerted by one (or a group) over other people (or groups) to
structure the activities and relationships in a group or organization. Therefore we
conclude that the school leader to mange and direct the activity of SIC were
unsatisfactory.

As shown in table 8 of item 3, weather school has vision, mission and objective to
improve the students learning. 3(75%) of principal, 3(75%) of vice principals, 1(50%)
supervisor and 19(27.9%) of teachers respondents high vision, mission and objective of

75
the schools, 1(50%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisors,1(25%) of vice principals and
32(47.1%) of teachers respondents the vision, mission and objective of school to
improving student learning were medium, 9(13.2%) and 8(11.8%) of teachers
respondents the vision, mission and objective of school to improve the student learning
very high and low respectively. the rating principals with (X =3.75, SD =0.82) and vice
principals (X=3.75, SD =0.50) the school have high mission, vision and objective to
improve students‟ learning and supervisors with (X =3.5, SD 0.70) and teachers with (X
=3.47, SD =08.9) replied school has medium vision, mission and objective. vision is
increasingly regarded as an essential component of effective leadership (Bush (2008:5).
This means the school understudy were practices the vision, mission and objective to
improve student learning. The average mean value X = 3.6 shows that the schools
understand the implement the vision, mission and objectives to improve the student
learning. The significance level (p =0.45) is greater than 0.05, this shows that there is no
significance difference between the views of principals, supervisors, vice principals and
teachers in regarding to the vision, mission and objective to improve student learning.

As revealed in item 4 of table 10, respondents were asked school mobilize and support
teachers to practice school improvement program. 2(50%) of principals, 1(50%) of
supervisor, 3(75%) of vice principals and 27(39.7) of teachers respondents medium
support and mobilize of school to implement SIP, 2(50%) of principals, 1(50%) of
supervisor, 1(25%) of vice principals and 34(50%) of teachers respondents school
mobilize and support were low to practices SIP, only 5(7.4%) and 2(2.9%) of teachers
respondents school support and mobilize teachers were very high and high respectively.
The rating of principals with (X =2.5, SD =0.57), supervisors with (X =2.5, SD =0.70),
vice principals with (X =2.75, SD =0.50) and teachers with (X =2.81, SD 0.68) were
medium mobilization and supporting of teachers in the school to practices SIP. The
overall mean value X =2.64, it shows neutrality of majority of respondents within the
issue. The significance level (p=0) is less than 0.05, it indicate there is significance
difference between principals, supervisors, vice principals and teachers with the
regarding of school mobilize and support teachers in the practices of SIP. Additionally,
data obtain from interviewed question of principals and supervisors shows as weak
mobilization and supporting of teachers to implement SIP. This is due to the lack of

76
providing information and commitment between school leader and teachers to practices
SIP. From this it concludes that schools mobilize and support teachers for the practices of
SIP were unsatisfactory.

Item 5 of table 10, 2(50) of principals,7(10.3%) of teachers respondents high competency

of school leader to lead and coordinate SIP implementation, 2(50%) of principals,
2(100%) of supervisors, 3(75%) of vice principals and 42(61.8) of teachers respondents
medium competency of school leader to lead and coordinate SIP practices, the other
1(25) of vice principals and 17(25%) of teachers respondents indicate low competency of
school leader and coordinate the practices of SIP, only 2(2.9) of teachers respondents the
competency of leader to lead and coordinate SIP were very low. The rating expression of
supervisors with (X =3), vice principals (X =2.75, SD =0.50) and teachers with (X =2.8,
SD =0.66) replied that school leader have medium competency to lead and coordinate the
practices of SIP and principals with (X =3.5, SD=0.57) high competency of school leader
to lead SIP. The average mean value X=3.04, show that majority of respondents medium
agreement with the given issue. Furthermore data obtained from interview question of
school principals and supervisors shows the competency of school leader were
supportable but is lack of commitment to practice SIP, it indicate that school leader not
understood the role in the school and is not effectively practice the competency. The
significance level (p =0.2) is greater than 0.05, it indicate no significance difference
between the views of principals, teachers, supervisors and vice principals in regarding the
school leader has competency to lead and coordinate the practices of SIP. Thus, it
conclude that the competency of school leader to lead and coordinate in the practices of
SIP were unsatisfactory.

Concerning to table 10 of item 6, respondents were asked whether school has effective
communication about school improvement program with teachers and students. 2(50%)
of principals, 3(75%) of vice principals and 26(38.2%) of teachers respondents the school
has medium communication with teachers and students about SIP, again 2(50%) of
principals, 2(100%) of supervisors, 1(25%) of vice principals and 31(45.6) of teachers
respondents school has low communication with teachers and students about SIP, the
other 6(8.8%) and 5(7.4%) of teachers respondents the communication of school with

77
teachers and students about the SIP were very high and very low respectively. The rating
of supervisors with (X =2) and teachers with (X =2.49, SD =0.72) replied that the
communication of schools with teachers and students has low for the effectiveness of SIP
in the sampled schools while principals with(X =2.5, 0.57) and vice principals with
(X=2.75, SD0.50) replied medium communication of the school with teachers and
students about SIP. The average mean value X = 2.43, it indicate low agreement of the
majority of the respondents with the given issue. Additionally information obtained from
supervisors and principals shows as there is poor communication with teachers and
students. This is due to the over engagement of school leadership in the routine work of
the schools. According to Day, Harris, & Hadfield, (2001:53) stipulate that good leaders
are informed by and communicate a clear set of personal and educational values which
represent their moral purposes for the school. The significance level (p =0.72) is greater
than 0.05, it indicate no significance difference between the views of principals
supervisors, teachers and vice principals. Therefore it conclude that the communication
habit of school leader in the effective of SIP were weak.

In item 7 of table 10, 1(25%) of principal, 1(50%) of supervisor, 1(25%) of vice principal
and 35(51.5%) of teachers respondents school have medium skilled man powers to
practices SIP, again, 3(75%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisor, 3(75%) of vice
principals and 25(36.8%) of teachers respondents school have low skilled man powers to
practices SIP, only 3(4.4%) and 5(7.4%) of teachers respondents school skilled man
powers have very high and very low respectively. The rating of principals with (X =2.5,
SD =0.50), supervisors with (X =2.5, SD 0.70) and teachers with (X =2.53, SD =0.70)
replied that school have medium skilled man powers to practice SIP while vice principals
with (X =2.25, SD =0.50) low skilled man power. The average mean X= 2.44, it indicate
low agreement of the majority of respondents with the given issue. The significance level
(p =0.75) is greater than 0.05, it shows there is no difference between the opinion of the
respondents as regarding to school have not killed man powers to practice SIP.

Concerning to item 8 of table 6, 3(75%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisor, 3(75%) of

vice principals and 17(25%) of teachers respondents school principals have acquired high
educational management skill, 1(25%) of principal, 1(50%) of supervisor, 1(25%) of vice

78
principals and 33(48%) of teachers respondents school principals have acquired medium
educational management skill, the rest 1(1.5%) and 17(25%) of teachers respondents
school principals have acquired very high and low educational management skilled
respectively. The rating expiration of principals with(X =3.75, SD =0.81), supervisors
with (X =3.5, SD =0.70) and vice principals with(X =3.75, SD =0.81) replied school
principals acquired high educational management skill and teachers with (X =3.38, SD
=0.57) school principal medium to acquired educational management. The average mean
value X= 3.61, indicating that the majority of respondents were high agreement with the
given issue. In addition to this data is obtained through interview question of principals
and Woreda education office head in the sampled schools 3(75%) of school principals
have took (acquired) educational management skill. From this we concluded that school
principals have enough performance of educational management. The significance level
(p=0.56) is greater than 0.05, it shows that there is no difference between the views of
teachers, principals, vice principals and supervisors as regarding school principals have
high educational management skill is satisfactory.

4.4. Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms of SIP Practices

Monitoring is periodical follow up of for a certain program to achieve its intended

objectives. For effective practices of SIP it is logical to put workable monitoring and
evaluation mechanism is use. The following statement have related to planning to been
employed the result of the respondents are discussed below;

79
 Table 11. Respondents views on activity of monitoring and evaluation
Frequency and percentage X SD Avg P
No Items Respon X Val
dents 5 4 3 2 1

School improvement P n 2 2 2.5 0.57

committee has limited % 50 50
1 time for monitoring and 2.41 0.53
Su n 1 1 2.5 0.70
evaluating the activities
%
50 50
VP n 2 2 2.5 0.57
% 50 50
T n 2 16 41 9 2.16 0.68
% 2.9 23.5 60.3 13.2
P n 1 2 1 3 0.57
2 School give support to % 25 50 25
increase the method of 2.85 0.48
teaching by using Su n 2 3 0.0
internal supervisors %
100
VP n 3 1 2.75 0.50
% 75 25
T n 4 34 25 5 2.54 0.72
% 5.9 50 36.8 7.4
P n 2 2 3.5 0.57
3 Teacher receive regular % 50 50
feedback after visiting Su n 1 1 3.5 0.70 3.15 0.4
on how they are teach % 50 50
in the class
VP n 2 2 2.5 0.57
% 50 50
T n 4 20 27 15 2 3.13 0.93
% 5.9 29.4 39.7 22.1 2.9
P n 1 3 2.25 0.50
Parents and community % 25 75
4 continuously visit the Su n 1 1 2.5 0.70
school % 2.23 0.24
50 50
VP n 1 3 2.25 0.50
% 25 75
T n 8 47 13 1.93 0.55
% 11.8 69.1 19.1
P n 1 3 3.25 0.50
SIC continually % 25 75
5 supervised and provide 2.37 0.2
supporting for school in Su n 1 1 3.5 0.70
the practices of SIP % 10 50
VP n 2 1 1 3.25 0.95
% 50 25 25
T n 2 20 38 8 2.24 0.65
% 2.9 29.4 55.9 11.8
WEO expert and P n 1 3 3.25 0.50
supervisors has a fixed % 25 75
6 schedule for school Su n 1 1 3.5 0.70 2.29 0.89
monitor and technical % 50 50
support for the practices VP n 2 2 2.5 0.57
of school improvement % 50 50
program
T n 6 27 26 9 2.44 0.83
% 8.8 39.7 38.2 13.2

80
As shown in table 11of item 1, 2(50%) of principal, 1(50%) of supervisor, 2(50%) of vice
principals and 16(23.5%) of teachers respondents the evaluating and monitoring of SIC
were medium for the activity of SIP, 2(50%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisor, 2(50%)
of vice principals and 41(60.3%) of teachers respondents the SIC has to monitor and
evaluate the SIP activity were low in the schools, while 2(2.9%) and 9(13.2%) of teachers
respondents SIC to evaluate and monitor the activity of school were very high and very
low respectively. The rating with principals (X=2.5, SD =0.57), supervisors with (X =2.5,
SD =0.70) and vice principals with (X =2.5, SD =0.57) the evaluation and monitoring
activity of SIC were medium and teachers(X =2.16, SD =0.68) SIC were low monitoring
and evaluating the activity. The average mean X= 2.41 indicating SIC evaluate and
monitor the activity were low. Additionally data obtained from interview question and
FGD the monitoring and evaluating technique of school improvement committee were
low and the committee were not supported and encouraged by the schools and Woreda
education office. The significance level (p=0.53) is greater than 0.05, it indicated that
there is no difference between the views of principals, teachers, supervisors and vice
principals in regarding the monitoring and evaluation activity of school improvement
committee were unsatisfactory.

In table 9 of item 2, respondents were asked school support the method of internal
supervision by using internal supervisors. 1(25%) of principal, 4(5.9%) of teachers
respondents high supporting of school using internal supervision, 2(50%) of principals,
2(100%) of supervisors, 3(75%) of vice principals and 34(50%) of teachers respondents
school supervision by using internal supervision were medium,1(25%0 of principal,
1(25%) of vice principal and 25(36.8) of teacher respondents low support of school by
using internal supervision, only 5(7.4%) of teachers respondents the internal supervision
were very low. The rating of principals with (X =3, SD =0.57) supervisors with(X =3),
vice principals with (X =2.75, SD =0.50) and teachers with (X =2.54, SD =0.72) school
has give support were medium internal method of supervision. The average mean X
=2.85 it indicate uncertainty of the majority respondents with the given issue. The
significance level (p=0.48) is greater than 0.05, it show their is no difference between the
opinion of principals, supervisors, vice principals and teachers in regarding to school give
support to increase internal supervision.

81
In item 3 of table 9, 2(50%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisor and 20(29.4%) of
teachers respondents teachers receive high feedback after visit on how they are teach in
the class, 2(50%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisor,2(50%) of vice principals and
27(39.7%) of teachers respondents teachers receive medium feedback after how they are
teach in the class , 2(50%) of vice principals and 15(22.1%) of teachers respondents
teachers has receive regular feedback were low after visiting on how they are teach in the
class, on the other hand only 4(5.9%) and 2(2.9%) of teachers respondents response
school teachers has receive regular feedback very high and very low respectively after
visiting how they are teach in the class. The rating expiration of principals with (X =3.5,
SD =0.57) and supervisors with(X =3.5, SD =0.70) replied that teachers receive regular
feedback after visiting how they are teach were high and vice principals with (X =2.5, SD
=0.57) and teachers with (X =3.13, SD=0.93) indicate low receiving of feedback after
visiting how they are teach. The average mean value X =3.15, indicating medium of the
majority of the respondent with the given issue. From this it concluded that the system of
teachers to give regular feedback for the students is poor. the significance level (p= 0.4)
is greater than 0.05 it shows there is no difference between the views of teachers,
principals, vice principals and supervisors on regarding with teachers give regular
feedback after visiting how they are teach were unsatisfactory.

As shown in table 9 of item 4, respondents were asked parents continuously visit the
school. 1(25%) of principals, 1(50) of supervisor, 1(25%) of vice principals and 8(11.8%)
of teachers respondents parents medium visiting the school, 3(75%) of principals,
1(50%) of supervisors, 3(75%) of vice principals and 47(69.1%) of teachers respondents
parents visit the school were low, the rest 13(19.1%) of teachers respondents very low
agreement with the issue. the rating of principals with (X =2.25, SD=0.50), vice
principals with ( X =2.25, SD =0.50) and teachers with ( X=1.93, SD =0.53) low
agreement about parents visit the school and supervisors with (X =2.5, SD =0.70)
medium agreement with the issue. The average mean X =2.23, indicating majority of the
respondents were replied parents low visiting the schools. In addition to this data is
obtained from interview question shows as except PTA members most of the parents are
not visit the schools. Thus it concluded that the school community (parents) has not
actively participated in the school issue. The significance level (p=0.24) is greater than

82
0.05, it indicating that there is no difference between the views of teachers, principals,
supervisors and vice principals with the given issue.

Table 9 of item 5, 1(25%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisor, 2(50%) of vice principals

and 2(2.9%) of teachers respondents high supporting and supervising of SIC in the
practices of SIP, 3(75%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisor, 1(25%) of vice principal
and 20(29.4%) of teachers respondents the supervising and supporting of SIC for the
practices of SIP were medium ,1(25%) of vice principals and 38(55.9%) of teachers
respondents low supervising and supporting of SIC for the practices of SIP, only
8(11.8%) of teachers respondents very low in the supervision and supporting of SIC for
the practices of SIP. The rating of principals with (X = 2.25, SD =0.57) and teachers with
(X =2.24, SD = 0.65) indicated that low supporting and supervising of SIC for the
practices of SIP again Supervisors with (X =2.5, SD =0.70), vice principals with (X =2.5,
SD =0.57) SIC providing supervision and supporting for the practices of SIP were
medium. The average mean value X =2.37 it indicating low agreement of the majority
with the given issue. furthermore the information obtained from interview question and
FGD with SIC members shows as that there is poor supporting and supervising with SIC
in the practices of SIP in the sampled school, this is due to lack of commitment of the
established SIC committee and the school leaders. The significance level (p=0.2) is
greater than 0.05, this indicate there is no difference between the views of teachers,
principals, supervisors and vice principals in regarding with the given issue.

In table 9 of item 6, 1(25%) of principal, 1(50%) of supervisor and 6(8.8%) of teachers

respondents WEO expert and supervisors has monitor and giving technical support
were high, 3(75%) of principals, 1(50%) of supervisor, 2(505) of vice principals and
27(39.7%) of teachers respondents medium support and monitor of schools by WEO
expert and cluster supervisors for the practices of SIP, the other 2(50%) of vice
principals and 26(38.2%) of teachers respondents technical support and monitoring of
schools by WEO expert and supervisor were low for the practices of SIP, the rest
9(13.2%0 of teachers replied very low the supporting and technical support of WEO
expert and supervisors on the practices of SIP. The rating of principals with (X =3.25, SD
=0.50), vice principals (X =2.5, SD =0.57) and teachers with the (X =2.44, SD =0.83)

83
replied medium agreement of WEO expert and supervisors has fixed schedule for support
and monitor for the practices of SIP and supervisors with the (X =3.5, SD =0.70) high
fixed schedule of monitoring and giving technical support of WEO expert and
supervisors for the practices of SIP. The average mean value X =2.92, it indicating that
majority of respondents were medium agreement on the given issue. further more data
obtained by conducting interviews question with principals, supervisors and Woreda
education office heads, expert cluster supervisors WEO expert were not fully schedule
and familiarized in the activity of schools, and no continually monitor, supervise and
giving any technical support for the practices of SIP. Therefore it concludes that the
monitoring technical supporting and evaluation given by cluster supervisors and WEO
expert to the practices of SIP was low. It indicates sufficient monitoring and supporting
of schools was one of the factors to practices SIP. The significance level (p=0.89) if
greater than 0.05, this indicate that there is no significance difference between the
opinion of teachers, principals, vice principals and supervisors with the regarding of the
given issue.

It is essential to carefully monitor any strategy or initiative to ensure authenticity of

implementation, collect evidence of efficacy, and modify any strategy that is found to be
ineffective Hudson & Louise (2014:13). Similarly to implementation, evidence must be
collected for each student, teacher, and classroom

84
 4.5. Factors Affecting for the Practices of SIP
Table12. Respondent’s views on factors affect school improvement program
No Respo Frequency and percentage X S.D Overa P valu
Items ndents llX
5 4 3 2 1

Lack of technical P n 1 2 1 3 0.81

support from woreda % 25 50 25
1 education officials
Su n 1 1 3.5 0.7
3.31 0.75
% 50 50
V.P n 2 1 1 3.25 0.9
% 50 25 25
T n 9 27 21 10 1 3.49 0.9
%
13.2 39.2 30.9 14.7 1.5
Shortage of qualified P n 1 3 3.25 0.5
2 teacher in each subject % 25 75
area Su n 2 3 3.26 0.56
% 50
V.P n 2 1 1 3.25 0.9
% 50 25 1.5
T n 4 37 21 5 1 3.56 0.7
% 5.9 54.4 30.9 7.4 1.5

Shortage of qualified p n 3 1 1.75 0.5

3 principals for the % 75 25
required position Su n 1 1 2.5 0.7
% 2.49 0.12
50 50
V.P n 1 1 2 2.75 0.9
% 25 25 50
T n 1 11 41 14 1 2.96 0.7
% 1.5 16.2 60.3 20.6 1.5
Lack of enough P n 2 2 3.5 0.8
teaching learning % 50 50
4 facilities in the school 3.49 0.01
Su n 1 1 3.5 0.7
% 50 50
V.P n 2 1 1 3.25 0.9
% 50 25 25
T n 6 39 20 3 3.71 0.6
% 8.8 57.4 29.4 4.4
The extent to which P n 4 4 0.0
Shortage of ICT center % 100
5 and plasma Su n 2 4 0.0
% 3.98 0.39
100
V.P n 3 1 3.75 0.5
% 75 25
T n 22 39 5 1 1 4.18 0.7
% 32.4 57.9 7.4 1.5 1.5
n 2 2 3.5 0.5
Poor collaboration P % 50 50
6 among stake holders
Su n 2 4 0.0

85
 and the school to plan % 100 3.64 0.85
SIP practices
V.P n 2 2 3.5 0.5
%
50 50
T n 3 38 21 5 1 3.54 0.7
% 4.4 55.9 30.9 7.4 1.5
n 1 1 2 2.75 0.9
Lack of understanding P %
25 25 50
about school
7 Improvement program Su n 1 1 2.5 0.7 2.93 0.02
% 50 50

V.P n 1 2 1 3 0.8
% 25 50 25
T n 2 33 29 4 3.49 0.6
%
2.9 48.5 42.6 5.9
Lack of adequate budget n 2 1 1 3.25 0.9
to practices SIP P % 50 25 25
planning Su n 1 1 3.5 0.7
8 % 50 50
3.44 0.94
V.P n 2 2 3.5 0.57
% 50 50
T n 7 28 26 7 3.51 0.82
% 10.3 41.2 38.2 10.3

As indeed in table 12 of item 1, respondents of principals, vice principals and teachers

replied lack of technical support from Woreada education officer were medium with
mean value of 3, SD= 0.81, 3.25, SD =0.95 and 3.49, SD =0.50 respectively. But
supervisors indicated that high level with mean score of 3.5, SD =0.70. The average mean
of 3.31, indicated that lack of technical support were medium agreement. Data obtained
through interview question from Woreda education office heads shows as, most of
supporting and monitoring technique were going on by the use cluster supervisors and the
officer had visit at list twice a year. The significance level (p=0.75) is greater than 0.05,
this means there is no difference between the views of teachers, principals, vice
principals and supervisors on regarding to lack of technical support has high from
Woreda education office.

In item 2 of table 12, principals, supervisor vice principals replied that medium shortage
of qualified teachers in each subject with the mean of 3.25, SD =0.50, 3 and 3.25, SD
=0.95 and teachers expressed high with mean value of 3.56, SD =0.78. Furthermore the

86
information obtained through interview question from principals, supervisors and Woreda
education office heads held that there is a high problem of qualified teachers in each
subject area and in each grade level. Even if technical drawing, Baseness, Economics,
ICT, physics, Mathis and Amharic teachers were high shortage in the sampled schools.
This is due to high turnover of experienced teachers in case of lat salary payment. The
average mean score of 3.26, it shows that moderate level of respondents with the given
issue. The significance level (p= 0.56) is greater than 0.05, it means there is no difference
between the respondents views of teachers, principals, supervisors and vice principals in
the given issue.

In table 12 of item 3, principals and supervisors are replied that shortage of qualified
principal for the position were low level with in the mean value of 1.75, SD =0.50 and
2.5, SD =0.70 and vice principals and teachers respondents indicated moderate level with
mean score of 2.75, SD =0.96 and 2.96, SD =0.70. The overall mean score is 2.49, it
indicated that majority of respondents was low agreement with the issue. Further more
data obtained through interview question from Woreda education office heads and the
background information shows as 3(75% ) of the secondary school principals were MA
degree holder with school leadership and the rest one principals were first degree in
biology subject. However this possible to conclude that the qualification of principals in
the required position were encouraged for the practices of school improvement program.

As shows in table 12 of item 4, lack of teaching learning facility were high as rated of
with mean score of 3.5, SD =0.81, 3.5, SD =0.70 and 3.71, SD =0.96 of principals
supervisors and teachers respectively. Vice principals respondents indicated that
moderate level with the 3.25, SD =0.95. Lack of teaching facility has an impact for the
practices SIP in line with ministry of education goals. The average mean value of 3.49 it
indicated that medium agreement of majority respondents with the given issue. Therefore
to conclude that lack of enough teaching learning facility in the school is the problems or
obstacle in the sampled schools. the significance level (p =0.01) is less than 0.05, this
indicate that there is a significance difference between the views of principals, teachers,
supervisors and vice principals regarding to lack of enough teaching learning facility in
the schools.

87
From item 5 of table 12, respondents of principals, supervisors, vice principals and
teachers replied that high shortage of ICT center and plasma with mean score of 4, 4,
3.75, SD =0.50 and 4.18, SD =0.75 respectively. The overall mean of 3.98, indicated that
the schools have high shortage of ICT and plasma. Moreover the information obtained
through interview question and observation checklist shows that few plasma computers
were found in Tenshu metti secondary school but is not functional. While few computers
is found in Jain and Tensu metti secondary preparatory schools but service providing
to the students has Tenshu metti secondary schools where as the rests schools (Gelasha
and Kumi) secondary schools have not computer. It is possible to conclude that shortage
of ICT center and plasma were the challenge to practices SIP and quality of education has
deteriorated. . The significance level (p =0.39) is greater than 0.05, it indicate there is no
significance difference between the views of teachers, supervisors, vice principals and
principals within the given issue.

Table 12 of item 6 shows, all respondents replied that high level of poor collaboration of
stakeholders to plan SIP with mean value of 3.5, SD =0.57, 4, 3.5, SD =0.57and 3.54, SD
=0.76. The average mean value of 3.64 indicated that the majority of respondents were
high agreement with the issue. This data clearly shows that lack of collaboration planning
has great influence for the program implementation. The significance level (p =0.85) is
greater than 0.05, it means there is no significance difference among the views of
teachers, principals, vice principals and supervisors in the given issue.

Item 7 of table 8, respondents of principals, supervisors, vice principals and teachers

indicated that lack of understanding about SIP were moderate level with the mean score
of 2.75, SD =0.95, 2.5, SD =0.70, 3, SD =0.81and 3.49, SD =0.65 respectively. The
averages mean value of 2.93, indicating that majority respondents were medium
agreement with the issue. Additionally data obtained through interview question of
principals and Woreda education office heads, held that the school members and teachers
have negative attitude towards school improvement program and lack of understanding
about SIP. This is due to teachers has not providing training (workshops) in at school,
Woreda or zone level about SIP. The significance level (p=0.02) is less than 0.05, this

88
means there is difference between the response of teachers, principals, vice principals and
supervisors towards to lack of understanding of school members about SIP.

In table 12 of item 8, on lack of adequate budget for the practices of SIP shows as
respondents of principals indicated moderate level with the mean value of 3.25, SD
=0.95 and supervisors, vice principals and teachers respondents replied that high level
with mean score of 3.5, SD =0.70, 3.5, SD =0.57and 3.51, SD= 0.82 respectively. The
averages mean value of 3.44, indicating medium response of the majority of respondents
on the given issue. An interview held with Woreda education office heads also confirms
that the budget allocated for SIP implementation was not much attractive. Only school
grant was allocated for each school to implement SIP; so this is not enough to carry out
all the activities needed to implement the program efficiently and effectively. Hence
inadequate budget allocation was one factor that hinders SIP implementation. The
significance level (p= 0.94) is greater than 0.05, this means there is no difference between
the views of teachers, principals, vice principals and supervisor with the regarding of lack
of adequate budget for the practices of SIP plan.

89
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR FINDING, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATION

This chapter deal with the summary of Major findings of the study, conclusion drown on
the basis of finding and recommendation to identifying that assumed the practices and
problems of school improvement program in Majang Zone .

5.1. Summary of the Major Findings

The study was conducted in secondary schools of Gambella Region in Majang zone.
Then the purpose of the study was to assess the practices and problems of school
improvement program in government secondary schools. For the success of this purpose
the following basic question were raised;
1. What are the existing practices of school improvement program in Majnge zone
secondary schools?
2. What are the major factors that affect for the practices school improvement in
secondary school of Majang zone?
3. What monitoring and evaluation mechanisms‟ are put in place to follow the
practices of SIP in Majnge zone secondary schools?
4. To what extent have teachers, students and parents involved in school improvement
planning and practices SIP in the secondary schools?
5. To what extent the practices and problems of school improvement program
implementation in Majange zone secondary schools?

The study was conducted in select 4 out of 6 secondary schools in Majang zone. In this
study descriptive survey design and mixed research method was employed and both
qualitative and quantitative data was used. The data gathered from both primary and
secondary sources. The primary sources were obtained from teachers, principals, vice
principals, supervisors, WEO heads, SIC members and PTA members. The secondary
sources were including documents reviews and observation was used. The selected

90
sampled schools were by using random sampling technique from the two Woreda (i.e
Godera and Mengshi Woreda).

The total numbers of the respondents was 113. Out of this numbers 2 respondents‟
Woreda education office heads were selected, 4 principals, 2 supervisors were selected
purposive sampling and 68 teachers, 4 vice principals using simple random sampling
technique, and 20 SIC members and 12 PTA members were selected using available
sampling. Data gathering instruments used in the study was questionnaire including both
open-ended and close-ended items, interview, observation check list and document
reviews were employed to obtain sufficient information from different respondents.
Concerning to the data collected was analyzed by mean score, standard deviation and t-
test value.

5.2. Major Findings

Based on the analysis of the basic question and interpretation of data, the major
findings of the study are summarized as below;

 Planning Practices of School Improvement Program

The planning practices for school improvement program, preparing school strategic SIP
plan, the involvements of teachers, students and parents in developing SIP plan, school
conduct self evaluation and prioritizing the problem according to their urgency for the
main objective of the schools, providing training for the staff members, allocating budget
for the activity of teaching learning and community encouragement in the planning of
SIP. To assess the activity carried out for planning SIP six points were listed to be rating
by respondents. Among the given points only one (schools preparing strategic plan) were
found practices in the sampled schools with mean value of 3.75. While the rest points
like, participation of teachers, students and parents in SIP planning and allocating budget
for the teaching learning activity mean value of 2.48 and 2.43 respectively shows weak
practices in the schools. And the study conducted that, community encouragement for the
planning of SIP a evaluate and prioritizing the problem accordingly and providing
training for staff members failed mean value of 2.43,2.48 and 2.53 respectively indicate
poor implementation of SIP planning in the sampled schools.

91
  Practices of School Improvement Program

With the regard of Teaching learning domain as practices of continue assessment, class
and home work has regularly given by teachers, student centered teaching method and
tutorial support for lower learner and female students is being fair with the mean value of
3.37, 3.46, 3.52 and 3.18 respectively, while the rest, laboratory services with equipment
and chemicals, library services with sufficient books, pedagogical center with enough
teaching aid and individual learning needs and providing the lesson accordingly, for the
result of study indicated that was poor practices with the mean value of 2.93, 2, 2.35,
2.19 and 2.52 respectively. Additionally, the result of interviews, observation and FGD
also confirmed that in the sampled secondary schools were had no even though the access
of laboratory room, equipment and chemical at all and the majority of schools were had
no library services room with sufficient books. In the sampled schools except one school
the rest were had not pedagogical center and teaching aid.

In concerning to school learning environment domain, the study to determine access of

toilet for male and female separately, adequate teaching learning materials (text book,
reference book and teachers guiding books) s and pure water supply in the study schools
were poor with the mean value of 2.63, 2.4 and 2.29 respectively. Furthermore the
information obtained from interviews question, observation and FGD also suggested that
the toilet rooms are not separately available for male and female students, the majority of
the study schools were had not library room and shortages of text books (Amharic, civic
and ethical education, English and ICT books) and like sport and physical education
subject had not even for the teachers and also shortage of reference books, additionally in
all the sampled schools had not plasma access, majority of schools were high shortage of
computer access with room and had not laboratory room with equipment and chemicals.
Except Jain secondary schools, the rest were had not pure water supply. The school
environment has attractive safety and suitability for learners were relatively good, class
room with safety, attractive, suitability were medium for students and the relationship
between teachers, students and parents were good with the mean value of 3.06, 3.04 and
3.22 respectively. In addition to this data gathered from interview question and
observation held that the school‟s class room were had not more crowded but has no

92
attractive and lack of safety. Majority of schools teachers with students and students with
principals were had good relationship but the relation among teachers and principals had
poor.

Under domain of community participation, poor participation of school stakeholders.

Teachers communicate with parents up on the students result were poor with mean value
of 2.75, parents were giving comment and following up of students result were low with
mean value 2.18, less community participating in the school improvement plan with the
mean value of 2.6, schools leaders conduct evaluation up on the activity of SIP with PTA
members were low with the mean value of 2.41, parents and community members were
had poor monitoring and visiting the SIP practices with the mean value of 2.25, the
participation of PTA members in school management were had poor with the value of
2.22. Furthermore information obtained through interviews question and FGD suggested
that low community participation in the schools activities, leaders were poor conducted
evaluation and meeting in the practices of SIP with PTA members, weak monitoring and
visiting of community for the practices of SIP and also less participation of PTA in
school managements.

With the regard of leadership and management domain, principals were had good
educational managerial skill with the mean value of 3.61, schools managers and officials
were had relatively medium with the mean value of 3.26, the vision, mission and
objective of schools were good with the mean value 3.62, leaders were had relatively
medium competency to lead and coordinate the practices of SIP with the mean value of
3.04. the remaining issue like; schools manage and directed the activity of SIC members
were low with the mean value of 2.43, the mobilization and supporting of teachers to
practices SIP were poor with value of 2.6, shortage of communication about SIP with
teachers, students and parents and lack of adequate man powers to practices SIP with
mean value of 2.43 and 2.44 respectively. Additionally the information obtained from
interviews and document reviews shows that, poor managing and directing of leaders for
the activity of SIP. Schools were had vision, mission and objective are clearly stated.
Leaders were shortage of competency to lead and coordinate the practices of SIP. In the

93
sampled schools majority of teachers were teach not parallel to the qualification and
except Geography, Biology and chemistry teachers the remaining subjects teachers were
high shortage and even like technical drowning teachers were not available in sampled
schools. Majority of principals were had acquired educational management skills.

 Monitoring and Evaluation activity for the Practices of SIP

For effective practices of SIP, is logical to put in to effective monitoring and evaluation
technique applied. By assessing the practices of monitoring and evaluation mechanism
the activities only teachers were give feedbacks on after visit how they are teach with
mean value of 3.15; schools were low using of internal supervision with mean value of
2.85; SIC members has not limited time for monitored and evaluating the activity of SIP
with mean value 2.41; parents and community were has not visiting the activity of SIP
with mean value 2.23; SIC members were poor to providing and supporting the activity
of SIP with mean value of 2.37; supervisors have fixed schedule to monitor and giving
technical support while WEO experts have not fixed schedule to monitor and technical
supports with mean value of 2.93. Furthermore, information from interviews, FGD and
document reviews monitoring, supervising and evaluation has been prepared in the
practices of SIP plan in schools level is not implemented; SIC members has not limited
time for monitoring and evaluating the activity; only supervisors have fixed schedule to
monitors and giving technical supports SIP activity.

 Factors Affect on the Practices of School Improvement Program

The finding of study revealed that all the given factors to practices of school
improvement programs. The most common factors affecting the practices of SIP are;
shortage of ICT center and plasma, poor collaboration of stakeholders, lack of teaching
learning facilities, lack of adequate budget, shortage of technical supports from Woreda
education officials and shortage of qualified teachers with the mean value of 3.98, 3.64,
3.49, 3.44, 3.31 and 3.26 respectively in addition lack of understanding about the
practices of SIP are identified as factors that affect school improvement practices.
Furthermore, from interviews, FGD and open-ended questionnaires on the major factors
that affected the practices of SIP were; lack of adequate capacity among educational
officials at Woreda each level; lack of commitment and understanding of stakeholders;

94
late teacher‟s salary payee; lack of adequate budget for the activities of SIP; high
turnover of experienced teachers. All the major factors are affecting the practices of SIP.

5.3. Conclusion
There is no doubt that successful school improvement is related to systematically
planning, monitoring and evaluation process which enable to increase student‟s
achievement. In order to what matters to practices successes fully the program ; the way
to prepared plan before assessing the problem, evaluating and prioritizing, encouraging
key stakeholders in developing school improvement plan, enhancing community involved
in school improvement plan, practices monitoring and evaluation activity, allocating
sufficient budgets.
Based on the finding, the study revealed that in regarding to planning of SIP; the schools
conducting self- evaluation and identifying and prioritizing the problems were low.
Moreover the problem found in the sampled schools was absences of collaborative
planning. This implies that the planning of SIP for implementation was found the most
serious challenges to success of SIP. The finding of the study showed that lack of
providing adequate training for the teachers and school staff in the practices of SIP and
poor community involvement, weak participation of stakeholder (teachers, students and
parents) in planning of SIP, school leaders and SIC members was lack of commitment to
invite stakeholders. This indicated that low involvement and participation of stakeholder
in planning and practices of SIP was found the most serious problems in the success of
SIP in the secondary schools.

The finding of the study indicated that in the sampled school the implementation of SIP
were at moderate level performance with respect to the four domains; making school
conducive learning environment domain, teaching learning domain, leadership and
management domain whereas the community involvement showed weak level of
performance. The research finding on school the extent of monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms and the provision of supports for school and continuous supervision made by
Woreda education officials, school improvement committee, and the existences of fixed
schedules for monitoring and evaluation of the performances in the implementation of

95
SIP were unsatisfactory. This is implied that monitoring and evaluation mechanisms were
the Problems of SIP for successfully practices the sampled schools.

The findings of this research have revealed that all the points given as factors affected the
practices of SIP and the degree of influence they exerted on the practices of the program
were high level. Thus it showed that school facilities are factors that affected for better
practices of SIP in the sampled schools. Furthermore the researcher has found related to
factor affecting that the practices of SIP at educational sectors from interviews and open-
ended questionnaire illustrated as; the school improvement strategic plan was prepared by
school principals and few individual without getting the necessary argument by teachers
and other were supportive in developing and implementing the program. Shortage of
qualified teachers in each grade level, shortage of ICT center and plasma, laboratory
room with chemical, pedagogical center, lack of adequate budget, very fast and high
turnover of teachers, Lack of library services with sufficient books and late teacher‟s
salary payment were identified as the major factors which affect the implementation of
SIP. As a result, this clearly indicated that the schools are not effectively addressing the
needs of the learner. Generally, secondary schools of the study area were low practices of
school improvement program.

96
5.4. Recommendation

The central focusing area of school improvement program was improving student‟s
outcomes. In order to improve student‟s achievements schools should be practices school
improvement program properly. Therefore, based on the major findings and conclusion
of the study, the following recommendations are given;
1. The finding of the study indicated that school conducting self- evaluation and
prioritizing the problems was low. Then, the school principals are give awareness
for the school entire community about the advantages of school conducting self
evaluation and set the method of evaluation and prioritizing the problems by
participating stakeholders.
2. The study showed that the school improvement strategic plan was developing by
the individual school principals. The involvement of teachers, students, and
community in planning of SIP was poor. To overcome the problems related to
planning even in implementation, all stakeholders should be involved in the
planning process. To do so school principals expected to mobilize the school
community to actively participate in the planning process.
3. During the implementation of SIP, capacity building is highly important. The
delivery of capacity building trainings regarding school improvement planning,
community participation and monitoring and evaluation for all stakeholders were
low. However, providing trainings and workshops to orient and train all
stakeholders so as to avoid the dichotomy resulted from label conceptions and
believe on rationales in the practices of SIP.
4. The finding indicated school improvement program implementation was low.
Therefore to improve student‟s achievements in teaching learning process,
community‟s involvement was critical issue. So Woreda education office,
supervisor and school principals should make great effort to strengthen their
relationship and by creating community forum. For more the creating enabling for
school principals, students, teachers, educational office and other stakeholders at
every level of education sectors.

97
5. According to the finding there was high shortage of school facilities to carry out
SIP implementation. Therefore to solve academic problems of students, utilization
of library services, use of instructional media, use of laboratory, create conducive
learning environment, give students teaching needs and motivate and encourage
teachers for good practices.
6. In order to solve teaching learning problems, school leaders in working
collaboration with the school community, PTA members, teachers, supervisors,
WEO experts, political leaders as well as GREOB, this is important to construct
sufficient laboratory room with equipment and chemical, library room with
sufficient books, to mobilizing the community, to get qualified teachers in each
level, ICT room with excess computer, providing training for teachers and key
stakeholders.
7. The findings of the study showed that allocation of budget for the practices of SIP
was low. Therefore to solve the schools financial and material problems,
governments should allocate sufficient additional budget (block grant), inkier the
scale of school grant budget to facilitate the program and schools design
additional income generation by active involvement of all the school stakeholders
to solve the problems permanently.
8. The findings of study shows that the participation of PTA in school management
was low, therefore the school leaders and the concerned bodies are expected to
conduct meeting by giving awareness on their responsibility
9. From the finding of the study, school monitoring and visiting by parents and
WEO experts was low. Therefore wereda education office heads and school
principals are responsible and give attention for monitoring and evaluating for the
success of SIP.

98
References

ACT government (2004).School Improvement Framework: Guide Lines for School

Improvement Sydey: Education Youth and Family Services.

ACT. (2009). School Improvement Framework: Better Schools... Better Futures Raising
Quality and Achieving Excellence in ACT Public Schools. Canberra.

Adesina, S. (1990) Education management. Abisiani Eng. 4th Dimension Publishing Co.
LTD

Aggarwal, J.C. (1996).Theory and Principles of Education: Philosophical and

Sociological Basic Education (10th ed ).New Delhi ;Vikas Publishing House
Pvt Ltd.`

Ayalew, Shibeshi (2009). Secondary School Teacher Deployment in Ethiopia:

Challenges and Policy Options for Redressing the Imbalances. Journal of
Educational Research. Addis Ababab University, pp. 1-9.

Best ,J.W., and Kahan, J.V.(2003). Research in education. New Delhi: Prentice HallPl.

Bishop ,G (1995).Curriculum Development .Hong Kong Macmillan Education Ltd .

Bush, T. (2008). Leadership and Management Development in Education. London: Sage

Publication.

Carlson, V.R (1996). Reframing and Reform Perspectives on Organization, Leadership

and School change. New York: Longman Publishers. Chassell.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches. (2nd ed.). California: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating

Quantitative and Qualitative Research. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River RJ:
Pearson Education.

99
Columbia. Retrieved on March 21, 2012, from http://ed.sc.gov/agency/ac/Student-
Intervention-Services/documents/SC-SchoolEnvironmentRFP-Nov2011.pdf

Day, C., Harris, A. and Hopkins, D. (2005). Effective Leadership for School
Improvement: New York and London: Rutledge Flamer

Earl.et.al.(2003).Manitoba School Improvement. Retrieved on Oct.29, 2010, http://www

Pace Work org.

EIC, (2000).School Improvement Planning: A Hand Book for Principals Teachers and
School Councils Extrated from http://eie.edu.gov.on.ca.On 21 August 2009.

ESDP ARM (2007).Ministry of Education, ESDP Annual Review Meeting 2007:

Proceedings.2007

Fullan, M.(2001). The New Meaning of Educational change: London Cassell.

Harris, A (2002) Scholl Improvement; what is it for school? London; Rutleadge /

Flamer/

Harris, A. (2005). Teacher leadership and school improvement. In Harris, A. et al.(Eds.),

Effective leadership for school improvement. London: rout ledge falmer

Hopkins, D (2001). School Improvement for Real. London: Rutledge flamer.

Hopkins, D (2002) School Improvement for Real.London;Rutledge.

Hopkins, D. et al. (1994). School Improvement in the Area of change. London:

Hopkins, D., and Harris, A. (1997).School improvement: Improving Education Quality

for All. Supporting for Learning, Vol. 12 No4.Available at:

Hundson, M. & Louise, B. (2014). Continous School Improvement Models: Focus on

Teaching and Learning. Malvern: Association of Independent School of South
Australia.

100
Jeilu Oumer.(2010).”Strategic and School Development Planning: Addis Ababa
University.Jersey; Person Prentice Hall

Khosa G. (1999). Sustainable School Improvement: Apartnership between the State, the
private

Leedy, P.D and ormrod, J.E (2005) practical research planning and design (8th ED)
New

Little, J. W. (1994). Teachers‟ professional development in a climate of educational

reform.

Lockheed and Verspoor (1991). Improving primary Education in Developing countries.

London: Casel Lunen burg, G. and Ornstein, C (1991). Educational
Administration Concept and Practices: New York Wads Worths, Inc.
London: Continuum.

Lockheed, Marlaine E. ,Verspoor, Andriaan M., and associates (1991). Improving

Primary Education in Developing Countries. Washington Dc: Oxford
University Press

Lunen burg, G. and Ornstein, C (1991). Educational Administration Concept and

Practices: New York Wads Worths,Inc.

Marsh, C (1988). Spotlight on school improvement Australia Auen and un wind Inc.

Management Information Systems, Ministry of Education, February, 2010 Addis Ababa,

Ethiopia

Mick Zais (2011). South Carolina School Environment Initiative. South Carolina
Department of Education,

Ministry of Education (2008). Education Statistics Annual Abstract. Addis Ababa:

Ministry of Education Prining Press.

101
___________ (1994:1) Education and Training Policy: Federal Democratic Republic
Government of Ethiopia. (1Edition), Addis Ababa. .

MOE (2005). Education Sector Development Program (III) (ESDPIII):Program Action

Plan: Addis Ababa :Ministry of Education Management Information System
(EMIS) Department.

___________(2006). School Improvement Program Implementation.

___________ (2007) General Education Quality Improvement Program /GEQIP/.

Program Document. Addis Ababa.

_________(2007). School Improvement Program Hand Book. Addis Ababa.

__________ (2007). School Improvement Program Framework. Addis Ababa.

__________ (2007).The school improvement program (Blue Print). Addis Ababa

Ministry of Education

_________ (2008). General Education Quality Improvement Package (GEQIP).

________(2009).Continuous professional development for primary and secondary school

Teachers, leaders, and supervisors in Ethiopia: The Framework. Addis
Ababa(Unpublished Training Manual).

________(2010). Education Statistical Annual Abstract 2008/9 Education

________(2010). School Improvement Program Guidelines Final Draft. Improving the

quality of Education and Student Results for All Children at primary and
Secondary Schools.

________(2010).Education Sector Development Program IV(ESDP IV).Addis Ababa.

Ministry of Education.

_______(Ministry of Education).(2004). ESDP Programme Implementation Manual

(2003/04

102
_________(Ministry of Education, Ethiopia) (2006): School Improvement Program
Implementation Guide Lines.(August,2006)(0) MOE blue Print.

__________ (Ministry of Education, Ethiopia). (1997). Education Sector Development

Programme I (ESDP-I) Program Action Plan. Addis Ababa: Ministry of
Education, Education Management Information Systems (EMIS) Department.

_________ (2011) Revised, Governing Guide Line For The Implementation of the
School Improvement program.

__________ (2011) Revised, Governing Guide Line For The Implementation of the
School Improvement program.

Plan-International.(2004).The School Improvement Program. Retrieved on 15 Sept, 2009

from http//www.plan- international.org..

Revised Version). Ministry of Education, September 2004

Sector and Civil Society.Retrieved on Nov.16,2010 from www.jet.otga.za.

Simpkins, K. (2009). Quality education and the essential need for school improvement.
Unpublished Guideline Paper. Addis Ababa: Ministry of Education.

UNESCO. (2006). Teachers and, Education Quality: Monitoring Global Needs for
2015.Montreal: UNESCO, Institute for Statistics. Addis Ababa University
Press. Addis Ababa.

World Bank. (1995). Priorities and Strategies for Education: Development in Practice.
U.S.A: The International bank for Reconstruction and Development.
WOODHALL,

World Bank. (2001). Education and Health in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Review. Sec
Approaches. Washington, D.C. World Bank.

103
 Appendix-I

Addis Ababa University

College of Education and Behavioral studies
Department of Educational planning and Management
Questionnaire to be filled by Secondary School Principals, Supervisors
and Teachers
Dear respondents: The purpose of this questionnaire is to gather relevant data that
help to assess the current practice and problems of school improvement program (SIP) by
secondary schools of Majange Zone. The required data is vital importance for the success
of this study which is a partial fulfillment for a master„s degree. You are; therefore,
kindly requested to fill the questionnaire that provides necessary information on different
issues related to the study. Hence, your genuine and timely responses are important for
the success of this research. In this questionnaire, two types of items are included. For
items that require written answer, give your response in the provided spaces
corresponding to the questions and for the items which provide alternatives or scale
values, please use “√” mark to show your level of agreement under one of the five scales
of measurements for each item. The values for the scales of measurements are:
Vary High= 5; High = 4; Medium = 3; Low = 2; and Vary low = 1.

Note that:
 No need to write your name on the questionnaire
 Please mark only one response to a question, with alternative choices put “√” in
the given box
 Write your opinion clearly for open ended questions on the space provided.

104
Part I
1. Background Information
1. Name of the School ____________
2. Name of Woreda _______________
3. Sex: a. Male b. Female
4. Age (in years):
a.18 – 30 c. 41 – 50
b. 31– 40 d. 51– 60
e. above 60
5. Qualification of teacher
a. Diploma b. BA/BED/BSC
c. MA /MED/MSC ) d. any other
6. Teaching experience in years (only for teachers)
a. Below 5 years b. 6-10 years c. 11-15 years
d . 16-20 years e. 21-25 years f. 26 and above

105
PART II

2. Planning the school improvement program practices

2.1 Collaborative planning of school improvement plan

Vary High =5, High =4, Medium=3, Low= 2,Vary Low=1

R/N Items Scale

5 4 3 2 1
1 The school was prepared strategic improvement plan
2 The participation of teachers, students and parents in
developing school improvement plan
3 Community encouraged to be involved in the planning of SIP

Planning practices of school improvement program

1 The trainings provided in School Improvement Program

planning for all staff in the school.
2 The school allocated sufficient budget for the achievement of
teaching learning
3 school conduct self-evaluation and prioritizes the problems at
the beginning of the year

7. List three weaknesses to plan school improvement program

a.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. School improvement program

To improve the achievement of learning outcome of students there are four domains.
Please show the level of your agreement and the extent to which the mentioned activities
were practices in your school based on your opinion by putting “X” sign in the space
provided corresponding to each item under the rating scales that represents your
response.

106
3.1The Practices of School Improvement Program
3.1.1Teaching learning domain

Indicate your agreement in the given measurement

Vary High =5, High =4, Medium=3, Low= 2, Vary Low =1

R/N Items Scale

5 4 3 2 1
1 The extent to which school practices continues assessment
2 The extent to which Class work and home work are
regularly given by teacher to the students

3 Availability of laboratory with sufficient equipment and

adequate chemical
4 Library services is available to the students with sufficient
book
5 Availability of pedagogical center and enough teaching aid
6 Student centered teaching method is practice in the school
7 The extent to which Tutorial support is given to the lower
learner and female students by teacher
8 Identifying individual learning needs and providing the
lesson accordingly is usual in the school

9. List two other weakness related to the teaching and learning in the practices respect
of school improvement program

a.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. List any two strength related to teaching learning in the practices of SIP to enhance
students result

a.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

107
 3.1.2. School Learning environment Domain

Indicate your agreement in the given measurement

Vary High =5, High =4, Medium =3, Low = 2, Vary Low=1

R/N Items Scale

5 4 3 2 1

1 School has access of toilet room for female and male

separately
2 School environment is safety, suitable and attractive for the
support for student
3 The school has enough students learning class room
4 Healthy relationship between teacher, students and principal
in the school
5 Adequate teaching learning materials (e.g textbook, reference
book, teacher guiding book)
6 Availability of pure water supply in the school

7. List any three other strength of your school in additional to establishing conducive
learning environment

a.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Write any three weakness of your school in relation to establish conducive learning
environment

a.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

108
3.1.3. Community Involvement Domain

Indicate your agreement in the given measurement

Vary High=5, High=4, Medium=3, Low= 2, Vary Low=1

R/ Items Scale
N
5 4 3 2 1
1 Teacher collect the result of student and communicate with
parents
2 Parents provide comment and following upon their students
learning and their result
3 Parents involved in school improvement program planning and
its practices
4 The school leader conduct evaluation and meeting with PTA
members
5 Parents monitor and visit the teaching learning activity of the
school and their students
6 PTA members is actively participate in school management

7. List two weaknesses in practices of SIP to the community participation

a.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

109
3.1.4. Leadership and Management Domain

Indicate your agreement in the given measurement

Vary High =5, High=4, Medium=3, Low = 2, Vary Low=1

R/
N Items Scale
5 4 3 2 1
1 School mangers and officials have acquired educational
management capacity to effectively practices SIP
2 School leader mange and direct the activity of school
improvement committee
3 School has vision, mission, objective to improve the student
learning
4 The school mobilize and support teacher to practice school
improvement program
5 The competency of school leader to lead and coordinate the
practice of school improvement program
6 School has effective communication about school improvement
with teachers and students
7 School have adequate skilled man powers to practices SIP plan
8 School principals have acquired adequate educational
management skill
9. Write two any other weaknesses of school leadership and management with the
practices of SIP leader competency

a.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

110
4. Monitoring and Evaluation method

Indicate your agreement in the given measurement

Vary High =5, High=4, Medium=3, Low = 2, Vary Low=1

R/N Items Scale

5 4 3 2 1
1 WEO expert and supervisors has a fixed schedule for school
monitor and technical support for the practices of school
improvement program
2 School improvement committee has limited time for meeting
and evaluating the activities
3 School give support to increase the method of teaching by
using internal supervisors
4 Teacher receive regular feedback after visiting on how they
are teach in the class
5 Parents continuously visit the school
6 SIC continually supervised and provide supporting for
school in the practices of SIP

7. Write two additional strategies of monitoring and evaluating school improvement of

the stakeholder

a.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

111
5. Factor Affected the School Improvement Program Implementation

The following are some of the major problems that affect the practices of school
improvement program in the secondary school.
Indicate your level of agreement for each item under the scales that represents
your opinion.
Vary High =5, High =4, Medium=3, Low= 2,Vary Low =1

R/ Items Scales
N
Building the Capacities of Leadership 5 4 3 2 1
1 Lack of technical support from woreda education officials
2 Shortage of qualified teacher in each subject area
3 Shortage of qualified principals for the required position
4 Lack of enough teaching learning facilities in the school
5 The extent to which Shortage of ICT center and plasma
6 Poor collaboration among stake holders and the school to plan SIP
practices
7 Lack of understanding about school improvement program
8 Lack of adequate budget to practices SIP planning

9. List down any more factors the hinder the practices of school improvement program in
the school

a-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

112
Appendix II

Addis Ababa University

College of Education and Behavioral studies
Department of Educational planning and Management
An interview Question for Zonal and Woreda Education Office Heads
Dear interviewee! The purpose of this interview is to gather data about the practices
and problems of the School improvement program at secondary schools in your zone and
Woreda secondary school. The type information you will provide determines the quality
of the study. Therefore, you are kindly requested to give factual information for the
interview.
1. Background In formation
1.1. Name of the zone__________
1.2. Name of the woreda___________
1.3. Age ______
1.4. Sex______
1.5. Total service ________________Years
1.6. Work experience as
Zone education office head____years
Woreda education Office heads _______Years,
1.7. Qualification a. Diploma ( ) b degree ( ) c. MA ( )
1.8. Area of specialization_______________________
2. Do you bring training in school improvement program?
3. Is the school leader has enough and competent to practice school improvement
program?
4. How does your office is give mentoring and evaluation technique to support the
practices and planning of school improvement program?
5. Did you arrange any training for school principals and SIP committee in the
practices and planning of SIP?
6. Could you mention other factors that affect practices of school improvement in
your woreda, cluster schools?
7. What kind of solution is suggested to solve such problem?

113
Appendix-III

Addis Ababa University

College of Education and Behavioral studies
Department of Educational planning and Management
Interview guide for school principals and cluster supervisors
First, I would like to thank you for consulting to spend your time to discuss with me.
The purpose of the interview is to gather data about the practices and problems of SIP in
your woeda/ cluster schools. It is also assured that the information that you would
provide can be kept confidentially as the data to be used only for academic purpose. You
are kindly requested to provide genuine information.

1. Background In formation
1.1. Name of the woreda school__________
1.2. Age ______
1.3. Sex______
1.4. Total service ________________Years
1.5. Work experience as principals____ years and supervisor _____Years
1.6. Qualification a. BA/BED/BSC ( ) b. MA /MED/ MSC ( )
1.7. Area of specialization ______________________

2. Do you provide any workshop or training for teacher and SIP committee on the
planning and practices of school improvement program?

3. How do you explain the competency of school leadership to practices school

improvement program in the school?

4. How do you explain the method of monitoring and evaluating the activities of SIP
in your cluster /school?

5. Explain your effort to make the school environment of the classroom is conducive
for learning?

114
6. Explain the extent to which technical support is given to the secondary school to
facilitate the practices of SIP?

7. What about the access of necessary material like student text book, computer and
computer room plasma, laboratory and other SIP material school facilities?

8. Explain any effort to made increase the awareness of SIP committee stakeholders to
practices SIP? What is the involvement in the present?

9. To what extent does the school principal provide supervision and support
department heads and teachers to meet the purposes of the school improvement?

PartV. Document Review

1. 3 years strategic plan

2. SIP documents

115
Appendix-IV
Addis Ababa University
College of Education and Behavioral studies
Department of Educational Planning and Management
Observation Checklist for Majange zone Secondary Schools
Name of woreda ----------------------------------------------
Name of the school -----------------------------------------------
No. Items Sampling schools
Measurement
Jain Tenshu metti Kumi Gelasha
1 Attractive school v. good
compound Good X X
Poor X X
v. poor
2 Access of Water v. good
supply Good X
Poor X X
v. poor X
3 Toilet for female and v. good
male students Good X X
separately Poor X X
v. poor
4 Enough learning class v. good
room Good X X
Poor X X
v. poor
5 Student text book with v. good
each subject Good X
Poor X X X
v. poor
7 Library with sufficient v. good
books Good
Poor X X X
v. poor X
8 Laboratory with v. good
enough equipment and Good
chemical Poor
v. poor X X X X
9 Pedagogical center v. good
with available Good
teaching aids Poor X X X X
v. poor
10 ICT room with v. good
functional computer Good
Poor X X
v. poor X X

116
 Appendix-IV
Addis Ababa University

Department of Educational Planning and Management

Focused Group Discussion Questions for vice principals schools SIP and PTA
committee

Dear SIP Committees; The main objective of this discussion is to gather information for
the study on the practices and problems of School Improvement program in majange
zone secondary school. You are; a members of school improvement committee in the
school. Therefore, kindly requested to provide necessary information on different issues
related to the study. It is very important that you provide honest responses as freely as
possible.

1. School improvement committee is functional in your school?

2. Do you participate in formulating school improvement strategic plan?
3. What are your roles to creating conducive environment and the community
mobilize in the practices of school improvement program?
4. What is the method of teaching in the class room? Is student centered or teachers
centered? identify and discuss it
5. How do you describe the relation of parents, student and teacher in your school to
practices SIP?
6. Is there any factor that affect in the practices of school improvement program?
Please explain?

117
Appendix-V
አዲስ አበባ ዩኒቨርስቲ
የድህረ ምረቃ ትምህርት ቤት
በሥነ ትምህርት ኮላጅ የሥነ ባህርይ ጥናት ክፍል
የትምህርት ማሻሻያ ማዕቀፍን የሚመሇከት መረጃ ማሰባሰቢያ መጠይቅ
በወሊጀ መምህር ተማሪዎች ህብረት እና በት/ቤት ማሻሻያ ኮሚቴ የግሩፐ የመወያያ
መመሪያ

ውድ የወላጅ መምህር ተማሪዎች ህብረት እና የት/ቤት ማሻሻል ኮሚቴ አባላት፡

ይህ የመውያያ ርዕሰ በሁሇተኛ ደረጃ ትም/ቤቶች ያሇውን የትም/ቤት ማሻሻያ መረሀ ግብር
አተገባበር በሚመሇከት መረጃ ማሰባሰብ ነው፡፡ ሰሇሆነም የውይይቱ ዋና አላማ ሰሇ ት/ቤት
ማሻሻል መረሀ ግብረ አተገባበር ላይ የሚደረሱ ና የደረሱ ተጸኖዎችን የምንወያይበት ሲሆን
በወይይታችን ላይ ሇአተገባበሩ የተደረጉ ጥረቶችንና ባጋጠሙ ችግሮች ላይ የተወሰዱ
መፈትሄዎችን እያነሳን እንወያያሇን፡፡ሰሇሆነም ይህ መረጃ የተፈሇገው ሇሁሇተኛ ዲግሪ
የማሟያ ጹሁፍ ሇሆነው ሇዚህ ጥናት እጀግ ወሳይ ነው ፡፡ በመሆኑም ከዚህ በታች በተነሱት
ጥያቋ መሰረት ያሇትን የማሻሻያ አተገባበርና ችግሮቹን በጥልቀት አንሰተን
እንወያይባቸዋሇን፡፡ ሰሇሆነም በግሩፐ እንቀመጥና በቀረበው ጥይቃ ላይ እየተነጋገረን
ሀሳባችንን እናሸራሸር፡፡
1. የትም/ቤት ማሻሻያ መረሀ ግብር በትም/ቤት ትግባራዊ ሆኛል
2. የትም/ት ቤት የ3 ዓመቱ የማሻሻያው የዕቅድ ዝግጅት ላይ ተሳትፋችኃል;
3. በመማሪያ ክፍል ወሰጥ የማሰተማሪያው ሰነ ዘዴ ተማሪን ያሳተፈ ነው ;
4. ተማሪዎች ከትም/ቤት መልሰ እንዲያጠኑና የቤት ሰራዎችን እንዲሰሩ እንዲሁም
የተማሩት በመከታተል የተሻሇ ወጤት እንዲያሰመዘግቡ ያበረታቷቸዋል
5. የትም/ቤት ማሻሻያ መረሀ ግብር ሰልጠና ወሰዳችኃል
6. የትም/ቤቱ ቅጥር ግቢ ንጹህና ማራኪ እንዲሆን የእናተ ተግባራት እንዴት ይገሇጻል
ምንሰ አከናውናችኃል
7. ክትትልና ደጋፍ ታደረጋላችሁ; በምን አይነት ዘዴና ጊዜያት
8. ሇችግሮች የምትወሰዷቸው መፈትሄዎች ምንምን ናቸው

118
Declaration
I declare that this thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in
any other university and that all sources of materials that I have used or quoted have been
duly acknowledged and indicated by means of complete References.

Name _______________________________

Signature_____________ Date _______________

Date of Submission _________________________

This thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval as university advisor.

Name _________________________________

Signature___________________ Date of Submission_________________

119