Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Siraj .dotx;body of research


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Siraj .dotx;body of research

  1. 1. 1 CHAPTER ONE 1. INTRODUCTION 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,
  2. 2. 2 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.
  3. 3. 3 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 primary school? 3. How the school administrators evaluate and monitor their progress to know where they are today? 4. How much the school stakeholder participatory understands the plan interested toward its implementation? 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 implementation stage  To make conducive school atmosphere in which school community can contribute their effort to implement the plan
  4. 4. 4  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.
  5. 5. 5 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.
  6. 6. 6 CHAPTER TWO 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.
  7. 7. 7 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
  8. 8. 8 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).
  9. 9. 9 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 transformation. 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
  10. 10. 10 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.
  11. 11. 11  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 Chapman, 2002). 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
  12. 12. 12 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 changes.
  13. 13. 13 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. 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 in England. 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,
  14. 14. 14 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 (Chatterji,2002). 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; Grubb, 2004). 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-
  15. 15. 15 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,,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.
  16. 16. 16 2.3. Potential Roles and Responsibilities of Local Education Authority to Support School Improvement 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 practices first. 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.
  17. 17. 17 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
  18. 18. 18 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 reforms. 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.
  19. 19. 19 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.
  20. 20. 20 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
  21. 21. 21 • 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.
  22. 22. 22  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 reform designs. 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 –
  23. 23. 23 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, context matters. 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.
  24. 24. 24 CHAPTER THREE 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 of data. 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 observation 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.
  25. 25. 25 3.3. Sample size and sampling techniques Table 1 Data population Population Total data Sample size Method of data collection Teacher 30 25 Random sample Students 1890 50 Random sample PTA 9 5 Random sample Total 80 Random sample 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. 3.4.1. Questionnaire 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. 3.4.2. Interview 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.
  26. 26. 26 3.4.3. Observation. 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 information. 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.
  27. 27. 27 CHAPTER FOUR 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 Sex Male 12 48% Female 13 52% Total 25 100% Age category Below 25 years 2 8% 26 – 30 years 20 80% 31 – 35 years 3 12% Above 35 years - - Total 25 100% Qualification 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
  28. 28. 28 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 outcome. Table 3. Characteristics of Respondents (Students) Characteristics Alternative No Respondents Percentage SEX Male 25 50% Female 25 50% Total 50 100% Age category 11 years 5 10% 12 years 4 8% 13 years 5 10% 14 years 10 20% 15 years 20 40% Above 15 years 6 12% Total 50 100% Grade 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,
  29. 29. 29 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 No Questions scale Evaluation criteria of competencies that teachers of all levels must exhibit Strongly agree Agr ee Unde cided Dis agr ee Strongly disagree 1 Participation in developing dept. plans and ability to generate new ideas. 11 - 14 2 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 materials. 10 - 15 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 - 20 5 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
  30. 30. 30 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. 6 activities and test, to record results and evaluate students‟ progress (development) based on curriculum objectives assessment principles. 7 Capacity to evaluate the curriculum, record strong and weak points and then to suggest valuable ideas. 4 - 21 8 Ability to orient and follow students to be governed by school regulations and discipline. 10 - 15 9 Ability to discuss with parents about students‟ learning problems, academic performance and discipline; ability to communicate and work with parents and local community. - 20 5 10 Capacity to organize, monitor and evaluate staff development programmes. 5 - 15 5
  31. 31. 31 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 teaching-learning 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.
  32. 32. 32 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 process? 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 / best performers. 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 learning needs. A. Strongly Agree -- -- B. Agree 6 24% C. Disagree 15 60% DStronglyDisagree 4 16%
  33. 33. 33 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.
  34. 34. 34 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 decision making. 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-
  35. 35. 35 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 student achievement. 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 making process 52% Lack of External agents involved in improvement programmes 20% Lack of External pressure to start improvement 16% Lack of External evaluation of school 12%
  36. 36. 36 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 and 4th affecting external 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
  37. 37. 37 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. Factors Rank 1 2 3 4 Lack of Positive attitude toward change among staff 44% Inadequate planning of the improvement process 24% commitment of principal (or other staff members) 20% School organization is not facilitates improvement 12%
  38. 38. 38 Table 8 Classroom/teacher level factors affecting the implementation SIP Factors Rank 1 2 3 4 Teacher motivation and involvement/participation in processes and decisions 40% Teacher collaboration (in school, across schools) 28% 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 Respondents Percentage 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 - -
  39. 39. 39 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 school activity? 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.
  40. 40. 40 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.
  41. 41. 41 Therefore, principals must have sufficient knowledge, experience and skills to participate in instructional leadership. Table10 Student question Questions Alternative No. of Responde nts Percentage 1) Is the class room of school is suitable and attractive? 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 students regarding stability and security at the school? 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 students? 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
  42. 42. 42 attractiveness of school involvement which is part of SIP, one can conclude that there is no improvement. 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 rates. 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
  43. 43. 43 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 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.
  44. 44. 44 CHAPTER FIVE 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) 5.2. Conclusion 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
  45. 45. 45 mentioned research questions, related literature of international and local context were referred too. 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 finding. 5.3 Recommendation 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
  46. 46. 46 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 efforts. -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 progress. -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, curriculum). -Over all, educational officers have to assign knowledgeable and participatory school leader who can follow and evaluate day to day activities of school.
  47. 47. 47 Reference Government of Ethiopia, Ministry of Education (2010) School Improvement Program Guideline Final Draft: Addis Ababa. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (Nov. 2004): Woreda Capacity Building (WCB) Training Manual Part – two. Leithwood, K.A. Planned Educational Change: A Manual of Curriculum Review, Development and Implementation (CRDI) Concepts and Procedures. Toronto: OISE Press, 1986. Informal series, 66. Barth, Roland S. Improving Schools From Within: Teachers, Parents, and Principals Can Make the Difference. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990. Leithwood, K.A.and D. Jantzi. “Transformational Leadership: HowPrincipals Can Help Reform School Cultures.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1990, 1(4), 24980. Lezotte, Lawrence W. and Barbara C. Jacoby, A Guide to the School Improvement Process Based on Effective Schools Research (Okemos, Mich.: Effective Schools Products, in cooperation with Michigan Institute for Educational Management, 1990); and Leithwood, K.A. and Robert Aitken, Making Schools Smarter: A System for Monitoring School and District Progress (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1995). Harris, A. (2001). Building the capacity for school improvement. School Leadership & Management, 21, 3, 261-270. ትትትትትትትትትት(1999) ½ትትትትትትትትaaGትትትትትት™wTትppትትéBð ©Æ$
  48. 48. 48 Appendix 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. N o . Evaluation criteria of competencies that teachers of all levels must exhibit Scales Strongl y agree Agr ee Undecid ed Dis agr ee Strongly disagree 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 materials. 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 discipline. 9 Ability to discuss with parents about students‟ learning problems, academic performance and discipline; ability to communicate and work with parents and local community. 1 0 Capacity to organize, monitor and evaluate staff development programmes.
  49. 49. 49 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? Factors Rank 1 2 3 4 Lack of External agents involved in improvement programmes Lack of External pressure to start improvement Lack of External evaluation of school Lack of stakeholder participation in decision
  50. 50. 50 2) Among the following in school factors which one is mostly affecting the implementation your school improvement plan? Factors Rank 1 2 3 4 Lack of Positive attitude toward change among staff School organization is not facilitates improvement commitment of principal (or other staff members) 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? Factors Rank 1 2 3 4 Teacher motivation and involvement/participation in processes and decisions Teacher collaboration (in school, across schools) Feedback on teacher behavior Teacher training/staff development PTA Questioners 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 making process