1.1 Background of the Study
In the world in which we are living we see the significance of educational institution for
the advancement of any country by implementing their planning effectively and efficiently
.For the implementation of school plan, the role of the educational officers and school
administrators is of paramount importance. Especially the great advantage of education in
developing country like Ethiopia cannot be seen separately from educational personnel
commitment. The fundamental purpose of school improvement planning is to enable the
school to achieve and maintain the highest possible level of effectiveness in meeting the
educational needs of its pupils in a culture that is characterized by change. Internationally,
there is widespread acceptance among educationalists that collaborative school
improvement planning is a powerful means of promoting school effectiveness. It enable
the school community to develop a clear vision what school is about and where it is going
a shared sense of purpose, a common set of goals, and consensus of attaining them
.School improvement plan (SIP)is a continuous improvement strategy which provide a
mechanism for systematic self –evaluation that enable the school community to review its
progress, identify priorities, and prepare plans for further improvement it directs the
attention and energy of the school community in a systematic we on the central task of the
school the provision of a quality education that is appropriate to the abilities and needs of
all its pupils, in addition school improvement plan promotes partnership in the school‟s
development by engaging the major parties in the school community- principle, teachers,
parents, pupils, Board of managements and trusts in a collaborates dialogue focused on
identifying and responding to emerging education needs. The implementation of the
school improvement planning process raises a number of organizational and resource
issues which must on addressed by the department of education and education offices in
conjunction with the partners in education. The implementation of school improvement
planning is greatly assisted by the establishment of appropriate structures for collaboration
and consultation structure within the staff may include a steering group,
chaired perhaps by a school plan co-coordinator, to oversee the process a when able them
to develop the requisite expertise. Good facilitation is the key to the success full
introduction of school improvement plan. There are so many factors that influence
(negatively or positively) effective implementation of school improvement planning.
Among these, lack of effective establishment of procedures for communication between
the teams or group and the full staff interfering with the delivery of school program,
participants may lack information and training, un sufficient provision of necessary
material and budget internal and external facilities may be the factors that hinders the
implementation school improvement plan. It is generally assumed that the implementation
of school improvement plan is heavy responsibility falls on top school management to
develop strong relationship with school community .In melka Belo woreda at jaja primary
school the case is true which is paradoxical to the ongoing GEQIP package program
which there students performing low. Hence, the ultimate aim of the investigator in this
study is to identify major factors which influence the implementation of school
improvement plan in above mentioned school.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Education is a milestone (corner stone) for advancement in economic, political and social
progress of a given country. Today our country recording reasonable development in
education and by designing general education quality improvement programs (GEQIP) which
has six (6) programs now a day every child in the country get access to school. However, the
problems of quality education still remain unchanged. This problem may rise from un
implementation of school improvement plan which is the base for other school activities .Jaja
Primary School is one of the school that falls to achieve the predetermine objective of school
improvement program (improve student performance) this is why the researcher has initiated
to conduct the research on identifying the factors affecting the school improvement plan
implementation in this study the following basic research question will be answered.
1. What are the major factors that influence the implementation of school implement plan?
2. Is it the internal or external factor that affects more the implementation of the plan in jaja
3. How the school administrators evaluate and monitor their progress to know where they are
4. How much the school stakeholder participatory understands the plan interested toward its
5. What strategies should be followed in the future to alleviate the factors
1.3 Objective of the study
1.3.1. General Objective
To identify the Major Factors that affects the implementation of school improvement plan.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
To identify the most affecting factors of plan implementation in this school and its sources.
To investigate the effective possible procedure and strategies that should be followed in
To make conducive school atmosphere in which school community can contribute their
effort to implement the plan
To identify and inform the responsible body the area that should be focused Finally to
suggest the school partners constrictive recommendation that enable them to recover the
school and systematically solve the problem
1.4 significance of the study
The researcher believes that this study was contributing various advantages. Some of them
are as follows
The study would aware the school administrators or principal ,the major factors and their
sources, so that they would take corrective measures, this help them to attain
predetermine educational goals
It also helps the school community (PTA) to adapt the appropriate way of monitoring and
self evolution techniques that enable them to know their effectiveness periodically.
Finally the study can serve as a source of information for further related study to those
who are willing to study in depth.
1.5 de limitation of the study
This study covered only factors affecting school improvement plan (SIP) implementation
Jaja Primary School which is found in Melka Bello Woreda of East Hararge Zone in
Oromia Regional State. Since it is practically impossible to conduct through investigation
many school in this short period of time the study delimited to identify.
1.6 Limitation of the Study
During the study the researcher faced with many problems. Some of them are:-
Series problem of finding reference books and related literature ,
Time constraint and work load,
Lack of budget,
Reluctant of some respondents to fill questionnaires. However, confronting with these
problems, the researcher come up with the final research work.
1.7. Operational Definition of key terms
Planning: is the ongoing process that reflects and adapts to changes in the surrounding
environment in each organization, the process of setting goals and choosing the means to
achieve those goals, the process of preparing asset of decisions for action in the future
directed at achieving goals by optional means. Planning is deciding in advance the objective
of the school, and the means for attaining them.
Implementation:-is the caring out, execution, or practice of a plan a method, or any design
for doing some things, the realization of an application, or execution of a plan, idea, model,
design, and specification standard.
1.8. Organization of the Study
Research report was organized in five chapters. The first chapter deal with the problem and
its approach in which introduction, statement of the problem, objective of study, limitation,
Delimitation, definition of key terms, and Organization of the study are described. Chapter
two deal with review of related literature. Methodologies are including in the third chapter
data analysis, presentation and interpretation of data in chapter four. The fifth chapter deals
with summary, conclusion and interpretation of the study.
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Recent History of the School Improvement field
Over the last 20 years, the school improvement research base has gained prominence and
recognition on the international stage. In both a theoretical and empirical sense it has matured
through generating a wide range of successful projects, interventions and innovations across
many countries in Europe, North America, South Africa and Asia. While many publications
crowd the field of school improvement, contemporary comparative reviews of the
international field are hard to find .A review of the last two and a half decades of school
improvement suggests that the field has evolved in a number of distinctive phases as
practitioners and researchers gained experiences in implementing and studying school change.
Hopkins and Reynolds (2001) have provided a powerful analysis of the field and have
identified three phases of school improvement. In its early phase, during the 1980s, school
improvement tended to be mainly practitioner-oriented, located in the work of those involved.
This work was typified by the „teacher as researcher‟ (Elliott, 1980; 1981), school self-
evaluation and school self-review movements, particularly but not exclusively in England
(Clift and Nuttall,1987).School improvement was often defined as implementing an
innovation or engaging in action research projects. In several countries, especially the United
States and Australia, it was also driven by federal funding to address the needs of schools
serving disadvantaged students, which mandated the establishment of school-based
improvement councils. This „bottom-up‟ approach to change in schools manifested itself in
small-scale programmes or projects focused sometimes only on select groups of students,
individual schools or groups of teachers. In the United States, toward the end of this phase,
the emergence of the Effective Schools Research began to inform the work of many local
school improvement efforts (Chris-peels and Meany, 1989; General Accounting Office,
1989).In addition to providing funding for individual school improvement efforts, state and
national governments played an interesting role in this phase.
They enhanced the power of individual schools by diminishing the power of intermediate or
local educational authorities and agencies. For example, the national government in New
Zealand pursued this path and dissolved its local education authorities. Various state
governments in Australia, with Victoria leading the way, also dissolved the in that country.
The province of New Brunswick in Canada experimented with eliminating its local school
districts but later reinstated them (Anderson, 2003). In the United States, where local boards
of education were the primary educational decision-makers, many school boards implemented
site-based management as an engine for teacher empowerment and school improvement
(Lieberman, 1986) Mohrman .Wohlstetter and Associates,1994;Brazer,2004). In another
context, the Education Reform Act of 1988 in England dramatically altered the power of local
education authorities which previously „were responsible for almost all educational services‟
(Woods and Cribb, 2001:1). According to Hopkins and Reynolds (2001), the first phase of
school improvement was encapsulated by the holistic approaches of the 1980s and was
epitomized by the OECD‟s International School Improvement Project (ISIP) Hopkins and
Reynolds (2001: 12) note, however, that this first phase of school improvement tended to be
„loosely conceptualized and under-theorized.It did not represent a systematic, programmatic
and coherent approach to school change‟. There was also in this phase an emphasis upon
organizational change, school self-evaluation and the „ownership of change‟ by individual
schools and teachers, but once again these initiatives were not strongly connected to student
learning outcomes. They tended to be variable and fragmented in both conception and
application. As a consequence, these improvement practices struggled to impact significantly
upon classroom practice (Hopkins, 2001).
The second phase of development began in the early 1990s. In these years, the school
improvement tradition was beginning to provide schools with guidelines and strategies for
implementation to promote classroom level change. This approach resulted from more
systematic interaction between the school improvement and the school effectiveness research
communities (Vinovskis, 1996; Desimone, 2002).
There was a greater focus upon organizational and classroom change reflected in approaches to
staff development premised upon models of teaching (Joyce and Showers, 1995). A desire to
link school improvement to student learning outcomes was the main goal during this phase,
which was pursued with varying degrees of intensity. In addition, there were two trends that
emerged during this phase. The first trend was the expansion of site-based management within
schools, which resulted in the reduction in power of local authorities and local boards of
education. In many countries numerous resources have been targeted at programmes and
projects aimed at improving schools and raising standards of performance.
The evidence to date, however, suggests that many of these external interventions, although
very well intentioned, have had patchy and variable success. The evidence supporting the
relationship between school improvement and increased student achievement remains weak and
contestable. The emphasis on „performativity‟ in many systems generated a form of school
improvement premised on the twin components of accountability (inspection, test scores and
league tables) and standards (target setting, monitoring and raising achievement plans) which,
despite dominating the educational landscape, has largely been unable to yield the increases in
school performance sought. More importantly, its net effect has been to render those schools in
disadvantaged communities, where progress had most been sought, less able to raise and sustain
performance. As Hopkins and Reynolds (2001: 15) note „the achievement gap between pupils
from disadvantaged backgrounds that seemed initially to narrow in the late 1980s, stayed the
same or widened again in the 1990s, raising alarm among national governments in Canada,
England, and the United States. The third phase of school improvement has arisen because of
the relative failure of existing school improvement approaches to make a difference to school
on a large scale. Pockets of success could be seen and were duly celebrated but scaling up from
the one to the many proved to be elusive. In particular, success seemed to elude schools in large
urban areas serving the most disadvantaged and the evidence from major programmes such as
„New American Schools‟ confirmed the limitations of „off the shelf‟ improvement or whole-
school designs to secure long-term, widespread system and school improvement
(Berends,Bodilly and Kirby, 2002). Furthermore, some national initiatives such as the National
Literacy and Numeracy strategies in England seemed to show only partial success at the lowest
levels of basic skills in closing the achievement gap (Fullan2000). In response to previous
limitations, the third phase of school improvement attempted to draw upon its most robust
evidence and to produce interventions that were solidly based on tried and tested practices.
Programmes such Improving Quality of Education for All ; High Reliability Schools the
Manitoba School Improvement project (MISP) and the Dutch National School Improvement
project were all examples of projects in this third phase (see Reynolds et al., 1996; Teddlie and
Reynolds, 2000; Hopkins, Ainscow and West, 1994; Harris and Young, 2000; Hopkins, 2001).
2.1.1. Lessons Learned from the Prior School Improvement Initiatives
Hopkins and Reynolds (2001) are keen to point out that here are variations among the
programmes identified in Phase 3 that make any overall assessment difficult and any
formulation of a „blueprint‟ based on these programmes unwise. Nevertheless, they
suggest that a comparison of third wave school improvement as a group points toward
certain key features that typify the third phase of school improvement projects.
First, there has been an enhanced focus upon the importance of pupil learning outcomes
and classroom level change. While previous projects sought to change the organizational
conditions within schools, the latter projects also focus on changing classroom level
conditions. Related to this, the second feature of third wave projects is the attention paid
to the learning level and the instructional behaviors of teachers. The third wave
programmes are carefully targeted at changing teachers‟ skills, attitudes and behaviors in
order to positively affect classroom change. Third, Hopkins and Reynolds (2001) argue
that there has been the creation of an infrastructure to enable the knowledge base, both
„best practice‟ and research findings, to be better utilized, especially through the
development of more sophisticated and user-friendly computer programs. This they
suggest has involved an internal focus on collaborative patterns of staff development that
enable teachers to enquire into practice, and external strategies for dissemination A. Harris
And J. H. Chrispeels and networking (Fielding and Eraut, 2003). Emerging from these
patterns of collaboration has been the latest development in the school improvement field
of networks and networking between schools as a mechanism for change and
Fourth, the school improvement field has recognized and embraced the importance
and potential of capacity building. Building capacity essentially involves building
relationships, building trust and building community. But development of individuals is
not enough. Capacity building is about ensuring that the school is a „self-developing
force‟ through investing in those school and classroom level conditions that promote
development and change (Harris and Lambert, 2003).
Finally, there has been an adoption of a „mixed‟ methodological orientation by programs
in the field, in which both quantitative and qualitative approaches are combined. The
effective School Improvement project in England is an example of an attempt to look at
classroom and school processes and outcomes and to model a more comprehensive
framework of intervention. Accompanied with attention to both process and outcome has
been the emphasis upon fidelity implementation which, it is suggested, is an important
determinant of subsequent project success.
2.2. Models of School Improvement Program.
2.2.1. Policy Attributes of Successfully Implemented School Improvement Models
Researchers, policy-makers and program developers recognized that the variability in
levels of implementation often made it difficult to assess the merits of a particular school
improvement design. Nevertheless, until recently, many have given insufficient attention
to the policy factors that could enhance implementation of any design.Desimone (2002)
argues that principals and teachers‟ perceptions of five policies attributed will influence
the level of successful school improvement plan implementation. These policy attributes,
which interact and may create unique interdependencies, include:
The Level of Specificity: the more specific the reform in terms of curriculum and lesson
plans, professional development provided, role of the principal, and the information and
monitoring guidelines, the more likely the reform will be fully implemented.
Consistency: the greater the consistency of the reform model, especially in terms of
curriculum and assessments, with other school, district or state reforms, the easier it was
for the school staff to implement the various reforms.
Authority: the greater teachers perceived the model‟s authority because of their own
decision-making and buy-in and because the model is supported by the principal and
district, the more likely the model will be successfully implemented.
This normative authority is also supported or diminished by perceived individual principal
authority in relationship to the model. The more knowledgeable the principal of the change
process, capable in marshalling resources and expert in the reform model‟s fit to faculty, the
greater the level of implementation.
Power: the more districts or state authorities rely on rewards and facilitate the adoption of
reform models rather than use sanctions and mandates, the more likely the models are to
be sustained and faithfully implemented.
Stability: policy and implementation environments characterized by stability in
relationships and change concepts (i.e., low turnover of staff and students, limited
volatility in the policy arena, and commitment to a steady and consistent pace of reform)
enhance successful implementation of school improvement models that will yield
continuous improvement over the long term.
As policy-makers, reformers, and practitioners developed a greater appreciation of the
components of effective improvement models and the policy attributes that assist the
implementation of individual school reform efforts, schools involved in the third phase of
school improvement initiatives have benefited. However, even the best designed school
improvement strategy can be influenced by context and politics in ways that undermine or
compound implementation challenges.
2.2.2. Role of Context and Politics in School Improvement
Another evolutionary aspect in improvement initiatives that is seen in this third phase of
school improvement is a deepening awareness of the critical nature of context and political
influence on school improvement. Recently, the school improvement field has recognized the
need for more differentiated and finely grained approaches to school development and
change. Previously, there was a relatively limited focus on examining and evaluating the
effectiveness of different change strategies used by schools in different socio-economic
contexts with variable internal change capacity. Only in the last few years, for example, have
researchers located within the school improvement field focused their attention upon
significantly improving failing‟ or „ineffective‟ schools (e.g., Stoll and Myers, 1998a; Gray,
2000; Reynolds et al., 2001; Hopkins 2001b; Harris and A. Harris And J. H. Chrispeels
The call for context specific improvement is well established but relatively little attention has
been paid to generating the differential strategies needed to improve individual schools.For
example, in England only recently have policy initiatives directed resources to those schools
labeled as Schools Facing Challenging Circumstances. As Stoll et al. (1996) argue: For a
school that is ineffective and just starting the process of development, the strategies may be
different from a school that has been developing for some time: the former may need an
„apprenticeship‟ orientation involving giving the school knowledge from outside, while
knowledge of the latter may be sufficiently professionally competent to develop its own good
practice and the development based upon it.
Likewise, the strategies would be different for an individual school at different phases of the
development cycle, with beginning provision of information from outside being progressively
scaled down until the school is capable of its own knowledge generation .The emerging
research evidence concerning improving schools in difficult contexts (Harris et al., 2004;
Reynolds, Clarke and Harris 2004) demonstrates quite clearly that a diverse range of school
level factors and characteristics is the norm. Each school within this grouping exhibits a
unique organizational mix of cultural typology, improvement trajectory and level of
effectiveness. Unlike effective schools, which have been shown to exhibit similar
characteristics, schools in the low-performing grouping may look homogeneous but in
practice exhibit very different characteristics. Therefore, it seems important that the school
improvement field moves to consider more highly differentiated and context specific
programmes. The interaction of context and politics also can create conditions that undermine
or weaken local school improvement work (Desimone, 2002).As stressed earlier, school
improvement, especially in schools facing challenging circumstances, is highly complex and
requires sustained work over a period of several years. Yet politicians‟ terms are of limited
duration. They want quick fixes and standardized measures that do not take into account the
poverty and deprivation faced by many inner city schools. The authority and specifications of
a particular reform can be quickly diminished when state policies prescribe curricula that are
contrary to the reform model and require assessments that are misaligned to local efforts.
Teachers can become discouraged and fail to fully pursue needed implementation strategies
that will ensure a reform‟s success if countervailing policies is also imposed.
The failure to address the socio-economic conditions of particular school catchment areas
tends to perpetuate savage inequalities in the larger community that even the best school
improvement program and efforts are not likely to overcome. Unfortunately, attention to the
larger school community issues is not on most policy-makers‟ agenda; their focus continues to
be on improving schools in order to raise standards implying a new shift toward system
2.2.3. Improving Individual Schools through System-wide or Systemic Changes
We would argue that in some countries, a fourth phase of school improvement is
underway: improving individual schools through system-wide or systemic changes. In this
phase conflicting forces and discourses can be seen as national and state education systems
struggle to find the right balance between top-down and bottom-up reforms that will
accomplish national educational goals. This phase also reflects the growing recognition of
the nested nature of schools in systems and the frustration, especially of policy-makers, of
scaling-up and transferring more quickly the touted success stories of individual school
reform. To speed the school improvement process, system changes are occurring at two
levels: (1) system changes at national or state level and (2) renewal and redefinition of the
role and work of local education authorities.
184.108.40.206. Systemic Efforts to Enhance Individual School Improvement
Systemic change is being pursued at national, provincial or state policies levels as a way to
direct local improvement processes. The strengths of national and state educational
systems and the rules and regulations they impose on schools, of course, vary
considerably across countries and range from highly centralized systems in terms of
curriculum to be taught, personnel selection, financing and budget decisions, and
assessment (e.g., France, Greece) to very decentralized systems with most decisions
residing at the school level (e.g., New Zealand and Australia). In countries such as the
United States and England where the tradition of local control is stronger, there has been
considerable movement to strengthen the national role at the expense of local educational
authorities or school districts. The enactment of the National Literacy and Numeracy
strategies in 2002 represents an example of the centralization of authority and curriculum
The United States federal government began gradually to increase the federal role with the
adoption of Goals 2000 (adopted in 1989) and culminated in the passage of No Child Left
behind Act in 2002, which has radically altered the federal government‟s reach into
education policy that was previously under the purview of state and local governments.
Although there are no national curricula, each state is now required to adopt state
curriculum content standards (a process started before NCLB, but greatly accelerated by
it) as a way to ensure systemic reform. Furthermore, the power of few states (e.g., Texas,
California and New York) in adopting textbooks and particular standardized tests to hold
schools accountable has considerably narrowed the range of curriculum choices available
to schools in the United States, which has a textbook driven approach to schooling.
Although each of the 50 states and their 115,000 local school districts are still vested with
the primary responsibility for education, the power of local boards of education has been
considerably diminished by these new federal and state policies. The standards-based
reform movement has systematized what .A Harris and J. H. Chrispeels students are
expected to learn, and state prescribed testing, textbooks, and the accompanying required
teacher professional development designed to ensure implementation of state standards
greatly diminishes the arena and scope of local decision-making. Although the intent of
the federal and state legislation was also to give local schools and teachers greater
autonomy in how they organized instructional programmes, the discourse of
accountability has tended to constrain and confound many local school-based reforms that
were begun during the first three phases of school improvement described above
220.127.116.11. Renewed Appreciation of the Importance.
In spite of the move to centralize more authority through federal and state policy, there is
parallel and contrasting acknowledgement of the importance of a second level of school
system change agents: LEAs or school districts. There is growing recognition and research
on the role these intermediate agencies can play in facilitating, supporting, directing and
even mandating school improvement (Elmore, 1993; Spillane, 1996; Elmore, 2000;
Woods and Cribb, 2001; Marsh, 2002; Anderson, 2003). The work of these researchers
indicates that districts can foster school improvement by:
Interpreting, mediating and buffering schools from state and or federal legislation, &
Enhancing teaching and learning through curricular choices, staffing, professional
development and support for site-based reform initiatives (Marsh, 2002; Anderson, 2003;
Although the policy-mediating role between district and state is an important one (and is
addressed in chapter 7 on reform in San Diego Unified School District by Linda Darling-
Hammond and her colleagues), the primary focus here is the second – the LEA‟s role of
supporting school improvement.
As mentioned earlier, frustrations with local education authorities led several systems to treat
as ancillary to the change process or to disband them altogether. For example the Illinois State
Legislature (USA) in 1988 delegated almost all authority to local schools in the city of
Chicago (Bryk, et.al.,1998).Although there was considerable euphoria surrounding the bold
restructuring move, the local councils „failed to produce significant widespread gains in
student learning‟ (Anderson, 2003:4). Schools in Chicago only began to show improvements
and gains on a large scale when the district reasserted its role in providing capacity building,
accountability, and innovation support to schools (Anderson, 2003: 4). The Chicago story is
unique in that the drastic action of the state legislature forced the district to redefine its role
and relationship to its schools and to break some of the previous bureaucratic interactional
patterns with local schools that were no longer productive. Research about Chicago Public
Schools by Bryk et al. (1998) and the report on the work of District no. 2 in New York City
(Elmore and Burney, 1997, 1998) rekindled interest in the potential of school districts to
support school improvement.
Research was beginning to show that standards and accountability systems alone were not
sufficient to ensure the desired learning gains. Children will only meet challenging standards if
schools consistently create high quality learning in every classroom every day. Yet many
urban schools serving large populations of low-income and diverse learners fail because of
lack of resources (adequate facilities, materials, time and highly qualified teachers), lack of
technical knowledge (curriculum expertise) and unstable operating environments (high
leadership, staff and student turnover as well as missing leadership skills and collaborative
time). These schools are not able to create high quality learning environments without
considerable outside supported and assistance. LEAs or school districts represent one
mechanism for providing the needed help.
2.3. Potential Roles and Responsibilities of Local Education Authority to Support
A review of current research on school district reform suggests a variety of roles and
responsibilities that LEAs, school districts or other intermediate agencies might undertake to
support school improvement (Woods and Cribb,2001; Anderson,2003). These responsibilities
fall into several critical leadership categories including setting direction, providing
professional development, especially for school leaders, providing data to guide the change
process, marshalling resources to meet needs and ensure equity (Togneri and Anderson,2003;
Leithwood and Riehl, 2004).
2.3.1. Setting Direction
Research on successful LEAs suggests that establishing a clear focus on teaching for powerful
learning and communicating the focus to all shareholders, including students, is key (Elmore
and Burney, 1997; McLaughlin and Talbert, 2002; Togneri and Anderson, 2003). To carry out
this direction, central office administrators often found they were the ones who had to alter
The administrative team representing all areas (instruction, personnel, facilities, transportation,
maintenance, categorical and special education) may need to meet frequently to address
educational issues and discuss what might be hindering educational advancement at each
school. Agullard, Huebner and Calisi (2004) also found that when the superintendent or head
of the LEA articulated and shared a coherent theory of action, this helped the central office to
be more focused in assisting schools and enabled schools to make greater sense of the reform
demands. A concurrent challenge facing school districts as they attempt to set direction is the
need to create coherence among competing reform agendas (Hatch, 2002; Honig and Hatch,
2004).Goertz, Floden and O‟Day (1996: 7) described the challenge as: A.
Harris and Arris J. H.Chrispeels achieving a delicate balance between old and new goals,
greater coherence across a wide range of policies and levels of education, maintaining
momentum in a rapidly changing political environment, achieving needed increases in capacity
of the education system, and ensuring that the changes benefited all students.
Honig and Hatch (2004: 16) argue that „coherence is a process, which involves schools and
school district central offices working together to craft or continually negotiate the fit between
external demands and schools‟ own goals and strategies‟. This task is greatly complicated if
there is not a level of trust to support the work (Bryk and Schneider, 2002; Daly, 2004) LEAs
often place principals and teachers in a problematic situation by asking them to pursue
multiple reforms, some of which may not be in alignment with a school-based reform
initiative, without sufficient negotiation and mutual sense-making by the different actors.
District level administrators and program improvers similarly struggle to balance fidelity to
program implementation with local needs of the district and the local schools (Hatch, 2002).
Spillane and Thompson (1998) found that districts varied in their interpretation of state and
federal reform policies based on their human, social and financial capital. In other words, if the
district staff lacked an understanding or a commitment to the reform agenda (human capital),
they were much less likely to successfully assist their schools in implementing the reform.
They also found, in the case study of mathematics and science reform, that the level of human
capital was also reflected in the level of social capital, especially in terms of the district‟s
engagement with professional networks and relationships with external agencies promoting the
reform (Spillane and Thompson, 1998).
2.3.2. Providing Professional Development
A second key role of the LEA or school district is providing professional development for
instructional renewal (Elmore and Burney, 1997; Anderson, 2003). Anderson (2003) found
that school districts where learning gains were being made tended to focus on two types of
professional development: intensive long-term development of instructional leaders, especially
principals or head teachers and district wide job-embedded professional development for
teachers. In the United States, such district guided professional development has largely
focused on literacy. In the England the focus has been on both literacy and numeracy. LEAs in
England are expected to play a role in disseminating best practices to schools in their areas
through such strategies as a register of expert practitioners, involving associate heads and
deputies as mentors, publishing research or models of best practice in a variety of
formatsproviding in-services, linking and networking schools to promote learning from each
other (Woods and Cribb, 2001: 80–99). Fullan and Watson (2000) also found that professional
development for school leaders in Africa proved to be central to achieving school
improvement on a wide scale. An emerging aspect of job-embedded professional development
is the creation of professional learning communities both within and across schools.
„Communities of teachers in schools help teachers make sense of multiple messages about
instruction, not only from districts but from states and professional associations as well‟
(Honig and Hatch, 2004: 21). District-encouraged collaboration among teachers within their
schools and across the district helps to develop and sustain goal consensus, foster shared
beliefs and increase commitment to reform (Anderson, 2003). Districts can strengthen school-
level collaboration by assisting schools to restructure the school day and the allocation of time,
which may require negotiations with the teacher union and building support in the parental
community. Honig and Hatch (2004) also maintain that district consultants, coaches or
professional developers who facilitate regular dialogue among school staff and teachers‟
engagement with multiple professional communities can expand the number of scripts and
logics available to school level actors to use in interpreting and making sense of multiple
2.3.3. Providing Data to Guide the Change Process
Research of successful school improvement efforts have consistently shown the importance of
the school staff‟s ability to collect and use appropriate perceptual and achievement data to
guide their improvement plan (Chrispeels, 1992; Datnow and Springfield, 2000; Chrispeels,
Castillo and Brown, 2001; Snipes, Doolittle and Herilhy, 2003); however, frequently schools
tend not to have people skilled at using data for decision-making (Datnow and Stringfield,
2000). Thus school districts and LEAs can play an important intermediary function in
providing the data, especially regarding disaggregated student achievement, in forms
understandable and useful to teachers. Anderson (2003: 10) found in his review that:
Successful districts in the current era of standards, standardized testing, and demands for
evidence of the quality of performance invest considerable human, financial, and technical
resources in developing their capacity to assess the performance of students, teachers, and
schools, and to utilize these assessments to inform decision-making about needs and strategies
for improvement, and progress toward goals, at the classroom, school and district levels.
As more districts adopt benchmark assessments to determine regular progress toward
achieving standards, the district‟s ability to get timely information to schools is critical as is
the assistance and training in how to use the data. Particularly useful is the practice of district
leaders modeling open discussions around data on student performance and developing an
inquiry stance to enable them to find ways to continuously improve district support for
schools. Marshalling resources to meet needs and ensure equity through infusing fiscal
resources and new knowledge about best practices into the school improvement process and
assisting teachers in learning how to apply the knowledge in their classrooms, LEAs increase
their potential to guide improvement across a wide array of schools (Anderson, 2003). There
is also a close link between the use of data to guide decision-making and the marshalling of
resources to meet equity needs. Skrla, Scheurich and Johnson (2000) found in their study of
Texas districts, serving large low-income Latino populations that the district central office
staff kept the equity agenda in the forefront and constantly stressed and enacted their beliefs
regarding the ability of each child to succeed. District leaders also have a responsibility to
identify practices, policies and programs that may hinder the achievement of equity
throughout a district (Skrla et. al., 2004). Research on high performing districts found that
armed with such audit information, district leaders helped to ensure that schools with the
greatest need received needed resources. As Darling-Hammond and her colleagues point out
in the chapter on San Diego‟s reform, central office leaders took an alternate stance from the
state by providing more support rather than sanctioning its most under-performing schools.
Honig and Hatch (2004), however, caution that it may be counterproductive to school
improvement if the central office provides the goals and strategies for schools as opposed to
enabling individual schools to develop and implement their goals and strategies.
Furthermore, many district central offices may not have the staff, knowledge-base or fiscal
ability to sufficiently support school improvement. In other words, there may need to be a
healthy balance and a dynamic tension between district wide goals for student achievement
and school level autonomy that allows each school to reflect it unique strengths and
circumstances even as it pursues the unified district direction.
The district may need to be tactical about what decisions are made where and what
responsibilities follow as it creates a process to accelerate system-wide school improvement.
2.4. Approaches of School of Improvement program.
2.4.1. Follow through Classroom Observation Evaluation
Several large-scale school reform studies were conducted in the USA in the 1970s and early
1980s. They examined the factors that facilitate or inhibit change in educational settings,
including leadership roles and local contexts. Stallings and Kaskowitz (1974) conducted the
FTCOE, which was the first effort to gather detailed classroom observational data in a large
number of schools that were attempting to implement diverse reforms.
The authors made repeated observations in a range of classes and schools attempting six very
diverse, federally-funded reform designs. Unfortunately, funding for the development and
dissemination of the designs was being cut even as the study began, and hence observations
were conducted at sites that were attempting implementation even as the reforms were being
designed. In most instances, the result was far-from-ideal support for the reforms, and equally
far-from-full implementation of the designs.
However, follow through classroom observation evaluation did demonstrate that classroom-
level comparisons among diverse designs were possible, and that the more fully developed
and structured designs tended to produce both more nearly consistent implementation and
somewhat greater student achievement.
2.4.2. Rand Change Agent Study
Another well-known, large-scale study of the period was the Rand Change Agent Study (e.g.,
Berman and McLaughlin, 1976, 1978), which focused on three stages of the change process:
initiation, implementation and incorporation. The study revealed the importance of local
contexts in the implementation process: Contrary to the one-to-one relationship assumed to
exist between policy and practice, the Change Agent study demonstrated that the nature,
amount, and pace of change at the local level was a product of local factors that were largely
beyond the control of higher-level policymakers. (McLaughlin, 1990: 12)
The authors concluded that there were four implications of this general observation:
• Policy cannot mandate what matters
• The level of implementation dominates outcomes
• Local variability is the rule, and
• Uniformity is the exception.
Although policies may set directions and provide a framework for change, they cannot
determine outcomes. It is implementation, rather than the decision to adopt a new policy, that
tends to predict gains in student achievement.In a retrospective reflection on the Rand Change
Agent Study, McLaughlin (1990) concluded that several contextual and strategic factors
facilitated educational change, including the following:
• A receptive institutional setting or organizational climate
• A critical mass of teachers to support and motivate each other
• The active support of the principal
• Teacher training that was specific, concrete and ongoing
• Teacher observation of more experienced peers in other classrooms
• Regular project meetings that focused on practical issues and
• Teacher participation in project decision-making.
Successful implementation of projects in the Rand Change Agent Study required adaptation
of the reform to the local context. Principal support was crucial. When teachers perceived that
the principal liked a project and actively supported it, the project fared well. While the role of
the external change agents was important, the involvement of the principal was even more
important to the project‟s success.
2.4.3. Dissemination Efforts Supporting School Improvement
It was so large, so methodologically diverse, and produced so many reports, that it defies
simple summary. However, two particular additions to the school improvement field came
from dissemination efforts supporting school improvement.
Local accommodations (in conjunction with design teams) of externally developed school
improvement design are more likely to result in (a) classroom-level implementation and/or
(b) changes in achievement than are locally developed school improvement efforts.
Teacher „ownership‟ of reforms, previously identified critical to reform success, is not an
all-or-nothing beginning state. Rather, ownership comes through months and years of
engagement working to implement a reform. Both in DESSI and the Rand study noted
above, the authors concluded that belief and commitment tended to follow successful
practice, rather than the other way around (for review, see Nunnery, 1998).Therefore,
local conditions and actions were more important than the characteristics of specific
2.4.4. Effective Schools Research (1970s)
Taylor (1990) presented a dozen case studies of local schools and school districts that had
implemented improvement programmes based on ESR.Lezotte (1990: 196–8) summarized
several lessons learned from these case studies, including the following:
Planning and implementing programmes of school improvement does not follow a recipe
or formula – improvement projects based on ESR are not „prepackaged programmes‟;
rather, they involve changes in the processes ongoing at specific, context-bound schools
(e.g., D‟Amico, 1982).
School improvement is a complex and ongoing process that requires patience and
persistence – there are few, if any, „quick fixes‟; rather, staff members must be prepared
for the „long haul‟ of ongoing school improvement.
Teacher improvement can work if the mission is clear and if time and other resources are
available to support school-based planning and training processes – this „lesson learned‟
acknowledges the importance of processes ongoing at the classroom level,
as well as at the school level. Conclusions from School Improvement Research Conducted
in the USA
1) While stability in both processes and outcomes tend to be the rule, meaningful
improvement is tantalizingly possible. Clearly, individual schools can and do improve
measurably. Equally clearly, the national norm has tended toward stability.
2) The importance of a clearly defined intervention or set of interventions. Consistently,
researchers have found that vague philosophical goals, however laudable in the abstract,
tend to vaporize in the crucible of the American classroom. One advantage of some –
though not all – externally-developed reform designs, is that the developers have had
decades of experience honing the particulars of their intervention.
3) The importance of the local context. Just as there is not one „right‟ engine for all trucks,
buses, cars and motorcycles, there is not one „right‟ reform for all schools. Material
resources, human capacities, prior experiences with change and belief systems all vary
4) The co-constructed nature (by school staff and school improvement teams) of the reality
of the interventions. across schools, and within schools, over time. In study after study,
5) The importance of strong focused leadership at the school site. Whether the studies have
been of „school effects‟ or „promising programmes‟ or „school restructuring‟, a very
nearly universal finding in change efforts in the USA has been the need for strong,
academically focused principal leadership.
6) The importance of ongoing teacher support. Students don‟t learn at the principal‟s knee or
that of the reform designer. They learn in a classroom, under the direct tutelage of a
teacher. If the teacher is not provided with ongoing professional development on topics
relevant to the intersection of the reform‟s goals and the teacher‟s areas of needed growth,
the teacher is unlikely to grow.
7) The need to focus on processes as well as outcomes when assessing the success of the
program. Desired outcomes do not „just happen‟, or happen because someone focuses
attention on them. Effective practices and processes produce outcomes. A focus just on
process tends to produce more processes, but not higher outcomes. A focus on outcomes
that ignores processes tends to produce few generalizable results in either.
3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Method
In this research descriptive survey study method was identified as research method.
Because survey studies are conducted to collect detailed description of existing
phenomena with the intent of employing data to testify current conditions and practices
or to make more intelligent plans for improving them in already mentioned school using
this survey study ,the administrative problems of the school, the existing financial
policy and procedures ,information relating toline and staff organization, teachers
characteristics ,student characteristics, facilities and teaching materials were be studded
and found out.
3.2. Sources of data
Important information for this research obtained from both primary and secondary sources
3.2.1 Primary Source of data.
For this study the main primary sources of sufficient data were collected from community
such as supervisor, principal, PTA, teachers‟ and student of jaja primary school though
close and open-ended questionnaire and semi-structured interviews as well as personal
3.2.2. Secondary Sources of data
Secondary sources of data were also gathered from various document in the school among
these different school plan document, student performance achievement profiles, teachers
portfolio PTA and staff regular meeting as Well as their supervisory activities records are
the major one.
3.3. Sample size and sampling techniques
Table 1 Data population
Population Total data Sample size Method of
Teacher 30 25 Random
Students 1890 50 Random
PTA 9 5 Random
Total 80 Random
In the table 1;1890 out of these 1116 male and 774 female students in Jaja Primary School
and there is also 5 PTA Members and 25 teachers including principal.
The sampling technique employed in this study is both probability and non probability
sampling.Accordingly,50 students were be selected by using simple random sampling and 25
teachers 5 PTA were be selected as sample by using availability sampling .Therefore may
sample size or subject of the study were be 80 of total population.
3.4. Methods of Data gathering
To get adequate data questionnaire and interview were used to collect data from sample
population. Document also used to obtain necessary information for secondary data.
In this study, questionnaire was used as the main total and give to all selected sample to know
their ideas toward the problem. Accordingly two types of question open and close ended were
be distributed to and respondents.
This structured instrument, it help to triangulate the data with information collected through
questionable .For this collected interview were be conducted, from the sample generally and
some of the key personnel were be considered specifically from the sample.
Personal observation also helps as a tool in order to obtain additional information. Since
the researcher is working as a supervise of Jaja Cluster resource center may has rich
3.5. Methods of data Analysis
In this study to analyzing collected data both quantitative and qualitative method of data
analyzed was be employed .Accordingly, the quantitative data that obtained through
questionnaire were be analyzed by tabulated and percentage of respondents. The
qualitative data with collected through interview and personal Observation were be
analyzed in order to triangulate substantiate information through questionnaire.
4. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This section of the study deals with the Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data
collected through questionnaire, interview and student teacher personal observation. The data
that gathered through questionnaire from teachers and students which are close-ended were
tabulated and discussed quantitatively. Whereas open ended question, interviews and student
researcher‟s personal observation were organized and interpreted qualitatively included in
contextual analysis to substantiate quality tabulated items. The central objective of this study
is to identify and improve factors that affects the implementation of school improvement plan
in general and specifically in Jaja primary school.
4.1. Characteristics of the Respondent
Respondent of the questionnaire were all teachers including principals and fifty (50) selected
students of Jaja primary school. While the interview question were responded by
administrators of the schools i.e. principal, vice principals, PTA and purposefully selected
teachers. There are 25 teachers including principals, 5 PTA and out of 80 distributed
questionnaires almost all (100%) teachers and students filled and returned them
Table 2. Characteristics of Respondents (Teacher)
Characteristics Alternative No Respondents percentage
Male 12 48%
Female 13 52%
Total 25 100%
Below 25 years 2 8%
26 – 30 years 20 80%
31 – 35 years 3 12%
Above 35 years - -
Total 25 100%
TTI 5 20%
Diploma 19 76%
Degree 1 4%
Total 25 100%
Table 2, show that 12 (48%) of the teachers are males and 13 (52%) of them are females.
Therefore, from this one conclude the most of the respondents are females. This shows that
gender disparity between male and female teachers were closed in this school. As far as their
qualification is concerned, 5(20%) of teachers are TTI, 19(76%) are diploma and 1(4%)
teacher is degree holder. From this also we can understand that majority of the respondents
were diploma holders. Regarding their age categories, 2(8%) of the respondents were below
25 years, 20(80%) of the respondents were between 26 – 30 years, 3(12%) of them were
above 31 years. This shows the school has more productive and effective age population.
Since the entire respondent who have been involved had direct impact on the study, it is the
believes of the student researcher that their responded have increase the dependability of the
Table 3. Characteristics of Respondents (Students)
Characteristics Alternative No Respondents Percentage
Male 25 50%
Female 25 50%
Total 50 100%
11 years 5 10%
12 years 4 8%
13 years 5 10%
14 years 10 20%
15 years 20 40%
Total 50 100%
4 9 18%
5 10 20%
6 10 20%
7 10 20%
8 11 22%
4 – 8 50 100%
Table 3, show that 25 (50%) of the students are males and 25 (50%) of them are females.
Therefore, from this one concludes the male respondents and female respondents are equal.
This shows that researcher give equal chance for both sex during sample selection. As far as
their grade level is concerned, 9(18%) of students were grade 4, 10(20%) are grade 5,
10(20%) of them were 6, 10(20%) of them were grade 7 students and 11(22%) of the student
respondents were from grade 8. From this also we can understand that majority of the
respondents were from grade 5-8. Regarding their age categories, 5(10%) of the respondents
were 11 years, 4(8%) of the respondents were 12 years, 5(10%) of them were 13 years,
10(20%) of them were14 years, 20(40%) of the student respondents were 15 years and
6(12%) of them were above 15 years. This shows the majority of students are above 14 years
old. It is the researcher believe that their response were more constructive
4.2 Analysis and Interpretation of study
Table 4 Instruments for teacher competency evaluation in the implementation of SIP
Evaluation criteria of
competencies that teachers
of all levels must exhibit
Participation in developing
dept. plans and ability to
generate new ideas.
11 - 14
Capacity to design short and
long range lesson plans for
the subject one teach.
20 - 5
3 Capacity to relate lessons to
curriculum objectives and
local reality, use of relevant
teaching methods and
10 - 15
Ability and skill to organize
special tutorial programmes‟
for students based on
individual differences or the
skill to teach students by
grouping them according to
5 - 20
Ability to be guided by and
teach according to lesson
plan in order to cover
syllabus on time.
5 20 -
Ability to continuously
assess students through
4 - 20 1
Table 4; Item 1.Show that the list of criteria which can evaluate teacher competency and
aimed to measure their contribution in school improvement plan implementation in the school
under investigation. Accordingly, the 1st
criteria/question want to know whether teacher agree
on their participation in the development of department plan and their ability to generate new
ideas or not for this question as we can see from the table majority of teachers (14) responded
that they disagree (11) of respondents agree on the question connection to this the student
researcher conducted interview with school administration for more explanation. They justify
that most of the time the department plans were developed by department head and school
administrator many teachers suggest that as the only responsibility is to develop lesson plan
from this we can understand that the participation of the teacher in developing department
plans was low and there is no participatory leaders in the school.
activities and test, to record
results and evaluate students‟
based on curriculum
Capacity to evaluate the
curriculum, record strong
and weak points and then to
suggest valuable ideas.
4 - 21
Ability to orient and follow
students to be governed by
school regulations and
10 - 15
Ability to discuss with
parents about students‟
learning problems, academic
performance and discipline;
ability to communicate and
work with parents and local
- 20 5
10 Capacity to organize,
monitor and evaluate staff
5 - 15 5
Table 4; item 2 show the teacher capacity to design short and long rang lessen plan for the
subject one teach .As it can see from the same table most of the respondents (20) replayed that
the can design short and long rang lesson plan for their own subject .In our contexts long
rang lesson plan is annual, researchers observe their plan and most of them each other as well
as from previous plan
Table4,item 3, indicate majority of teachers (15) disagree on their capacity to relate lesson to
curriculum objectives and local reality use of relevant teaching method and materials to have
more information regarding response given majority an interview item prepared to explain
the reason that even though they relate the lesson to curriculum objectives the local reality
their cannot use relevant teaching methods Learner centered methods and materials because
of overcrowded class size and lack of teaching aids or materials .
Table 4; item 4 most of the teachers (20) disagree on the ability and skill to organize special
tutorial program for students based on individual differences, but they give the tutorial
without grouping the students according to their potential.
Table 4 item 5, most of the teachers (20) agree on the ability to be guided by and teach
according to lesson plan in order to caver syllabus on time .But the personal observation of
researcher 5% of teacher of the school failed to complete the subject on time this year.
Table4, item 6 indicate, most of the teacher s (20) disagrees on the application of continuous
assessment in the school. They responded on interview that the only evaluation of student
progress were tests that given monthly and final exam from 60%.From this we can understand
that there is not effective evaluation of students development.
Table 4, item 7, show that from total respondents (21) disagree on the curriculum evaluation.
As the researcher observer and interviewed some selected personnel, they argued that even
though they had capacity they were relate and need not perform additional task related to
Table 4 item 8, indicate from the total respondent 15 of them were not agree /disagree on
their ability to orient and follow students to be governed by school regulations and discipline
because such activities looked by many teachers as the responsibility of school administrators
Table 4 item 9,we can conclude that total respondent almost all(20) of them were disagree on
a given items because most of the time, it is not the teachers work to communicate and work
with parent as they said it is the principal/vice principal work.
Table 4 item 10, show majority of teacher (15) disagree on the organization, monitoring and
evaluation of staff development program. As the explained staff development program
organized by one experienced teacher that is called CPD organized.
Table5. Teacher‟s response toward quality teaching, professional learning plan and SIP
No Questions Alternative No. Respondents Percentage
1) Jaja Primary School has value
statement in order to construct
quality teaching learning process
on strong ground.
A.StronglyAgree - -
B. Agree 7 28%
C. Disagree 13 52%
DStronglyDisagree 5 20%
2) School has effective
professional learning plan and
Implementing it properly
A.StronglyAgree -- --
B. Agree 8 32%
C. Disagree 15 60%
DStronglyDisagree 2 8%
3) How you measure your student
participation in teaching–learning
A. High 2 8%
B. Medium 7 28%
C. Low 16 64%
4) Extent of teachers‟ participation
in administrative affairs
(Planning, Decision making, etc.)
A. high 3 12%
B. moderate 13 52%
C. low 9 36%
5) The extent of principal‟s effort
to encourage talented teachers /
A. high 1 4%
B. moderate 6 24%
C. low 18 72%
6) The extent of relationship
between the principals and
teachers, teachers and teachers,
students and teachers in school.
A. high 3 12%
B. moderate 8 32%
C. low 12 48%
D. No response 2 8%
7) Amount of the allocated budget
for the implementation of the
School Improvement plan
A. high 4 16%
B.moderate 6 24%
C. low 15 60%
D. No response -- --
8) The school has clear SIP which
can respond to diverse student
A. Strongly Agree -- --
B. Agree 6 24%
C. Disagree 15 60%
DStronglyDisagree 4 16%
Table 5 item 1, Shows that majority of respondent 13 (52%) responded that they disagree on
school value statement in order to construct quality teaching learning process on strong g
round. From this one can conclude that the failure of school Improvement plan
implementation due to lack of value statement in the school or lack of clear value statement ,
Hence, for the school to be effective improvement it should have value statement. Parents,
staff, and students help create a vision that is focused on student achievement and the vision is
championed by the principal, vice-principal, and school council. Staff, parents, and students
work towards shared goals that will improve student learning. All staff, parents, and students
are able to answer the question “What does this school care about most?”Examination of the
experiences of many other countries and states revealed three key success factors that are
essential for effectively implementing broad-scale educational reform, such as what would be
required for …: (a) a clear vision and holistic plan; (b) broad involvement and courageous
leadership; and (c) sustained commitment over time. Each of these is described below.A clear
vision and holistic plan. Education reform efforts are frequently done piecemeal, driven by
the ideology of the particular policy leaders at that time. In a highly complex system like
education, however, single-issue reform efforts (e.g., standards, choice, professional
development, or class size) rarely attain their desired goals. They produce incremental
improvements in operations or expectations but fail to deliver significant progress in student
achievement. When various issues are linked together, however, better results can be
achieved. Such broad-scale reform requires a clearly articulated goal and vision for the new
education system (clearly noting how it differs from today‟s) and an integrated set of actions
(some of which bear fruit short-term, others longer-term) that will achieve that vision. It can
been seen from the same .
Table 5, item 2, most of the respondents 15(60%) replies they disagree effective professional
learning plan & implementing it properly from this we can infer there is no clear professional
learning plan and proper implementation. School improvement plans should drive
professional development for teachers. Professional development plans should be a part of the
school improvement planning discussion and should focus on skills teachers need to support
improvement areas identified during the needs assessment and plan development.
Table5, item 3, 16 (64%) of the respondents replied that as their student participation was low
in teaching learning process from this we can understand that the learner center teaching
method is under the question in this school .
Table5 item 4, deals with teacher participation in administrative activities as clearly indicated
out of the total respondents 13 (52%) replies their participation is moderate in school
administrative affairs Staff members tasked with plan implementation are essential to
improving student performance through the school improvement plan. Building staff support
is best accomplished through active participation of the staff representatives in researching
and developing the plan, the person who has the greatest impact on students during the school
day the teacher plays several critical roles in the school improvement planning process.
Table5, item5, 18(72%) responded as low effort of principal to encourage talented /best
performer teachers. Consensus for orderly environment can be accomplished if the principal
has periodic sessions with the teachers concerning student behavior. Principals of schools are
both educational and instructional leaders. In improving the instructional programmed,
principals must be able to work with educators in planning, evaluating, controlling and
Broad involvement and courageous leadership. A diverse array of key stakeholders must work
together from the planning stage onward if broad-scale reform is going to succeed. They must
be part of developing a commonly-held vision for the system as well as implementation. Their
inclusion helps ensure that the resulting plan is both holistic and balanced – i.e., no clear
“winners” and “losers” – which can enable individual stakeholders to come to consensus and
gain some level of trust, even when their ideologies may collide. Most successful reform
efforts also demand courageous leaders who are willing to demonstrate and commit to a new
approach or way of operating.
Table 5 item 6, from the total respondents 12(46%) were relied as moderate relationship
among school community. The literature posits that both families and teachers believe that
communication and partnerships benefit students and ensure greater academic success.
Research conducted by Chrispeels (1976) suggests that a partnership can co-exist between
home, school and community at the same time each plays a unique role in the education of the
child. Although the models have somewhat different elements, they all point to the need for
schools to assist parents to participate in school activities and to be involved in decision-
making. They also recognize that all parents have strengths to bring to the schooling process
and that schools need to create multiple opportunities and a range of ways for parents to
participate in the schooling of their children. These researchers argue that if parents show
enthusiasm in educational events and school activities, they can convey to their children the
idea that education is important, and parents and students can influence the school
environment as well as student outcomes. When children perceive that their parents are
supporting them, they are more likely to have more academic competence and take self-
responsibility for achievement (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler 1997).
Table 5 item 7, 15(60%) respondents responded as low allocation of budget for the
implementation of the school improvement. Processes are in place for financial planning and
budgeting that focuses on resource attainment and alignment with priorities to maximize
Table 5 item 8, 15(60%) of the respondent disagree on clear school improvement program
plan of the school. A systematic review of practices, processes, and systems within a school
assists school leadership in determining needs, examining their nature and causes, and setting
priorities for future action. The needs assessment consequently guides the development of a
meaningful school plan and suggests benchmarks for evaluation. Research supports that
schools that undergo a careful analysis of data and information make better decisions about
what to change and how to institutionalize systemic change.
Table 6. The external factors affecting the implementation SIP plan?
No Factors Rank
1 2 3 4
Lack of stakeholder participation in decision
Lack of External agents involved in improvement
Lack of External pressure to start improvement 16%
Lack of External evaluation of school 12%
Table 6 item 9, concerned with the most affecting among external factors between the listed
factors 13(52%) respondent said that the lack of stakeholder participation in decision making
process, the table summarizes the external factors that affect the implementation of school
improvement plan in the school under investigation even though the respondents have show
varieties on factors that compelled, the above table mirrors the overall external factors. In
general as mentioned by teacher respondents, the most significant external factors that affects
the implementation of school improvement plan in rank order 1 to 4 lack of stake holder in
planning and implementation process 13(52%) lack of external agents involved in
improvement programs 5(20%) lack of external pressure to start improvement 4 (16%) and
lack of external evaluation of school 3(12%) respectively. As clearly in cased in table, the
majority of respondents 13(52%) replied that most affecting external factors that hinder the
implementation of SIP plan is lack of stake holder participation in planning and
implementation from this we can infer that this school missed to mobilize great opportunity
or community mobilization to solve the school problems to achieve its goals. Therefore, Jaja
primary school fails to use/participate stake holder which leads school to ward effective
implementation of its improvement plan.
As depicted in the same table, a substantial numbers of respondents 5) indicated lack of
external agents involved in improvement programs were ranked as next major affecting
external factors external pressure and evaluation also ranked as 3rd
factors respectively. The more districts or state authorities rely on rewards and facilitate the
adoption of reform models rather than use sanctions and mandates, the more likely the models
are to be sustained and faithfully implemented. A review of current research on school district
reform suggests a variety of roles and responsibilities that LEAs, school districts or other
intermediate agencies might undertake to support school improvement (Woods and Cribb,
2001; Anderson, 2003). These responsibilities fall into several critical leadership categories
including setting direction, providing professional development, especially for school leaders,
providing data to guide the change process, marshalling resources to meet needs and ensure
equity (Togneri and Anderson, 2003; Leithwood and Riehl, 2004). In theory, school-based
management assumes that shared decision making, at the school level, by internal and
external school community members, will reflect improved student achievement via the
ability to tailor educational delivery to meet local needs (Chrispeels, 2004); mobilizing
economic resources (King & Ozler, 1998); promoting greater decision-making authority of
school-level professionals; improving administrative efficiency; allocating resources more
effectively; and, creating more tightly linked accountability (Cheng). Many argue that school-
based management supports and requires local autonomy and accountability for decision-
making ensuring that local community and student needs can be more effectively met (Hill &
Bonan, 1991; Malen & Krantz, 1990).
Table 6 item10, among the following in school factors which one is mostly affecting the
implementation your school improvement plan?
Table 7 Most know factor affecting school improvement SIP implementation
Table 7 item 10, 44% of respondents also responded that lack of positive attitude toward
change among staff is in the school most affecting factors.
Table 7 indicates that, the most affecting in school factors ranked in their propriety order 1 to
4 lack of positive attitude to would change among staff 44% inadequate planning of the
improvement process 24% commitment of 5% and school organization is not facilitates in
improvement 12% respectively .As clearly shows from a given table the majority of teachers
11(44%) responded that most affecting school factors is lack of positive attitude to word
change among staff from this we can understand that the school‟s plan implementers/teachers
have no interest to ward changes in other hand the prominent number of respondents said in
adequate planning and commitment of principle are greatly affecting the implementation of
school improvement plan.
1 2 3 4
Lack of Positive attitude toward change among
Inadequate planning of the improvement process
commitment of principal (or other staff members)
School organization is not facilitates improvement 12%
Table 8 Classroom/teacher level factors affecting the implementation SIP
1 2 3 4
Teacher motivation and
involvement/participation in processes and
Teacher collaboration (in school, across
Teacher training/staff development 20%
Feedback on teacher behavior 12%
Table 8 item11, out of the total sample size 10(40%) of them responded that teacher
motivation & involvement /participation in process & decisions are most affecting among
teacher level factors. Deals with classroom/teacher level factors that affecting the school
improvement plan implementation.
Out of total respondents 10(40%), replied the most affecting teacher level factor is teacher
motivation and involvement/participation in school activities teacher collaboration also the
next major affecting factors teacher training staff development is the 3rd
and feedback on
teachers behavior is the list one.
Table 9. PTA Questioners
Questions Alternative No of
1) What is the opinion of parents
regarding to provision of school
facilities for students?
A. Excellent -- --
B. Good -- --
C. Fair 2 40%
D. Poor 3 60%
E. very bad - -
2) What is the opinion of parents
regarding the effectiveness of
A. Excellent - -
B. Good - -
school leadership in managing day
to day operations
C. Fair 3 60%
D. Poor 2 40%
E. very bad - -
3) As school committee how you
measure your participation in
overall school management.
A. Excellent - -
B. Good - -
C. Fair 5 100%
D. Poor - -
E. very bad - -
4) What is the opinion of parents
regarding the ability of school
leadership to manage overall
A. Excellent - -
B. Good 2 40%
C. Fair 3 60%
D. Poor - -
E. very bad - -
Table 9 item .1 indicated from the total PTA respondents 3(60%) responded that the provision
of school facilities for student is poor. From this we can conclude that there is lack of school
facilities. Components of the valued cultural knowledge are in part reflected in the literature
that describes home-school partnerships and the types of parent involvement at home and
school expected by teachers (Reference omitted for review, 2001; Epstein, 1995; Epstein,
Simon & Clark, 1997; Swap, 1989). The literature provides a range of types of involvement
that include parenting practices (e.g., providing food, clothing, socio-emotional support,
praising child); providing home learning activities (e.g., helping with homework, reading with
child); establishing educational expectations (e.g., high school or college graduation); and
connecting with the school (e.g., participating in school activities, communicating,
collaborating). Drawing on this literature, we included college expectations and parenting
practices as independent variables, and two involvement activities as dependent variables:
home learning and home-school connections in our conceptual model.
Table 9 item 2 majority of respondents 3(60%) replied that there is fair follow up in the
school by the school leaders from this we can infer that there is no effective management of
day to day activities. The more knowledgeable the principal of the change process, capable in
marshalling resources and expert in the reform model‟s fit to faculty, the greater the level of
implementation. Instructional leadership role is the premeditated process to improve the
quality of teaching and learning in schools. Therefore, the roles of principals as instructional
leaders are to provide guidance to teachers on curriculum and pedagogy, encourage students
to analyze weaknesses and guide teachers and students. In addition, instructional leaders
should work with the limitations of existing school resources and improve the quality of
teaching. Hence, it is a thornier path where principal must take into account the norms of the
school in order to influence learning process positively. From the perspective as mentioned,
leaders must equip themselves with skills, knowledge and specific efficiency to be effective
leaders. Murphy and Louis (1993:43) agree with Fullan's idea that the principal is the single
most important factor in transforming classroom instruction. They argue that a principal's
involvement with instructional leadership is crucial to the support and facilitation of teaching.
Professional development that improves the learning of all students requires skillful school
and district leaders who guide continuous instructional improvement.
Table 9 item 3from the same table all respondents 5(100%) replied that as their overall
participation in school management fair from this we can understand that PTA is not fully
participation in the management of school.
Table 9 item .4 indicates 3(60%) replied that as the ability of school to manage over all
activities is fair from the given response we can understand that there is lack of leadership
ability among the school leaders. According to John West-Burnham (2001), knowledge and
skills are needed to build personal values, self awareness, feelings and moral capabilities.
When principals play the role as instructional leaders, they need to have the knowledge of
learning theory and effective teaching. In other words, instructional leaders must have the
communication skills and must reflect the symbolic power to enthuse their subordinates in
their school organization. In this context, principals as instructional leaders must possess
leadership characteristics needed to influence all members of staff such as encouraging school
programs and activities to make learning meaningful and involving students in all aspects
related to school life. With the understanding of these complex issues, there must be a
transition of the role of a principle as a school administrator to that of an instructional leader.
Therefore, principals must have sufficient knowledge, experience and skills to participate in
Table10 Student question
Questions Alternative No. of
1) Is the class room of
school is suitable and
A. yes 5 10%
B .No 45 90%
2) What is the opinion of
students regarding the
availability of different
facilities for students?
A. Excellent - -
B. Good 7 14%
C. Fair 10 20%
D. Poor 28 56%
E. very bad 5 10%
3) What is the opinion of
stability and security at
A. Excellent - -
B. Good 4 8%
C. Fair 12 24%
D. Poor 30 60%
E. very bad 4 8%
4) What is the opinion of
students regarding school
leadership commitment to
improve the learning
achievements of all
A. Excellent - -
B. Good 10 20%
C. Fair 13 26%
D. Poor 25 50%
E. very bad 2 4%
Table 10 item 1 out of total respondents most of them 45(90%) responded that the classrooms
of school is not suitable and attractive. Since classroom situation is an indicator of an
attractiveness of school involvement which is part of SIP, one can conclude that there is no
The school has an orderly, purposeful atmosphere, free from the threat of physical harm. A
behavior code emphasizes respect, self-discipline, positive relationships, and the prevention of
inappropriate behavior. Student discipline is fair and equitable. Students of all ages take
leadership roles. Behavior policies and expectations are understood by and communicated to
parents, students, teachers, and all staff. Students work together to maintain a safe school
environment. Programs are in place to address issues such as conflict mediation, bullying, and
building healthy relationships. It is quite known that clean, quiet, safe, comfortable, and
healthy environments are an important component of successful teaching and learning. On
this account, the literature indicates that some of structural features of schools that impact
student achievement include indoor air quality, lighting, and facilities that support the
delivery of curricular programmes like libraries, etc.
Poor indoor air quality makes teachers and students sick and sick students and teachers can't
perform as well as healthy ones (EPA 2000).Poor IAQ has been associated with increased
student absenteeism. For example, Smedje and Norback (1999) found a positive relationship
between airborne bacteria and mold and asthma in children, which in turn increased absentee
Table 10 item 2 ,about 28(56%) responded that availability of different facilities for student
learning is poor for this reason, we can say that in this school there is lack of safe and health
school environment. There are factors that affect the quality of education both inside and
outside the school. For example, the availability of books to read outside school, the economic
status of the family, the family support and follow-up of the student‟s educational progress
and so on. Although conditions outside school are bound to improve with our country‟s
economic growth, provisional solutions have to be provided in the meantime. Libraries and
laboratories are also being set up in schools in greater number.
Thus, at the primary school level (Grades 1 to 8) schools have science kits and about 60% of
them also have libraries. At the secondary school level, 358 high schools have libraries and
laboratories. It is true that most of the books found in the libraries are outdated and have,
therefore, to be replaced by up-to-date ones. Newly established vocational schools and
institutions of higher education have been upgraded to meet the minimum international
standards. In order to enhance the quality of education, supplementary lessons are given
through radio broadcast and television programs. As our curriculum gives special emphasis to
the teaching of science, mathematics, and English, lessons are aired through television to all
high schools from grades 9 and 10.
Table 10 item 3. Out of total students, 30(60%) measure the school stability and security as it
is poor from their response. we can understand that it is hard to run teaching learning
activities in such situation.
Table10 item4.it show about 25(50%) replied that the school leadership commitment to
improve learning achievement of student is poor from this we can understand there is no
sound commitment among administrators to improve learning achievement of their students.
According to Bondi and Wiles (1986:137) the primary job of a school principal is to improve
the instructional experience of students which also includes the organization of school and
staff, selection of learning materials, developing methodology and conducting evaluations.
They further argue that to ensure effective instruction for students, the principal must follow
the intended curriculum into the classroom setting and work with the teacher. Rossow‟s study
substantiated that factors such as controlling the quality of teaching, paying tribute to the
achievements of students, analyzing and evaluating students‟ progress directly affect students'
learning performance. As such, it is important to note that principals are directly involved in
the teaching and learning programs in schools. Interestingly, Wang et al. (1990) findings
showed the school factors that comprised principal instructional leadership, classroom
management, and quality of teaching, classroom climate; student teacher interaction and
peers‟ influence have greater influence towards students‟ academic achievement.
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1. Summary of Findings
After different analysis and interpretation of data student researcher has come up with the
following finding points. In this school the problems/factors affecting School Improvement
Plan Implementation generated from different sources the major are school; the communities
participation were not effective in management of the school and didn‟t show the role of
supervisor conducting awareness to raise about the education in the role community for
positive attitude teacher on SIP implementation. Based on the above research it can drive the
following finding for factor affecting the SIP. Lack of:-
-Established strategies and procedures for partnering with local businesses
-Community organizations and other agencies to meet the needs of the school.
-Plan or not clearly aligned to the needs of the school.
-External pressure to start improvement.
-External education office evaluation of schools.
- Shared values, vision and mission on education.
-School organization that facilitates improvement.
-Effective Leadership of the principal (or other staff members).
-Periodic Internal evaluation (assessment of students and teachers).
-Parental/community involvement in improvement programs.
-An adequate planning of the improvement process
-Student participation in improvement efforts
-Teacher motivation and involvement/participation in processes and decisions
-Teacher collaboration (in school, across schools)
An attempt was done to identify factors that affecting school improvement plan
implementation at Jaja primary school .In this study, the descriptive research method was
employed. The sampling technique used was availability sampling .In dealing with the earlier
mentioned research questions, related literature of international and local context were
The sources of factors affecting the school improvement plan implementation were identified
by collecting data from teachers, principals, students and PTA of the school. For school
experience sustainable improvement it provable necessary that school staff and their
surrounding community take responsibility for the improvement plan implementation.This
stakeholder; principal, teacher, student, PTA, and other very crucial for school improvement
plan. They must follow the strategies of MoE in general education quality improvement
package. These strengthen the role of supervisor ensuring positive school community
relationship. To do this the student researcher employee different data gathering tools like
questionnaires, interviews and personal observation. Out of eighty (80) questionnaires
admistrated, all were filled out and returned. Analysis was made in terms of percentage and
followed by summary of its conclusions.
Finally, the student researcher suggest the conclude bodies to take remedial action based on
There is no single universally acceptable techniques/solution to solve or improve already
mentioned factors that affecting the implementation of school improvement plan. Varied
intervention in an integrated and systematic way might be likely to improve or influence the
problems. Therefore, based on the summary of finding, the student researcher recommended
the concerned bodies to take the following responsibilities.
-There must be a transition of the role of a principle as a school administrator to that of an
instructional leader. Therefore, principals must have sufficient knowledge, experience and
skills to participate in instructional leadership.
- It is hoped that results of this study will provide the necessary basis for school boards,
principals, teachers and school administrators to realize the magnitude of the problem and
design viable and effective community-based intervention measures for mitigating the
problem under consideration.
- It is better, if parents are given several opportunities to participate in the school improvement
process. Parents are encouraged to attend parent-teacher conferences. The school maintains
several methods of communication with parents because Parental involvement in education
is one of the most recognized non-school factors impacting student achievement.
- It is good if the school provides a safe learning environment through the implementation of a
comprehensive Safe School Policy and Plan. This policy addresses many areas including
classroom behavior and bullying.
- It is preferable, if the school administration focused on professional development that is
coordinated with proposed interventions and that supports sustainable school improvement
- principals involve teachers in decision making, involving parents in different school
activities, regularly informing parents on their children's academic achievement,
communicating instructional goals to teaching and non-teaching staff members, mobilizing
the school community for a safe and orderly school environment, initiating the school
community to aspire high expectation in student achievement, making regular classroom
visits, coordinating instructional program appropriately, and monitoring student academic
- There should be administration teacher‟s encouragement to make students active participants
in the teaching-learning process, teacher‟s methodology of teaching, how teachers manage
the instruction time properly, the qualification and competency of teachers, and the
continuous follow up and evaluation of teachers.
- Administration should be demonstrating visible commitment to programs for instructional
improvement and Provide emotional support and incentive for teachers.
- There should be effective planning across programs, both horizontally and vertically, to
ensure the most efficient and effective use of resources, (staff, time, space, money, services,
- Over all, educational officers have to assign knowledgeable and participatory school leader
who can follow and evaluate day to day activities of school.
Instruments for teacher competency evaluation to know their contributions in the
implementation of SIP: To be filled by the school management and teachers. Please mark the
relevant box with a scale rating.
Evaluation criteria of competencies that
teachers of all levels must exhibit
1 Participation developing dept. plans and
ability to generate new ideas.
2 Capacity to design short and long range
lesson plans for the subject one teach.
3 Capacity to relate lessons to curriculum
objectives and local reality, use of
relevant teaching methods and
4 Ability and skill to organize special
tutorial programmes for students based
on individual differences or the skill to
teach students by grouping them
according to their potentials.
5 Ability to be guided by and teach
according to lesson plan in order to
cover syllabus on time.
6 Ability to continuously assess students
through activities and test, to record
results and evaluate students‟ progress
(development) based on curriculum
objectives assessment principles.
7 To evaluate the curriculum, record
strong and weak points and then to
suggest valuable ideas.
8 Ability to orient and follow students to
be governed by school regulations and
9 Ability to discuss with parents about
students‟ learning problems, academic
performance and discipline; ability to
communicate and work with parents
and local community.
Capacity to organize, monitor and
evaluate staff development
1) Jaja Primary School has value statement in order to construct quality teaching learning
process on strong ground.
A. Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Disagree D. Strongly Disagree. If your answer is D what
are the reasons? __________________ _______________
2) School has effective professional learning plan and implementing it properly. A.
Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Disagree D. Strongly Disagree
3) How you measure your student participation in teaching –learning process? A.
High B. Medium C. Low
4) Extent of teachers‟ participation in administrative affairs (Planning, Decision making,
etc.) A. high B. moderate C. low
5) The extent of principal‟s effort to encourage talented teachers / best performers.
A. high B. moderate C. low
6) The extent of relationship between the principals and teachers, teachers and teachers,
students and teachers in school. A. high B. moderate C. low D. No response
7) Amount of the allocated budget for the implementation of the School Improvement
plan A. high B. moderate C. low D. No response
8) The school has clear SIP which can respond to diverse student learning needs. A.
Strongly Agree B. Agree C. Disagree D. Strongly Disagree
1) ) Among the following external factors which one is mostly affecting the
implementation your school improvement plan?
1 2 3 4
Lack of External agents involved in
Lack of External pressure to start improvement
Lack of External evaluation of school
Lack of stakeholder participation in decision
2) Among the following in school factors which one is mostly affecting the
implementation your school improvement plan?
1 2 3 4
Lack of Positive attitude toward change among
School organization is not facilitates
commitment of principal (or other staff
Inadequate planning of the improvement process
3) Among the following Classroom/teacher level factors which one is mostly affecting
the implementation your school improvement plan?
1 2 3 4
Teacher motivation and
involvement/participation in processes and
Teacher collaboration (in school, across
Feedback on teacher behavior
Teacher training/staff development
1) What is the opinion of parents regarding to provision of school facilities for students? A.
Excellent B. Good C. Fair D. Poor E. very bad
2) What is the opinion of parents regarding the effectiveness of school leadership in
managing day to day operations? A. Excellent B. Good C. Fair D. Poor E. very bad
3) As school committee how you measure your participation in overall school management.
A. Excellent B. Good C. Fair D. Poor E. very bad
4) What is the opinion of parents regarding the ability of school leadership to manage overall
school activity? A. Excellent B. Good C. Fair D. Poor E. very bad
1) Is the class room of school is suitable and attractive? A. yes B .No
2) What is the opinion of students regarding the availability of different facilities for
students? A. Excellent B. Good C. Fair D. Poor E. very bad
3) What is the opinion of students regarding stability and security at the school? A.
Excellent B. Good C. Fair D. Poor E. very bad
4) What is the opinion of students regarding school leadership commitment to improve the
learning achievements of all students? A. Excellent B. Good
C. Fair D. Poor E. very bad
1/ what are the major factors that affect the SIP in school? List down.
What are evidence of that show the presence of these problems?
2/ has the directors awareness of school mission, vision, objective, and to make aware
3/is the school curriculum and management evaluated SIP? and how much
1. Is the SIP of your school participatory of school community?
2. Does low achievement of students bring the effect of SIP in school?
3. Have drop out of students influence SIP in school?
4. As director, have you accomplished your duties on the Sip in school?