The Status of School Improvement Program in

Government Primary Schools of Makuey Woreda,

Gambella People National Regional State.

By

Simon Ruach Jiop

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

June, 2018
 DECLARATION

I, Simon Ruach Jiop declare that this research work entitled, ― The Status of School
Improvement Program in Government Primary School of Gambella Regional State:
was an outcome of my own effort and study. As a result, all sources of materials used for the
study had been duly acknowledged. I had produced it independently except for the guidance
and suggestion of the research advisor. This research had not been submitted for any degree
in this university or any other university. It was offered for the partial fulfillment of the
degree of MA in Educational Leadership and Management.

By Simon Ruach: Advisor: Ato: Melaku Yimam:

Signature_________________________ Signature_________________________
Date_____________________________ Date
____________________________

I
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that this research work, ― The Status of School Improvement Program
in Government Primary School of Makuey Woreda Gambella Regional State undertaken
by Simon Ruach Jiop for the partial fulfillment of Master of Educational Leadership and
Management at Addis Ababa University, was an original research work and did not submit
earlier for any degree either at this University or any other University.

________________________________

Research Advisor

II
 APPROVAL

This is to certify that the thesis prepared by Simon Ruach Jiop, ― The Status of School
Improvement Program in Government Primary School of Makuey Woreda Gambella
Regional State: and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of
Master of Educational Leadership and Management complied with the regulations of Addis
Ababa University met the accepted standards with respected quality.

Approval of Board of Examiners

Signature Date

Melaku Yimam _____________ _____________

Advisor

_____________ _____________

Internal Examiner

_____________ _____________

External Examiner

Chairman of Department

Signature: ____________________

Date: _____________________

III
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and for most, I deeply feel great in my advisor Melaku Yimam for his indispensable
guidance, advice and comments of this research work. Without his help, this research would
not have been realized. In the same way, I could not have preserved through the past two
years of intensive study and research and the crafting of this thesis without my wife, brother
and sister. It is to them that I dedicated this work. To my wife; w/ro Nyarach, thank you for
your great help. To my brothers Ato Thachar and Dobuol thank you for believing in me and
for providing me with materials and finance to go through this study. To my sister Nyathiel,
thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. I deeply love you all. You are all my
life.

In closing, I want to thank the sampled Woreda Educational officers and schools’
administrators as well as those who provided me moral support and encouragement

IV
 ABSTRACT
This research was designed to examine the school improvement program implementation by
focusing on status of school improvement program in selected primary Schools of Makuey
Woreda. In order to achieve this purpose, mixed design -both quantitative and qualitative approach
was employed as research method in the study. The study was conducted in eight primary schools
from a total of 13 primary schools in makuey woreda.The schools were randomly selected by random
sampling technique. Teachers and students were selected by simple random sampling technique
whereas the School principals, supervisors, woreda education office core process owner, active
parents were selected by purposive sampling techniques. To gather data, questionnaires, interviews,
FGD, observation and document reviews were employed. After the data were gathered, analysis was
made by organizing in tables and computing using frequencies, percentage, mean value, standard
deviation. The findings of study indicated that the status of teacher, students and parents participation
in planning and implementing SIP was low; the mechanism through which monitoring and evaluation
practiced to support SIP implementation was not in position to effectively run SIP. Furthermore the
level of participation of community members to offer necessary support was low. In addition most of
activities across the four domains were implemented at low level. Hence from the result of the study
the overall implementation of SIP was low. Shortage of budget, insufficient school facilities, inability
of school improvement committee to properly play their role, inadequate planning, low involvement of
stake holders in the implementation of SIP and inadequate monitoring and evaluation were major
factors that negatively affect SIP implementation. To alleviate the problems and to improve quality of
education it was suggested that wereda education office should allocate adequate budget and schools
should design income generating mechanism, fulfill school facilities, making active participation of
stakeholders on planning SIP implementation, making school committee functional and strengthening
monitoring and evaluation on school improvement program implementation.

Key Terms: school improvement; school effectiveness; leadership; teaching and learning;
community participation; school environment; decision-making;

V
 Table Contents
DECLARATION ............................................................................................................................. I
CERTIFICATE ............................................................................................................................... II
APPROVAL ................................................................................................................................. III
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ IV
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... V
Table Contents .............................................................................................................................. VI
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ IX
ABREVATIONS ........................................................................................................................... X
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Background of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 2
1.3. Objective of the Study .................................................................................................. 4
1.3.1. General Objective ......................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2. Specific Objectives ....................................................................................................... 4
1.4. Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 4
1.5. Delimitation of the Study .............................................................................................. 5
1.6. Limitations of the Study................................................................................................ 5
1.7. Operational Definitions of Key Terms ......................................................................... 6
1.8. Organization of the Study ............................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................ 7
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................................................................... 7
2.1. Overview of School Improvement ................................................................................ 7
2.1.1. The Rational of School Improvement ........................................................................... 7
2.1.2. Definitions of School Improvement.............................................................................. 7
2.1.3. Purpose of School Improvement Program .................................................................... 8
2.1.4. Objective of School Improvement Program ................................................................. 8
2.1.5. Approaches to School Improvement Programs ............................................................ 9
2.1.6. Assumptions of School Improvement ......................................................................... 11
2.1.7. Conditions Influencing School Improvement ............................................................. 12
2.1.8. Domains of School Improvement ............................................................................... 16
2.1.9. Challenges to School Improvement Program ............................................................. 17

VI
 2.2. School Improvement in Ethiopia ................................................................................ 18
2.2.1. Overview of SIP in Ethiopia ....................................................................................... 18
2.2.2. The Purpose and Objectives of SIP in Ethiopia .......................................................... 18
2.2.3. The Purpose of SIP ..................................................................................................... 18
2.2.4. The Objectives of SIP ................................................................................................. 19
2.2.5. The Domains of School Improvement Program ......................................................... 19
2.2.6. The Phases of School Improvement Program ............................................................. 21
2.2.7. The Phases of School Improvement Program ............................................................. 21
2.2.8. Major Practices in the School Improvement Program ................................................ 22
CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 26
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................................ 26
3.1. The research Design .................................................................................................... 26
3.2. Research Approach ..................................................................................................... 26
3.3. Sources of Data ........................................................................................................... 26
3.3.1. Primary Dara ............................................................................................................... 26
3.3.2. Secondary Data ........................................................................................................... 26
3.4. Sampling Techniques .................................................................................................. 27
3.4.1. Sampling Design ......................................................................................................... 27
3.5. Instruments of data collection ..................................................................................... 30
3.5.1. Questionnaire .............................................................................................................. 30
3.5.2. Interviews.................................................................................................................... 30
3.5.3. Focus Group Discussions............................................................................................ 30
3.5.4. Observations ............................................................................................................... 31
3.6. Procedures of Data Collection. ................................................................................... 31
3.7. Methods of Data Analysis........................................................................................... 31
3.8. Ethical consideration................................................................................................... 32
CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................... 33
4. PRESENTATION, ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION ................................... 33
4.4. Characteristicseof the Respondents ............................................................................ 33
4.5. Analysis and interpretation of findings ....................................................................... 36
4.5.1. SIP Planning................................................................................................................ 36
4.5.2. School improvement program in four domains .......................................................... 38
4.5.3. Monitoring and evaluation of SIP implementation ..................................................... 46

VII
 4.5.4. The Success to Implement SIP ................................................................................... 48
4.5.5. Challenges on SIP Implementation ............................................................................. 50
CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................................... 53
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 53
5.4. Summary ..................................................................................................................... 53
5.5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 55
5.6. Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 56
6. REFERENCE .............................................................................................................. XI
Appendix- A Questionaire for Students ..................................................................................... XIV
Appendix- B Questionnaire for Teachers ................................................................................XVIII
Appendix –C Interview Guide .................................................................................................XXIII

VIII
 List of Tables
Table 3.1: Population of the study ................................................................................................ 28
Table 3.2: sample of teachers and students in each schools. ........................................................ 29
Table 3.3: List of Participants ....................................................................................................... 29
Table 4.1: Respondents Gender and Age Category ...................................................................... 33
Table 4.2: Educational Background and Year of Service of Respondents. .................................. 34
Table 4.3: Respondents Awareness about SIP .............................................................................. 35
Table 4.4: Teachers and Students Response of School Improvement Planning ........................... 37
Table 4.5: Response on school leadership and management domain ........................................... 39
Table 4.6: Response on Stakeholders Involvement ...................................................................... 40
Table 4.7: Response on Teaching-Learning Domain ................................................................... 42
Table 4.8: Response on Learning Environment Domain .............................................................. 45
Table 4.9: Response on School Improvement Program Monitoring and Evaluation ................... 47
Table 4.10: the Successful of the Government Primary School to Implement SIP ...................... 49
Table 4.11: Teachers and Students Response on the Challenges of the School Improvement
Program ......................................................................................................................................... 51
Table 7.1: Observation Check List ........................................................................................... XXV

IX
 ABREVATIONS
CPD - Continuous Professional Development

ECI - Education commission for improvement

ELIP - English Language Improvement Program

ESDP - Educational Sector Development Program

GEQIP - General Education Quality Improvement Program

IQEA - International Quality Education for All

MoE - Ministry of Education

SIC - School Improvement Committee

SIP - School Improvement Program

TDP - Teachers Development Program

WEO - Woreda Education Office

X
 CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter deals with introductory issues of the study such as the background of the study,
statement of the problem, objectives of the study, significance of the study, operational definition
of key terms, delimitation, limitation and the organization of the study.

1.1. Background of the Study

Education is a work of preparing a generation for life aiming at helping human being in solving
problems ranging from day to day activities to complex social, economic and political challenges.
It is an endeavor that develops skill and capacity, eradicates harmful practices and enhances
science and technology (MoE, 1991). Schools play a central role in the realizing these purposes
of education, as they are institutions where the formal teaching and learning activity takes place.
Hence, what is going on in schools could imply the performance of an education system. In this
regard, Macbeth said that, ‘’improving the micro-efficiency of the school has been viewed as a
means of addressing some of the Macro problems of the state and society (Cited in Harris, 2005).
On the other hand, what is going on in the larger educational system and the external
environment highly affects schools’ performance (Ayalew, 1991).

Since the early 1980’s, educators around the world have been facing continual and dynamic
changes both in their schools and in those systems that are in support of them. Such a merciless
change at schools makes the multiplicity of complex educational demands to be the
responsibility of teachers and administrators (Telford, 1996). Such increasingly competitive
environment in which schools operate forced them to raise standards and to improve the quality
of their service (Harris, 2005). Moreover, more than ever before, there is a need to engage in new
ways of thinking about educational problems and ways through which schools can make needed
and desired improvements. As a result, school systems throughout the world have become
subject to wide ranging reform programs. Consequently, many countries introduced huge
reforms to their educational programs.

Many writers define school improvement program in different ways. For example, Barnes
defines school improvement as a process of changing specific practices and policies in a way
which helps to improve the teaching and learning process (cited in MoE, 2007). In order to
change specific practices and policies, people who are engaged in the school improvement

1
program should have an adequate knowledge of the factors within the schools, that may be
changed to produce higher quality of schooling and they should be clearly informed as to what
conditions out-side the level of the school are necessary to the improvement (Dimmock, 1993).

In this regard, it must be noted that since schools differ in shape, size, structure, culture, political
environment and other dimensions, we cannot have single universally accepted school
improvement approach that works in all educational systems and settings. Hence, different
countries have developed different school improvement approaches that suit their educational
problems (MoE, 2007). Accordingly, the Government of Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia (FDRE), through the Ministry of Education (MoE) had introduced a school
improvement program.

According to the MoE’s school improvement program blue print document (2007), the timely
and the basic aim of the program is improving students’ academic achievement through creating
conducive teaching and learning environment with active involvement of parents in the teaching
learning process. Whenever such new programs are introduced to the given educational system
and they began to be implemented, it is worthy to assess the implementation process so as to
identify the strengths and weaknesses in the implementation process. The assessment, not only
enables schools and educational leaders to identify the strengths and weakness in the
implementation of the school improvement programs, but also provides them with an insight of
what measures to be taken to improve the weaknesses and to expand their strengths as well. This
in turn helps schools to make best out of the implementation of the programs. Therefore, this
assessment was made to know the current status of school improvement program (SIP) in
Makuey Woreda Primary Shools in Gam Bella Peoples National Regional State (GPNRS).

1.2. Statement of the Problem

According to Khosa (2009), the most challenging concern of many countries is the assurance of
the provision of quality and relevant education to the citizens. Undertaking different educational
initiatives is an important dimension to ensure quality of education. Hence, School improvement
becomes one of the major educational initiatives that many countries have developed and
implemented, to realize the provision of quality education. But, the implementation of school
improvement program in the education is facing many challenges in many parts of the world,
especially in developing countries like Ethiopia. Some of the problems faced includes, difficulty
to transform time, teaching, physical and financial resources in learning outcomes. Besides that,

2
poor curriculum delivery; teachers do not complete the curriculum, and pitch their teaching at
levels than those demanded by the curriculum. In addition, support and monitoring functions are
inadequate and ineffective, and community support of schools is very low.

As a result, alongside ESDPs and GEQIP, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has
designed and implemented the School Improvement Program (SIP). One of the main focuses of
this was strengthening school management and parent and community partnership in order to
improve decision-making at school level (MoE 2005: 56). The document outlined the main
components of school management and administration as: head-teacher and assistant head-
teacher; school management committees at various levels (comprising teachers, students, parents
and representatives of the local community); and educational experts and supervisors working at
various levels outside the school. These parties are expected to take responsibility for problems
and weaknesses that arise in schools,

Thus, this proposition confirms that school improvement program is the corner stone for all
school improvement activities. Moreover, it can also be noted that the quality of school
improvement program implementation largely depends upon the presence of adequately of
awareness of stakeholders in the school. However, the current practices showed that educational
leaders have no enough capacity to implement SIP. Thus, the absence of adequately awareness of
the stakeholders would add to the weak implementation of the school improvement program
contribute for the bad quality of education and the program doesn’t achieve the expected result
so far.

Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the current status of school improvement
program (SIP) in Primary schools in Makuey Woreda, Nuer Zone in Gambella People National
Regional State.
In order to attain its purpose, this study tries to answer the following basic questions:
1. What is the current status of school implementation program in Makuey Woreda primary
schools?
2. To what extents are the stakeholders are aware about school improvement program?
3. How stakeholders are involved and contribute for the implementation of school
improvement program /SIP/ activities in Makuey Woreda primary schools?
4. What are the major challenges that affect implementation of SIP in Makuey Woreda
Primary school?

3
 5. What measures need to be taken to make SIP more successful?

1.3. Objective of the Study

1.3.1. General Objective
The General objective of the study is to assess the current status of School Improvement program
(SIP) implementation in Makuey Woreda Primary school.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

The study attempt, to address the following specific objectives;
1. To assess the current status of the School Improvement Program (SIP) Implementation.
2. To assess the awareness of stakeholders about school improvement program
implementation in makuey woreda primary schools.
3. To assess the stakeholders involvement and the extent of their involvement in SIP
implementation.
4. To identify the major problems challenging SIP implementation
5. To suggest possible solutions to solve the problems facing the implementation.

1.4. Significance of the Study

Telford (1999) stated that, at present time in educational world there is a rent less change at both
school and system level. Hence, to remain as competent as possible in such dynamic world,
schools needs to improve the quality of their outcomes. Even though different efforts are made
by government, stakeholders, concerned agencies and individuals at every level to improve the
quality of education; due to different factors that hinder their participation, the question of
quality education provision still exists. In the educational systems where school improvement
program has implemented it’s useful to study how the program has being implemented and
identifying those major factors that affected the implementation of the program, and what is
specifically needed in Makuey Woreda Primary school to make a success out of the entire effort.

In general, the researcher of this paper believes that the findings of this study will have the
following significance.
1. It help the stakeholders to have an understanding on how to contribute for the school
activities which improve the implementation of SIP in the primary schools.

4
 2. In might enable educational officials and school principals to identify the major activities
of schools which are being implemented to achieve expectation outcome in primary
schools
3. It might enable educational officials and school principals to identify the challenges
observed in implementing SIP.
4. It might provide educational official and principals an insight on the solutions for
prevailing problems.
5. It might also serve as a basis for other researchers in conducting scientific inquiry on the
area under investigation.

1.5. Delimitation of the Study

Even though SIP was being implemented in all schools of the country, the study was delimited to
focus on Government primary schools of Gambella Regional State with specific referral to
Makuey Woreda for the purpose of manageability. Moreover, out of the 13 government primary
schools (1-8) in the woreda only 8 (61.53%) of them was purposefully selected. The school
improvement program in primary schools have various dimensions. To make the study more
manageable, the study was delimited to assess the status of the school improvement program in
the selected Government primary schools of Makuey Woreda, Nuer Zone in Gambella People
National Regional State. How the major activities of school improvement program are
implemented to achieve the expected out come, the factors hindered the effective implementation
of the program and the possible ways to implement the school improvement program effectively
were assessed.

1.6. Limitations of the Study

It would be very difficult to complete a research without facing any difficulties throughout the
process. Even though, this research reached its aim, there were some unavoidable limitations.
First, there was a possibility of low-level responses from the respondents. The length of the
surveys could lead some teachers to quickly and thoughtlessly answer questions to complete the
survey. The principals, supervisor‘s and woreda educational experts interviews as well as school
improvement committee‘s focused group discussions were highly focused. As a result, interview
and focused group discussion times might not have been used efficiently. Second, respondents
could answer more or less survey questionnaires positively due to the knowledge that the data
they gave were used in the study. Some teachers and students respondents might have answered

5
more positively due to believing their school was being judged; some might have answered less
positively for the same reason. Third, there was discrepancy due to answering relative to the
other answers. Finally, there was lack of quality information as to why teachers felt as they did
during the study.

1.7. Operational Definitions of Key Terms

Factors affecting school improvement program: refers to factors that influences school
improvement program. Such as involvement of stake holders, school facilities.
Improvement program in education: further enhancing its strategic goals of developing and
implementing standards to improve the access and quality of education for all children to achieve
at high level with long term aim.
Improvement: Is the action of providing better than previous situation.
Program: Is a schedule or planned serious of events related to the activities in long term aim.
School improvement Committee:-It is committee which established from the school
community and parents to support implementation of SIP in the schools (MoE, 2006).
School improvement program:-is a concept focused in increasing the academic performance of
students by conducting self-evaluation on various school domains by improving learning input
and the following process (MoE, 2006).
Woreda: A sub-division of a zone and is considered as equivalent to a district.
Zone: A sub-division of a region/regional state and consists of a number of woredas.

1.8. Organization of the Study

This study is organized in to five chapters. Chapter one deals with the introduction of the study:
background of the study, statement of the problem, objectives of the study and, significant of the
study, operational definition of terms, delimitations and limitations of the study. Chapter two
consists of the literature review focusing on the relevant literatures about the subject under study.
Chapter three covers the research methodology consisting of research design, the target
population sample and sampling procedure, source of data, methods of data collection and data
analysis method. Chapter four presents the findings and discussions of field work and finally
chapter five forwards the conclusions and recommendations of the stud

6
 CHAPTER TWO
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Overview of School Improvement
2.1.1. The Rational of School Improvement
Change usually emerges when there is dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs. This is
also true for educational changes. That is, when there is a sense of unhappiness in the existing
operation of schools, Velzen described that; there will be a sustained effort in side of schools to
change the conditions for teaching and learning. These changes are directed towards
accomplishing new educational goals (cited in Husen and Postlethwaite, 1994). Recently, most
education systems and educationalists around the world have been faced with continual and
radical change both in their education systems and in particular schools (Telford, 1996).

The dynamic change that the education systems face, more than ever before, demands schools to
think about new methods of addressing educational challenges and new approaches in which
schools can make needed and desired improvements (Senge in Carlson, 1996). Besides, at no
time in history has the world been so interconnected and interdependent as it is today in the age
of globalization (Raja, 2003). Hence, high competition occurs in different environments. This, in
turn places much greater emphasis up on schools to raise standards and to improve their
outcomes (Harris et al, 2008). As a result, the concern for school effectiveness has attracted
international interest for some years as school systems worldwide become subject to wide
ranging reform programs (Dimmock, 1993).

To this end, schools and educationalists in collaborate, designed to strengthen the schools’ ability
to manage changes, to enhance the work of teachers, and ultimately to improve students’
achievements. Consequently, educationalists have developed reform programs that aimed at
strengthening the schools’ capacity to provide quality education for its pupils during the past ten
years, which Hopkins termed as a school improvement programs (2002).

2.1.2. Definitions of School Improvement

The most popular and widely accepted definition to school improvement was forwarded by
Hopkins (2005). He defined school improvement as “a distinct approach to educational change
that enhances students’ outcomes as well as strengthen the school’s capacity for managing
improvement initiatives”. Hopkins further elaborated that school improvement is about raising

7
students achievement through focusing on the teaching and learning process and those conditions
which support it. Another definition for school improvement is given by Van Velzen (in
Sammons, 1994).

He described school improvement as a systematic and sustained effort focusing on the change of
learning conditions and other similar conditions within school(s) having the ultimate aim of
accomplishing educational goals in more effective ways. In general, school improvement is an
educational reform that aimed at changing learning conditions and schools’ capacity to bring
about pupils’ high level achievement. The basic idea behind school improvement is that its dual
emphasis on enhancing the school capacity for change as well as implementing specific reforms,
both of which have their ultimate goal of increasing in student achievement.

Hence, school improvement is about strengthening schools organizational capacity and

implementing educational reform. Another major notion of school improvement is that, school
improvement cannot be simply equated with educational change in general. Because many
changes, whether external or internal, do not improve students’ outcome as they simply imposed.
They should rather focus on the importance of culture and organization of the school (Hopkins,
1994). Moreover, Velzen (cited by Renolds) provides the notion that school improvement is not
an event or incident; rather it is a process that takes time.

2.1.3. Purpose of School Improvement Program

According to Husen and Postlethwaite (1994:5241), the purpose of most school improvement
policies is improving educational process that includes instruction or subject matter. It helps
schools to improve their organizational functioning that are indirectly linked to students’
achievement, such as school climate, staffing and school organization. Besides, SIP encourages
schools to conduct self-enquiry regarding the strengths and weakness of their performance.
Moreover SIP helps schools to get a collaborative effort of several stakeholders at different
levels of the education system, as the success of an improvement policy largely requires the
interaction between many participants.

2.1.4. Objective of School Improvement Program

School improvement, in general, is about strategies for improving the school’s capacity for
providing quality education. The major concern of SIP is raising students’ achievement focusing
on the teaching and learning process and conditions that support the process (Hopkins, 2002).
Having this general objective of SIP, one can see that specific objectives of school improvement
8
programs may vary from country to country or from school to school based on the prevailing
problems in which particular schools or the education system in general suffer from. For
example, SIP in Egypt is carried out with the objective to improve accountability, efficiency and
quality of primary education system having the purpose of improving children learning outcomes,
increasing enrollment and retention rates, and reducing repetition and dropout rates (plan Egypt,
2007). SIP in Sudan similarly, intended to promote access and utilization of good quality and
efficient basic education with focus on geographical and gender equity (plan Sudan, 2006).

The above examples show that, the major problem of schooling in the two countries (at least in
those schools covered by the SIP program) is not only the issue of providing quality education
but also problems related to access, efficiency and equality of education. That is the reason for
these countries’ to include the issues of access, efficiency and quality of education in their SIP
programs. On the other hand in western countries like UK and Wales, where issues of access,
equality and efficiency of education are no more serious problems, the main objectives of SIP is
searching for teaching approaches that are effective in achieving high academic standards whilst
at the same time enhancing the students’ range of learning skills as well as contributing to
aspects of personal and social development (Hopkins, 2002).

In general, the above explanation shows that, even though the general aim of SIP seems to be
providing quality of education to its entire pupil, particular challenges and problems in which
particular nations or schools suffer from determine the objectives of the school improvement
programs.

2.1.5. Approaches to School Improvement Programs

Historically, in two different periods, two distinct school improvement approaches existed which
Reynolds termed them as the SIP paradigms. He further noted that, two very distinctive
intellectual traditions and histories underlined two groups of scholars and hence the two
distinctive approaches (1993). The two paradigms have their own distinctive characteristics. In
the coming section of this paper, we will discuss them in some detailed way for the purpose of
clarification.

2.1.5.1. The 1960’s Paradigm

The 1960’s paradigm is the early approaches to school improvement that adopted a technological
view in which innovations are brought to school from out-side. The approach is characterized by
a top-down orientation; in which the innovations are based up on the knowledge produced by
9
persons out-side the school, focusing on school’s formal organization and curriculum rather than
the individual practitioner in which the goals are learning outcomes. In general, the whole
improvement program was made on the basis of a positivistic and quantitative evaluation of
efforts (Reynolds, 199).

However, during the 1970’s and 1980’s there has been a major shift in the styles and form of
educational change efforts due to specific national contingencies and such international trends as
worldwide economic recession, increasing emphasis on assessing results and establishing criteria
for school accountability and increasing awareness that school improvement is more complex
process than was formerly assumed (Husen and Postlethwaite; 1994). As a result, the world wide
failure of the 1960’s approach to school improvement came to be true. Reactively, the new
school improvement paradigm of the 1980’s came out of the recognition of this failure (Reynolds;
1993).

2.1.5.2. The 1980’s Paradigm

This newly movement of school improvement, in contrast to the older approach, has introduced a
bottom-up orientation in which those at the school level own the improvement efforts. However,
consultants and experts outside school would be allowed to put their knowledge base of
researchers and wished to change educational processes than school management and
organizational features. The approach allows debates and discussions on out-comes and goals of
school improvement program rather than accepting them as a given. In this approach, the
improvement is expected to operate at the level of practitioners rather than at school level with a
qualitative and naturalistic orientation of evaluation. In general, the approach is based on school
in its entirety rather than a part of it (Reynolds; 1993).

However, the reactive nature of the new improvement approach is criticized for its deficiency in
actually generating school improvement. Even the proponents of the approach begun to realize
that, although schools should own their improvement attempts, outsiders, could also perform a
useful function in brining excellent or elite knowledge to the attention of teachers in schools.
Despite the critics on the approach, its concepts are reflected in much of the current writings on
school improvement and it is substantially accepted internationally (Reynolds; 1994). Most
concepts and ideas presented in this paper also reflect the concepts of the new school
improvement approach.

10
 2.1.6. Assumptions of School Improvement
School improvement program works from an assumption that schools are most likely to
strengthen their competence to give enhanced out comes for all pupils when they adopt ways of
working that are consistent with not only their aspirations, but also with the current reform
agenda (Hopkins, 2002:05). Having a broader assumption as listed above, particular school
improvement projects may have developed their own assumptions. Hopkins and his colleagues
has adopted six assumptions to a school improvement program known as IQEA which had been
carried out in UK, Wales, Port’oreico and South Korea (1993).

The first assumption is that the school improvement will bring enhanced out comes for both
students and staff. Out comes may vary in accordance with the focus of the improvement effort.
However, whatever outcome they aspire for, school improvement will make them reality to and
fro (1993). Here the assumption underlines that the school improvement should not only goal
oriented but also efficient in achieving the goals set by the school.

In order for the SIP to be effective and efficient, it must take the school culture in to account. In
this regard, the type of school cultures that must supportive of school improvement are identified
to be; collaborative planning, high expectations for both students and staff, exhibiting a
consensus on values, support an orderly and secure environment and encouraging teachers to
assume the variety of leadership roles. Without the existence of such cultures, it is hardly
possible to bring about the desired improvement in schools. The school’s background and
organization, as the third assumption, are key factors in the school improvement process. If the
goals of school improvement are to be realized in schools, organizational factors should also be
changed in relation to the change process they often become inhibitors of change otherwise.

The school improvement works best when there is a clear and practical focus for the
development effort. The fourth factor assumes that the school’s priorities are normally some
aspects of teaching and learning which the school has identified from the many changes that
confront it. In other words, they are priorities of the school. Most priority setting activities focus
on identifying those issues that are few in number, central to the mission of the school, related to
the teaching and learning process and leading to specific outcomes for students and staff.

The fifth assumption described that the conditions for school improvement are worked on at the
same time as other priorities the school has set itself. Conditions are the frameworks, the roles

11
and responsibilities and ways of working that enable a school to get work done. All conditions
should be given an equal attention, particularly in the initial stage of the improvement. The last
assumption according to Hopkins, assumes that a school improvement strategy needs to be
developed in order to link priorities to the conditions. This is because the implementation of
school improvement program is an equally costly phase of the change process. Hence, effective
implementation requires parallel policies and procedures (O’Neil et al, 1995).

2.1.7. Conditions Influencing School Improvement

There are factors that influence any educational change in general, and school improvement in
particular. These can be categorized in to three: (a) characteristics of the innovation itself, (b) the
internal context of the school and (c) the external context of the school (Hussen and
Postlethroaite; 1994).

2.1.7.1. Characteristics of the Change

The kind and the nature of the improvement program that we introduced in the school system
affect its implementation. Because, such characteristics of change as centrality, quality, scope
and complexity of the improvement program are associated with its implementation. For
example, improvements that are closely related to core educational activities such as
instructional processes or and improvements that can provide significant advantages over past
practice are more likely to continue over longer periods of time. Moreover, improvements that
require involvement of the large proportions of classes are more likely to have a real impact than
activities involving minor modifications of existing practices. In general, according to Posch, if
improvements are required to create change they must not only be different from the past, but
must also be consistent with underlying values and interpretable (Hussein and Postlethwaite,
1994).

2.1.7.2. Internal Conditions of Schools

The internal context existed in schools also influence the school improvement programs. Internal
context of the school refers to such conditions as Staff Development, Involvement, Leadership,
Coordination, Enquiry and Reflection, and finally collaborative planning (Hopkins, 2002)

A. Staff Development

Establishing the professional learning of teachers is central to most notions of school

improvement. This is true for that, creating learning opportunities helps the staff to actively

12
engage in activities expected of them (Huberman and Miles 1994). Besides, the attention to
teachers learning is likely to have direct spin-offs in terms of pupils learning. In general, schools
will not improve without teachers’ development, individually or collectively. Therefore, schools
should be able to develop appropriate strategy for staff-development that can provide teachers to
learn together, if the whole school is to develop (Hopkins; 2000).

B. Involvement

The success of schools is associated with the sense of identification and involvement extends
beyond the teaching staff. In other words, involvement and sense of identification of pupils’,
parents’, non-teaching staffs’ and other community members’ is as crucial as that of the teaching
staff for the success of schools. Because the success of an improvement program (perhaps any
other educational program) requires an interaction between many participants at different levels
(Hussein and Postlethwaile; 1994). In this regard, Farrar et al stated that, where there is a poor fit
between a reform program designed at the national level and the community’s expectations for
schooling, the actual change is unlikely. Because, communities that have fragmented value
systems cannot provide teachers with the kind of positive adult feedback that support innovations

(Hussen; 1994: 5243). Hence, any strategy of promoting students’ learning needs to give
attention to the participation of students, parents, and community members with a particular
focus to students’ participation.

C. Leadership

Almost all school improvement scholars underline the role of leadership for school improvement.
Hopkins for example, argued that, the quality of leadership of the head is the most important
single factor in the success of effective schools (2005). From the above explanation, we can see
that the role of principals /school leaders/ is so central in the success of school. That is, if the
leader fails, the school fails and the vice versa. The role of leadership in the school improvement
has some key dimensions. The establishment of a clear vision for teaching and learning is
determined to be the first dimension of school leader’s role. Because, schools that are clearer
with the vision of their own school improvement efforts become more effective consumers and
interpreters of reforms (Hopkins, 2002).

In defining vision for teaching and learning, school leaders need to give due attention to the way
in which the vision is developed as it is an important as vision itself in generating staff

13
commitment. As the conditions in which teachers and other become empowered to jointly
undertake in the formulation the school’s vision is fundamental to the notion of collaboration
(Telford; 1996). The second role of leaders is related to their ability in bringing together the best
team for the job. As schools that have strong team are more likely to succeed in policy
development and implementation than schools in which the team is weak (Hopkins, 2002:
Hussen and Postlethwaite 1994).

In this regard, school leaders need to have genuine professional regard for the abilities and inputs
of those people around them in order to create an atmosphere of respect and valuing of all
members of the community. This in turn helps them to realize the group effectiveness (Telford,
1996). In general, the above explanation makes it clear that leadership is a critical factor of
school effectiveness. That is the reason for contemporary education reforms to place a great
premium on the effective leadership and management of schools. So far it has been argued that
leadership is a key factor in school improvement.

However, it seems so wise to raise such questions as what kind of leadership does really
contribute to achieve school improvement goals more effectively Leithwood and Steinbatch
(1993), in addressing the question, said that, all leaders cannot make a significant contribution to
the improvement of school, rather their contribution differ in the methods they use for this
purpose. The question “what kind of method then?” is answered by Hopkins (2005; 56-57) as
follows: Complex and dynamic, such as the cultural changes that are required for school
improvement are less likely to occur as a result of transactional leadership. A model of
leadership more congruent with the requirements of cultural changes is that of transformational
leadership which focuses on people involved, their relationships and requires an approach that
seeks to transform feelings, attitudes and beliefs.

Here it is clear that, transformational leaders not only manage structures, they also purposefully
seek to impact up on the culture of the school in order to change it. As a result, transformational
leadership could exist to be in line with a desire to bring about school improvement, rather than
simply change the school. However transformational leadership is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for school improvement, as it lacks a specific orientation to student’s learning. As a
result, school improvement writers such as Elmore are seeking for another approach that at the
same time focuses on organizational conditions of the school as well as the way teaching and
learning are conducted which termed as instructional leadership. This type of leadership

14
approach is considered to be an inclusive of a range of other leadership skills. In general, schools
to be successful need to establish a clear vision for them and regard leadership as a function to
which many staff contributes (participatory), rather than a set of responsibilities vested in a
single individual. ‘If the principal tries to do all of it, much of it will be left undone by any one”
(Telford: 1996:49).

D. Coordination

The school’s capacity to coordinate the action of teachers behind agreed policies is an important
condition in promoting change. Coordination is about getting groups of teachers, and usually
groups with different values and goals to contribute to the good of all. The importance of
coordination for school improvement is so vital that schools that have a well-coordinated team
are likely to have successful implementation of reform programs (Hopkins, 2002).

E. Enquiry and Reflection

Enquiry and reflection are important conditions for school improvement. Because they make it
easier to sustain improvement effort around established priorities, and are better placed to
monitor the extent to which policies actually deliver the intended out-comes for pupils. Since
improvement programs must be different from past practices, school generated data must be
reviewed in its current use made of and to consider the opportunities for improved future. The
enquiry, hence must help to answer questions that need to be addressed by the improvement.

Besides, the data generated through enquiry must consider methods that are feasible and neither
intrudes on nor disrupts the school’s patterns of activity and it must serve the purpose of the
school. To do so, schools need to adopt a systematic approach to information collection, analysis
and interpretation, particularly where the information about the impact, rather than the
implementation, of improvement programs is wanted. To sum up, “important opportunities come
not where and when we could plan for them, but must be seized on whenever they present
themselves. Enquiry helps us to spot them-reflection guides us towards appropriate action”
(Hopkins, 2002:43).

F. Collaborative Planning

According to Husen (1994), effective school improvement requires that those participants to be
capable to draw up and agree upon a plan, to be willing and able to make decisions to shape and
alter the plan as the realities of the change process. In addition to this, the school improvement
15
plans need to be clearly linked to the schools’ vision for the future. Where there is a lack of
congruence between the school’s long term plans and particular initiatives, it is difficult to build
commitment amongst staff. To solve such lack of congruence wide involvement in the planning
process collaborative planning is essential. Because collaborative planning is more than
producing plans but it is through which goals emerge, differences can be resolved and a basis for
action is created (Hopkins, 2002).

2.1.7.3. The External Context

Schools operate within a context of outsiders, which Jackson and Hopkins have called external
opportunities in order to emphasize their positive contribution towards the improvement (2005).
They are the change forces and reform directives so often paralyzing, destabilizing or debilitating.
This shows that, successful school improvement program cannot be realized without the
interaction between many participants. Hussen and Postehwaite, regarding the external context
of the school stated as follows: The success of an improvement program requires interaction
between many participants at different levels of the education system: government, external
support systems, school administrators and staff. While the nature of the improvement effort may
be shaped by local preferences and decisions, socially desirable changes are rarely instituted
solely as a consequence of intrinsic motivation to improve (1994:5243).

The above explanation shows that, in order to bring socially desirable changes the consideration
of external factors is essential. In addition to this, social and community support for change is a
frequently neglected factor that is particularly important major innovations (cited in Hussen and
Postethwaite, 1994). In general, a school improvement that failed to consider the role of the
community for school improvement is nothing but, as Hopkins and Jacksons said, it is “an
apartheid of professional development and school improvement” (2006). To avoid the apartheid,
the school leadership should develop the schools capacity and greater confidence to work in
creative and resourceful ways with external agencies and initiatives (Harris, 2006).

Concerning the above three major factors the school leadership should not only consider them,
but should also plan in the way that all the three support one another in a reciprocal relationship,
if student’s achievement is to be enhanced.

2.1.8. Domains of School Improvement

The domains of school improvement refers to those critical issues that influence the ultimate
goals of school improvement-students learning outcomes (MoE; 2007). They are key strategic
16
areas of school improvement. They are more likely to advance achievement for all students, if
they address not only the learning of individual teachers, but also other dimensions of the school
capacity (Hopkins, 2002). This indicates that, advanced students’ achievement is not a sole
domain of teachers’competencies; rather it is the domain of other several aspects. Besides, since
the school improvement strategy is required to reflect the specific context of the school,
improvement strategies might differ along with different schools (Hopkins, 2002).

However, most improvement policies focus on educational process, which includes instruction
that is, learning processes and environments or subject matter contents and other aspects of
organizational functioning such as, leadership and management, a school climate, staffing,
school organization, and participation in education (Hopkins, 2002, Hussen and Postethwaite
1994, Plan international 2007).

2.1.9. Challenges to School Improvement Program

Challenges to the school improvement may vary in accordance with the variations with the
unique features of schools as well as with the external environment in which schools are
operating. One simple example, the size of the school is associated with innovative behavior for
that smaller schools apparently lack the resources to engage in significant change (Hussen and
Postethwore, 1994). However there are common challenges that most school improvement
programs face.

These are lack of schedules in schools that permit teachers to meet and work together for
sustained periods of time; the demanding nature of teachers’ work as an increasing number of
students arrive at school less well-socialized, less prepared to deal with materials, and more
frequently from family settings that are not supportive; the aging and often demoralization of
teachers due to declining resources, increasing levels of bureaucratization and the rapid and
frequent demands for change that come from central authorities. In addition, an organizational
structure with in which teachers’ work is less autonomous and more integrated with that of other
teachers’ affects the development of commitment to change. Moreover, the continues transfer of
teachers, principals and educational administrators at the local level puts pressure on the program
to continuously train new staff who may not serve in schools for long (Plan Sudan, 2006).

17
 2.2. School Improvement in Ethiopia
2.2.1. Overview of SIP in Ethiopia
In Ethiopia, in previous years, due to a great effort exerted to implement the education and
training policy, various promising results were registered. In spite of those achievements, still
there are problems related to access, quality, equity, relevance as well as leadership and
management that require critical interventions, if the education is to be an instrument for the
realization of the goals set by the state. Accordingly, the MoE has developed the general
education quality assurance package in 2007 so as to ensure the equitable provision of quality
education (MoE, 2007).

One of the six programs included in General Education Quality Assurance package is the school
improvement program. The program is aimed to bring about a desirable influence up on the
promotion of quality education. To this end, the ministry, in collaboration with Regional
Education Bureaus had developed school improvement framework in 2007 marking experiences
drawn from other countries.

2.2.2. The Purpose and Objectives of SIP in Ethiopia

According to MoE (2007), school improvement is an essential program to the realization of
quality education. Hence, it should be implemented in the schools of nationwide. The program is
expected to help schools in enhancing the academic performance of their students.

2.2.3. The Purpose of SIP

School improvement program enables schools to undertake self-enquiry regarding their
performance using centrally established indicators of successful schools. The ‘enquiry’ in turn
enables them to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Based on the data obtained from the
‘self-enquiry’ process, schools become in a good position to develop their strategic plan on the
basement of their actual current picture. In addition to this, SIP encourages schools so as to show
accountability to their stakeholders. It also provides schools an insight on the extent to which the
service they are providing is satisfying to their customers, on how to provide improved education,
on the impact to education they are providing as well as on how the education is to be improved
in the future (MoE, 2007).

18
 2.2.4. The Objectives of SIP
The MoE SIP document clearly identified three basic objectives of SIP. These are; highly
maximizing students’ academic results and their learning capabilities, making schools effective
through ensuring good governance and democratic procedures and crating a system that
promotes participation and accountability and finally decentralizing the leadership and
administration of schools so as to provide them administrative autonomy.

2.2.5. The Domains of School Improvement Program

The domains of SIP refer to critical issues that the program is meant to make interventions in
order to improve students’ learning outcome (MoE 2007). There are four but interrelated
domains. Each consists of three sub-domains and several standards and indicators.

2.2.5.1. Teaching and Learning

The teaching and learning domain, having sub-domains such as: the work of teaching, learning
and assessment, and curriculum; mainly focuses on the roles and responsibilities of teachers.
First of all, teachers are expected to plan, to make adequate preparation and present learning
activities. To this end, teachers need to have an adequate academic and professional knowledge.
Besides, they are required to apply appropriate teaching methods that help in teaching large and
diversified classroom. Here, the preparation and utilization of teaching aids from locally
available materials is another concern of teachers. Hence, in order to get teachers in such
position, their appointment (assignment) will be made in such a way that their qualification could
fit with the level they are teaching. To enable them adequate trainings will be provided (MoE.
2007).

In order to ensure, whether students acquired adequate knowledge or not, teachers need to
conduct timely and continuous assessment. Class works, home works, short tests, individual or
group works should be provided timely by teachers. They need to record students’ results and
give timely feedback as soon as possible. On the basis of students’ result, they need to prepare
tutorials for low achievers, made discussions with parents and evaluate and modify their teaching
methods.

Moreover teachers should work to rein active learning in the classroom to make the teaching and
learning process more effective. They should encourage active participation of students in
leaning activities and facilitate educational trips and visits to the field. This helps students to get

19
an opportunity to apply what they have learnt in classrooms. Finally, teachers are highly
expected to appreciate and treat individual differences amongst their learners with respect to age,
sex, learning capabilities and special needs in all their activities (MoE, 2007).

2.2.5.2. School Leadership and Administration

In our context, school leadership consists of principals, vice principals, school committees
composed of teachers, students, parents and different groups of the community as well as
educational leaders in different levels that are found out of schools. These bodies are expected to
be vanguard in the school improvement program. Since, primarily accountability for the failure
of schools and responsibility of suggesting possible solutions lies on the shoulder of the
leadership of the school, the school leadership should be organized in decentralized way. Besides
proper and timely support and training will be rendered to the leadership (MoE, 2007)

2.2.5.3. Parent-Community and School Relations

Parents, community members, and NGO’s play a vital role for the success of school
improvement. Accordingly, various activities are identified to be carried out in promoting the
participation of these key stakeholders. The participation of parents is justified for they have
children in schools. Hence, they need to make a discussion with school leaders on issues
pertaining students’ discipline, dropouts and participation. Teachers and school principals are
expected to encourage parents to follow the learning of their children and to make regular visits
to schools.

Moreover, parents, other community members and NGO’s will be given with a system through
which they could support the improvement program financially or in kind. Because, the
government alone cannot avail all the inputs required for effective teaching and learning. In this
regard, different mechanisms will be established in order to raise the awareness of the parents-
community and in turn to promote their sense of ownership on issues of education.

2.2.5.4. Safe and Healthy School Environment

According to MoE (2007:29), the safe and healthy nature of schools’ environment enhances
students learning out comes. Hence, in the school improvement program, a greater effort is
exerted to make our schools safe and healthy. The school environment must be healthy in which
students can learn without any type of fear of rape, physical harassment, and abduction, in which
students’ discipline is maintained, in which a teacher-student relationship is healthy and smooth.

20
Besides, educational facilities such as classrooms, textbook, references, libraries, science kits,
laboratory chemicals, sport materials, plasma TVs, and ICT centers will be facilitated.

Infrastructures and sanitations such as: water supply, electric power (where the service exists),
toilets will be availed. To sum up, the above four domains are the key areas in which the school
improvement program focuses. Of the four domains, the teaching and learning domain is given a
particular attention as it mainly determines the success of schools in promoting students’
learning out-comes (MoE, 2007).

2.2.6. The Phases of School Improvement Program

MoE has developed school improvement framework, a system consists of several tools and
processes by which schools able to conduct self-enquiry, develop strategic plan, implement the
plan, monitor and control the progress and report to the stakeholders.

The SIP framework identified that, the process of SIP is not only continuous, and cyclical but
also modified on the basis of information obtained from both external evaluation and self-
enquiry which the school itself conducted at the end of each year as well as at the end of three
years. The strategic plan of school improvement program covers three years. There are activities
to be performed as per years. The following diagram briefly depicts activities to be performed
within three years.

2.2.7. The Phases of School Improvement Program

MoE has developed school improvement framework, a system consists of several tools and
processes by which schools able to conduct self-enquiry, develop strategic plan, implement the
plan, monitor and control the progress and report to the stakeholders. The SIP framework
identified that, the process of SIP is not only continuous, and cyclical but also modified on the
basis of information obtained from both external evaluation and self-enquiry which the school
itself conducted at the end of each year as well as at the end of three years. The strategic plan of
school improvement program covers three years. There are activities to be performed as per
years. The following diagram briefly depicts activities to be performed within three years.

In the first year of the SIP such major activities as: preparation, collection of information, system
survey, deciding performance level of the school, designing SIP plan, implementation of the plan,
monitoring and evaluation as well as reporting are conducted. In the second year, schools
evaluate the improvements achieved in line with the goals set and priorities identified. To this

21
end, new issues or priorities that might be considered will be identified and modification of the
plan will be made. Besides, standards on which self-enquiry was not conducted in the first year
will be selected and finally, report will be prepared and presented. In the third year, while the
implementation is on effect, schools monitor those improvements observed through self-enquiry.
Moreover, external bodies evaluate the performance of schools and provide them with the
feedback.

2.2.8. Major Practices in the School Improvement Program

The school improvement program cycle takes a three years’ time. In these three years, there are
major practices to be served. In this senior essay the researcher presents them as follows for the
purpose of clarity.

2.2.8.1. Preparation
In the preparation stage, schools are concerned with the issue of “How to Start SIP”. The very
stage of SIP is about the establishment of SIP committee and identifying those strengths and
weaknesses observed regarding schools’ performance in relation to the four domains. SIPC is a
committee on which the overall responsibility of SIP is vested upon. SIPC is organized from the
members representing teachers, students, non-teaching staff, parents and other community
members. The number of committee members ranges from five to ten in accordance with the size
of the school. The principal of the school is the chairman of the committee.

The principal, in collaboration with those key stakeholders (teachers, parents, non-teaching staff,
students, PTA’s and KETMB) is responsible to facilitate and organize awareness creation
programs to various NGO’s and religious sectors concerning the importance of SIP and strongly
work to get their cooperation to the success of the program. The SIPC might organize sub-
committees under its chain of command. All the members of the SIPC need to be aware that, the
ultimate goal of their activity is on improving the learning outcomes of students and to do this,
cooperation and team spirit are essentials. The SIPC need to develop procedures and schedule for
its own meetings (MoE, 2007:16).

2.2.8.2. Self Enquiry

The very purpose of school improvement is about improving students learning and their learning
outcome at higher level. Hence, schools primarily need to conduct self-enquiry on the
weaknesses and strengths of their current performance. This gives them the actual current picture
and a basis for future improvement. Self-enquiry is an essential means for schools to create a
22
sense of responsibility and accountability for students’ learning and to practically show their
accountability to their stakeholders, to assess the extent to which they are satisfying the needs of
their students and the impact of their services as well as future directions of improvement. This
can only be achieved, whenever schools conduct a self-enquiry genuinely and transparently. The
information gained from the enquiry should serve to identify the weaknesses and strength, should
help to identify priorities of the school, and should be used to plan activities that are aimed at
achieving the improvement.

Besides, the enquiry should give an insight on what measures should be taken to improve the
weakness. In this regard, schools could be able to identify an activity with higher impact on the
improvement. In conducting effective self-enquiry, schools need to take into consideration the
following issues. The self-enquiry should enable schools to identify the extent to which they are
serving their learners and they should be part of the key leadership system. The self-enquiry to
be effective should be based on brad data and it should take the perceptions’ and participation of
key stakeholders in to account. Moreover, the data obtained from self-enquiry must help to
identify few key areas as well as that few activities that are parts of priorities which take long
time to achieve at the goals.

How to Conduct Self-Enquiry

In conducting self-enquiry, schools make use of the self-enquiry format. The self-enquiry format
has four parts for each of the four domains. Under each domain, there are sub-domains, standards
and indicators. There are also rating scales of four point to determine the level at which the
school appears and to indicate how to rate schools’ performance. Schools need to rate their
performance on the basis of indicators presented under each domain. In rating scale, schools are
expected to record the values of each indicator, because it helps them in identifying their
priorities. Moreover, the self-enquiry process must be simple, accurate, clear and genuine. It
must not be a bureaucratic process. Indicators must be answered with clear decision. This
enables schools to get the contribution of teachers and school community in the development of
school improvement plan.

Identifying the Priorities

The major issues, in the process of identifying priorities, are identifying how the school is
strongly moving to promote students results and raising standards through creating conducive

23
learning environment. On the basis of data obtained from self-enquiry, schools need to focus on
the teaching-learning domain taking the three sub-domains of the main domain as indicators.
This helps to identify priorities. The sub-domain under the three other domains can be taken as
supportive domains. This helps to determine the tactics, time-line, and responsible bodies in the
development of the plan. Here, it must be noted that, priorities must be relevant and can be
achieved (MoE, 2007).

2.2.8.3. Designing School Improvement Plan

After the school priorities are once identified SIPC can design the school improvement plan.
SIPC make the use of various planning tools in developing the plan. The format includes, goals,
objective, priorities, implementation techniques, timeline, responsible bodies, monitoring and
evaluation and ways of modification to the plan. Once, the SIPC has developed the plan and get
the approval of all stakeholders, the next stage is about organizing various task forces that are
responsible for the development of action plan for each domain. In the formation of taskforces,
the principal should encourage parents, teachers, students and other stakeholders to take active
part. Besides, the principal need to encourage the involvement of department heads, PTA
members, students’ council, in the development of the action plans. She/he (principal) should
create ways through which taskforces exchange information with SIPC. The taskforces, while
developing action plans, need to consider several issues. These are:

Setting Goals-in the preparation of goal statements, taskforces need to revise issues raised in the
self-enquiry. The revision enables them to analyze the information on which the priorities are
identified. And the goal must be that can be achieved within a specific period of time, and call
for the active involvement of stakeholders that can move the schools to the higher level of
performance. To sum up, goals must be SMART, and stated in simple and clear language.

 Identifying most import priorities- the achievement of a given goal is realized, when
particular attention is provided to the most important priorities. Hence, taskforces need to
consult the school data so as to identify the most important priorities.
 Designing strategies-the strategies designed must get an approval of all stakeholders in
effectively addressing the domains.
 Identifying Indicators-indicators identified must be in the position to measure students’
learning outcomes and teachers’ teaching performances.

24
  Setting Timeline-activities in the plan must be presented with the specific period of
implementation time. They can be planned in semester, year or three years and should get
the approval of principals, teachers, SIPC and PTA.
 Assigning Responsible-bodies-Responsibilities of performing particular activities should
be assigned to particular bodies: PTA, principal, teachers and students.
 Status update-in order to ensure continuous and sustained school improvement, update
strategy must be considered.
 Revision of the plan-evaluation of the implementation conducted by the end of each year,
as a result revision of priorities, and timelines can be made. Hence, the action plan
taskforce need to consider the revision techniques (MoE, 2007).

2.2.8.4. The Implementation of School Improvement Plan

When the SIPC ensures that priorities are well identified and the plan is ready, the school
improvement plan comes to effect. Here, the important thing is assuring whether, the existing
practices and ways of dong are in harmony with the new plan. Besides, the school leadership
needs to ensure the availability of necessary resources from the external and internal sources so
as to realize the effective implementation of the plan. Moreover, the schools need to provide a
progress report while the program is taking place. Through the communication the school
bridges with its stakeholders, it can draw continuous support from its stakeholder. Magazines,
bulletins, postures and stickers can be used for the purpose of communication so as to ensure the
genuine participation of stakeholders (MoE, 2007).

2.2.8.5. Evaluation of SIP

School improvement program is not a linear rather it is cyclical. Hence, it requires continuous
evaluation and thereby possible modification. Evaluation of the program is conducted in two
ways. On the one hand, the school itself conducts annual evaluation on the implementation of the
program. On the other hand, external bodies conduct an evaluation at the end of the third year.
Hence, based on the data and information obtained from both evaluations schools make possible
modifications of the program (MoE, 2007:03).The information obtained from both evaluations
could serve as a basis for further planning.

25
 CHAPTER THREE
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter is concerned with research methodology, presented the research design, research
method, Sampling technique (Population, sample frame, sample unit and sample size), source of
data (primary data and secondary data), instrument of data gathering (questionnaire, interview,
focused group discussion and field observation), data analysis and ethical consideration.

3.1. The research Design

Quirk (1979) stated that the design and methodology of a research is determined by the purpose
of the study. The purpose of this study was to assess the status of school improvement program
in government primary schools of Makuey Woreda, Nuer Zone, Gambella People National
Regional State. Hence, descriptive survey design was used because it is appropriate to obtain an
accurate description of the existing practices and major problems encountered in the
implementation of School Improvement Program

3.2. Research Approach

In undertaking this study, to offset the weakness of the approaches and to benefit from the
strength, the mixed or combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches was used. Because
combining both the approaches provides relevant data and helps to compare the results from two
different perspectives and to be more confident of the results.

3.3. Sources of Data

The data for this study was collected from both primary and secondary sources. To achieve the
objective of this study both primary and secondary data sources were collected from various
sources. These sources are explained as under:

3.3.1. Primary Dara

Primary data was obtained from principals, primary school cluster supervisors, Woreda
educational focal person, school improvement committee members and teachers who have
adequate exposure to the implementation of SIP in Makuey Woreda primary schools.

3.3.2. Secondary Data

Data which is accessible, reliable, adequate and relevant to the study will be collected through
document review. The secondary data was obtained from related document of SIP guide line by
reviewing relevant policy documents and guidelines such as Education Sector Development

26
Program and the School Improvement Program Blue Print and Implementation Manual. For this
purpose, the documents of school improvement program were revised from these sources.

3.4. Sampling Techniques

This study use both probability and non-probability sampling techniques. Non-probability
sampling (purposive and expert sampling) was used to select woreda educational bureau core
process owner, supervisors, principals, teachers and key informant (active parents). On the other
hand, probability (simple random) sampling method was used to select schools and the students;
the share of each student was decided using quota sampling.

Among the 13 schools found in Makuey Woreda, 8 schools were selected by the researcher using
simple random sampling technique. The reason behind selecting simple random sampling
technique was that all schools in the defined population would have equal and independent
chance of being included in the sample.

3.4.1. Sampling Design

The proposed or target population of this study is the total number of students in all 13 primary
schools found in Makuey Woreda which is 7,363, the number of teachers 232, Woreda
educational office staffs 93. The total number of the target population is 7,688. The sampling
units of the study were constituted by students, principals, supervisors, teachers, woreda
educational experts and parents. From these sampling units, the sample size was determined
using sampling techniques and was used as the units of analysis.

27
Table 3.1: Population of the study

No Name of School Number of Students Number of Teachers Total

1. Nyine-nyang 1300 30 1330

2. Gier 700 20 720

3. Puok-kueth 856 33 889

4. Longjiok 575 17 592

5. Kondey 450 15 465

6. Tormo-rok 360 13 373

7. Bil Ker 353 14 367

8. Batokdol 330 16 346

9. Bil Dak 705 18 723

10. Adura 366 13 379

11. Wunthow 358 14 372

12. Koat Gaar 480 16 496

13. Jiongol 530 13 543

Total 7,363 232 7595

Woreda Education 93
Office Staffs 93

Grand Total 7688

3.4.1.2. Sample determination

The sample of students and teacher of each school was determined by use of quota sampling.
The school with high number of teachers and students was also having the highest number of
participant of samples. The number of the samples was determined the following formula:

28
Where:
S = Sample to be taken from each primary school
n = Total sample size
th= Total number of students in each primary school
TH = Total number of students in all eight (8) selected primary schools
Table 3.2: sample of teachers and students in each schools.
School Students Calculation Sample Teachers Calculation Sample
Nyine-nyang 1300 22 30 11

Gier 700 12 20 8

Puokueth 856 14 33 12

Kondey 450 8 15 6

Batokdol 330 6 16 6

Tor-morok 360 6 13 5

Bildak 705 12 18 7

Adura 366 6 13 5

Total 86 60

Table 3.3: List of Participants

No Participant Number of Participants Sampling Technique
1 Students 86
2 Teachers 60
3 Principals 16
Purposive/Expert
4 Supervisors 2
Sampling
5 Education office 1
5 Parents 32
Total 197

29
 3.5. Instruments of data collection
In this study, questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussion, observation
checklist and document analysis were employed as data collection instruments. The researcher
believed that the combinations of different instruments were useful to obtain adequate
information for assessing the status, practices and challenges of school improvement program
implementation.

3.5.1. Questionnaire
The questionnaires were prepared by the researcher to access the required information from
teachers and students on the basis of theoretical ground about the status of the schools
improvement program. The questionnaire comprised of both close-ended and open-ended type
questions. The researcher used five point Likert response set ranging from strongly disagree to
strongly agree. The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first list section collected
the background information of the respondents. The second section was used to measure teachers
and students view about the status of school improvement program. All the questionnaires were
prepared in English.

3.5.2. Interviews
Interviews was administered by using an interview guide, because it can help to generate a wide
range of ideas. Interviews also guarantee an immediate feedback and thus can generate reliable
data. So, face-to-face questions were asked and comments were made to meet the objectives. All
interviews were conducted in person, and each interview took approximately 20-to-35 minutes.
The results of interview were employed to substantiate the results gathered through
questionnaires

3.5.3. Focus Group Discussions

Focus group discussions were held with the active-parent members. The issue of discussion was
about the status of school improvement program, practice and challenges that were existed but
which the schools did not use when implementing the school improvement program. The focus
group discussion made with active-parents also increased the quality and richness of the data as
group members simulated by the perception and ideas of others with in the social environment in
which the group discussion forums were also made with guiding questions which were prepared
for the group discussion.

30
 3.5.4. Observations
Based on the nature of issue of the study regarding of generalization of school visit the
researcher observe some issue and take note during visit. The school environment, classroom, the
communication of staff in school compound. The school facilities including classroom, toilet,
cafe, playing ground (field), library and laboratories.

3.6. Procedures of Data Collection.

In order to collect data, first permission was sought from the University. Then, permission was
also sought from the relevant educational authorities in Makuey Woreda for a voluntary,
anonymous survey to be conducted among eight government primary schools educators in their
administration Third, principals of each participating schools were contacted to arrange date for
the administration of the survey, interviews and focused group discussions among principals,
supervisors, students and active-parents respectively in their respective schools and areas. On the
arranged dates, first the questionnaires were disseminated and retrieved with the assistance of
school principals and their management teams at each school selected for the survey. Then,
interview was conducted with school principals, woreda educational experts and supervisors.
Finally, focused group discussions were done with active- parents respectively.

Before the questionnaire was administered to respondents, the purpose of the study was explained to
them by the researcher. The questionnaire was administered to 86 students and 60 teachers in their
respective schools during regular class periods. 82 students and 60 teachers’ questionaires were
returned and used in analysis because four (4) questionnaires were discarded as the respondents gave
incomplete and inappropriate information. Both structured and unstructured interviews were
administered. For interview and FGD, contacts were made with school principals, woreda education
office core process owner, school supervisors and active-parents. Therefore, all essential data have
been collected for analysis.

3.7. Methods of Data Analysis

Descriptive statistic was employed in this study by using SPSS-version 20, to analyze close
ended quantitative data collected through questionnaire. From the descriptive statistics,
frequency counts and percentages were used and mean, standard deviation and t-test values were
used as needed to analyze the data. The researcher had consulted documents such as Education
Sector Development Program, School Improvement Program Guideline, and School

31
Improvement Program Implementation Manual to obtain additional data and to assess the trend
schools were involved in when implementing school improvement program.

This technique was preferred because of its ability to provide supplementary information and
flexibility. In a nut shell, through the study exercise the researcher had made attempts to make a
review of the relevant written documents about the school improvement program and the
meeting minutes for school improvement program. Data gathered from observation and document
review were triangulated with quantitative data to enrich the analysis and interpretation of the study.

3.8. Ethical consideration

All participants were assured that their participation in the study was voluntary, confidential and
undertook to keep their names and all the information they provided strictly confidential; to use
these only for research purposes. No administrative personnel had access to the study data at any
point in the data collection process, and all participants participated freely and willingly.

32
 CHAPTER FOUR
4. PRESENTATION, ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATION
This chapter deals with the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the data collected from
respondents (Students, Teachers, Principals, Supervisor, woreda education office,) through
questionnaires, interview, FGD, Observation and document review in the selected primary
schools of Makuey Woreda, Nuer Zone in Gambella People National Regional State. The results
of the study were presented and discussed following the methodology. The general
characteristics of the respondents and the analysis of the main findings of study in line with the
research question were presented in this chapter as follow.

4.4. Characteristicseof the Respondents

The necessary data were obtained from eight (8) schools found in Makuey Woreda. Besides,
document analysis was carried out to enrich the data obtained through questionnaire and
interview. The respondents were, teachers, students, principals, Active-parents members and
Woreda educational experts. Thus a sum total of 146 copies of questionnaires were distributed
and 142 (97.3%) were returned in proper way and were used in the analysis. 60 (100%) were
teachers, 82 (95.3 %) were students. Moreover 16 (100%) principals, 2 (100%) supervisor, 1
(100%) Woreda education Office expert were interviewed and 32 (100%) active parents
participate in focused group discussion (FGD). The major characteristics of respondents were
presented below as follow.
Table 4.1: Respondents Gender and Age Category

No Variable Teachers Student Total

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
1 Gender Male 51 85% 59 72% 110 77.5%
Female 9 15% 23 28% 32 22.5%
Total 60 100% 82 100% 142 100%
2 Age Less than 18 - - 76 93%
Category 18 – 25 4 7% 6 7%
26 – 35 33 55%
36 – 45 21 35%
Above 45 2 3%
Total 60 100% 82 100% 142 100%

33
As indicated in the table 4.1, above among respondents teachers 51 (85%) were male and 9 (15%)
were female, while from the student respondents 59 (72%) were male and 23 (28%) were female.
The result show that from both groups the number of male respondents was greater than female
respondents. The age category of respondents, the teachers age category were: 4 (7%) were in
the age category of 18 – 25 years, 33 (55%) were in the age category of 26 – 35 years, 21 (35%)
were in the age category of 36 – 45 years, 2 (3%) were in the age category of above 45 years.
Whereas the age category of students respondents were: 76 (93%) were in the age category less
than 18 years, 6 (7%) were in the age category of 18 – 25 years.

This revealed that the age distribution for the majority of teacher respondents were between 26-
35, and for student respondents was in the age category of less than 18. Thus, it is possible to
claim that the majority of both respondents were in the required age group to implement school
improvement program.

Table 4.2: Educational Background and Year of Service of Respondents.

No Variable Teachers Principals Supervisors Students Total

No % No % No % No % No %
1 Educational Diploma 27 45 - 0 - 0 8 10
Background Degree 33 55 16 100 2 100 70 90
Masters - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
Total 60 100 16 100 2 100 78 100
2 Years of 1 – 5 13 22 - 0 - 0
service 6 – 10 28 47 10 62.5 - 0
Above 10 19 31 6 37.5 2 100
Total 60 100 16 100 2 100
3 Students Grade 7 38 46.3
grade level Grade 8 44 53.7
Total 82 100

As indicated in the table 4.2, above the educational background of respondents show that 27
(45%) were diploma holders and 33 (55%) were degree holders. This indicates that the teachers
fulfill the standard of primary school to effectively accomplish the teaching and learning
activities in schools. Similarly, the qualification of school principals, supervisors, and the woreda
34
education expert who have participated in the interview were all degree holders. On the other
hand, students’ grade level show that 38 (46.3%) students were from 7th grade, 44 (53.7%) were
from 8th grade. We can see that all students were taken from grade 7 and 8, and it relatively
indicate that more students were taken from 8. This is because they have a long duration in the
school relative to other grades and so have better understanding about SIP status in their school.

With respect to teacher’s years of service, 13 (22%) teachers were in service category less than 5
years, 28 (47%) teachers were in service category of 6 – 10 years and 19 (31%) teachers were in
service category above 10 years. The majority of teachers 47% were in the service category of 6
– 10 this show that more teachers have average years of teaching experience. Regarding the
principals and supervisors, 10 (62.5%) and 6 (37.5%) principals were categorized in 6 – 10 and
above 10 years of working experience respectively, 2 (100%) supervisors were categorized in the
above 10 years of service.

According to the above data 47 (78%) of teachers were in the service category of more than 6
years in the school, this show that more teachers have average years of teaching experience;
which is relatively better to have deep understanding of the teaching profession and various
programs carried out in schools including school improvement program. This in turn might
enable them to provide genuine and correct responses to the questions presented to them. Besides,
they might be in good stand to identify those major problems observed in the school
improvement program.
Table 4.3: Respondents Awareness about SIP

Variable Teachers Students

No % No %
Did you receive any Yes 38 63.4 - -
training on SIP? No 22 36.6 82 100
Total 60 100 82 100

From the table 4.3, above it indicate the number of students and teacher which took SIP training.
According to the response of the respondents it was found that majority of teachers; that is, 38
(63.4%) took SIP training and 36.6% (30) of teachers did not attend the SIP training and all
students 82 (100%) did not attend SIP training at all. According to the data obtained from
interview the training was conducted in 2008 & 2009 before separation of two Woredas Makuey

35
and Jikow. In the other hands, there were any students which have attended SIP training.
According to MoE (2010) SIP implementation guidelines it stated that teachers are the key
stakeholders in the process of SIP implementations and in achieving the overall out comes. But,
the above finding indicated that significant numbers of teachers did not take SIP related training,
which can reflect that the process of SIP implementation is negatively influenced due to absence
of training.

4.5. Analysis and interpretation of findings

Items written to investigate the current practices of school improvement program in the schools
were collected on five points; likert scales, consisting items for school improvement planning,
leadership domain, involvement of the community, teaching-learning domain, learning
environment domain, monitoring and evaluation, successfulness of the government primary
school and items for the challenges of the school improvement program. The responses were
converted into a numerical scale. The numerical value assigned to each response was given as
[(1= strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= undecided 4= agree and 5= strongly agree) (1= very low,
2= low, 3= moderate, 4= high and 5= very high)]. For analysis purpose the mean value was
interpreted as > 3.5 high, 2.5-3.5 moderate, and < 2.5 low.

Then, the frequency distribution of each variable was calculated as well as the mean score,
standard deviation as required and using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS)
Software. Later, data were aggregated at the school level by averaging the scores for each item
within each instrument. The mean scores for each variable and factor were then determined by
averaging the scores for all survey items within each instrument and/or subscale. Accordingly,
descriptive statistics including the mean and standard deviation were presented.

4.5.1. SIP Planning

Planning SIP seems simple but needs collaborative efforts of all stakeholders and commitment of
key partners of the plan. In order to implement the program properly, conducting self- evaluation
and involving stakeholders are few to list and focus on. The items were selected and presented to
respondents to be rated on five point rating scale as shown in the table below.

36
Table 4.4: Teachers and Students Response of School Improvement Planning

No Items Respondents
Students Teachers
Mean S.D Mean S.D
1 Strategic plan was prepared based on 1.50 0.689 1.34 0.633
self-evaluation.
2 Training was related to SIP planning - - 1.54 0.706
3 Stakeholders were involved in SIP plan 1.91 0.773 1.50 0.805
4 Teachers were enough information about 1.85 0.705 2.21 0.716
national strategic plan
5 Teachers' planning skill meet the need of 1.73 0.771 1.56 0.771
various students
Aggregate mean and Standard Deviation 1.678 0.7412 1.63 0.7262
T-Value 0.081

From table 4.4, the respondents were asked to respond on School Improvement Program
planning. The results from students and teachers response indicate low level of School
Improvement Program planning in five dimensions in difference behaviors with an aggregate
mean value of 1.678 and 1.63 for students and teachers respectively. Moreover, as the calculated
t-value in the above table, t-value (0.081) which is less than the critical t-value (1.96) at α=0.05
confirms that teachers and students have similar view.

Besides, the data obtained through document analysis shows that, preparation on self-evaluation
of school's strategic planning were not used to analyze the school strategic plan. In this case, low
performance on the sight of school improvement planning might lead them to use school demand
(class-room) results to analyze the school's strategic planning. However, knowing one’s own
performance on the basis of the school improvement planning provides a relatively strong base
than that of a performance indicator which is derived based on school’s itself standards.
However, the data obtained from the document analysis reveals that, in most schools there was a
gap in assessing all of school improvement program. From this respondents replied that, schools
might lack of school improvement plan activities. The finding shows that teachers were made
less familiar with the school improvement planning and program. Process was not straight line
together with Ministry of Education (2010) School Improvement Program Guideline.
37
The interview was conducted through schools principals, supervisors, and woreda education
office core process owner they were learned that schools made self-evaluation and based on the
specific problems was identified their own strategic plan. In this regard, supervisor had to say,
the school principals made us to review the performance of schools without discussing the school
improvement program. This made all of us not to have a good understanding of the SIP
Framework. Therefore, findings suggested that the planning process of school improvement
program was not participatory, according to which school principals would implement policies
which are not defined by higher educational authorities.

4.5.2. School improvement program in four domains

As indicated in review of related literature there are four domains or focus areas for school
improvement program (MoE, 2006) which are supposed to enhance students’ achievement and
ultimately improves quality of education. This part discusses the major activities that should be
performed to bring about school improvement. The four domains namely; school leadership and
management, community involvement, teaching learning, learning environment.

4.5.2.2.School leadership and management domain

In this section, school improvement activities related to the leadership and management domain
were addressed. School leadership capacity has vital role for the effectiveness of SIP. According
to Harris and Linda Lambert (2003) school principal empowers others to lead and serve as
catalysts for change. Therefore, building leadership capacity is an important duty to carry out SIP
properly. In the table below the response of teachers and students for the items from their
questionnaire were presented together. The first item was for both teachers and students but the
second and third items are for teachers only.

38
 Table 4.5: Response on school leadership and management domain

No Items Respondents Responses

SA A UD D SD Total
1 School leaders designed to Students No 4 10 34 22 12 82
improve the learning % 4.9 12.2 41.5 26.8 14.6 100
environment by beautifying the Teachers No 6 13 21 12 8 60
school compound % 10 21.7 35 20 13.3 100
2 School leaders communicating Teachers No 3 16 25 7 9 60
with the community on the % 5 26.7 41.6 11.7 15 100
program toward school
improvement
3 Principals have been regularly Teachers No - 11 31 10 8 60
supervising classroom % 0 18.3 51.7 16.7 13.3 100
instruction to give constructive
feedback for teachers
The first item from the table 4.5, focuses on school leaders designed to improve the learning
environment 14 (17.1 %) and 19 (31.7 %) students and teachers agree respectively, 34 (41.4 %)
students and 20 (33.3 %) teachers disagree, the majority of the respondents replied undecided
consisting of 34 (41.5 %) students and 21 (35 %) teachers. The second and the third items of the
table are for teachers only the second item is concerned with communication of leaders with
community. The response of the respondents show that 19 (31.7 %) of teachers agree, 16 (26.7 %)
of teachers disagree and the majority of 25 (41.6 %) of teachers answer undecided. The item 3 of
the table concerned with the statuses of principals regularly supervision of classroom instruction
to give constructive feedback for teachers. Accordingly, 11 (18.3 %) teachers agree, 18 (30 %)
teachers disagree and the majority 31 (51.7 %) respond undecided.

As it can be seen from the response of the respondents the School leaders are no designed to
improve the learning environment by beautifying the school compound, the school leaders are
not communicating with the community on the program toward school improvement Principals
and there is no regular supervising of classroom instruction to give constructive feedback for
teachers. Moreover, the data obtained from the FGD, observation and interview with Woreda
education office, supervisors and principals reflects the same thing with no different from the
above response. Most of the schools leaders do not exercise school leadership in the appropriate
way for school improvement program. Therefore; school leaders are not properly playing their
role in the implementation of SIP.
39
 4.5.2.3.Community participation domain
Parents and community are the key stake holders for school improvement endeavor and this
domain discussed about their involvement to implement school improvement program. Their
willingness to serve the community and active involvement in the school improvement process is
critical for the success of the program. School leaders in this aspect should involve community to
participation for better achievement of the desired goals of the schools through collaborative
effort of stake holders. Kindred in Gallagher, DR Bagin D, and More, EH (2001:13) defines
school community relations as “a process of communication between the school and the
community for the purpose of increasing citizen understanding educational needs, practices,
interest and cooperation in the work of improving the school.” This definition showed that
participation of community was determining factor for success of SIP.

Table 4.6: Response on Stakeholders Involvement

No Items Respondents Responses

VH H M L VL
1 Community participation on Teachers No - 9 14 21 16
SIP plan to improve standard % 0 15 23.3 35 26.7
and future interest Students No 3 9 15 23 32
% 3.7 11 18.3 28 39
2 Parents have information Teachers No - 3 15 25 17
about school self evaluation % 0 5 25 41.7 28.3
process Students No 5 11 10 51 5
% 6 13.4 12.3 62.3 6
3 Parent are involve in decision Teachers No - 6 24 16 14
making process % 0 10 40 26.7 23.3
Students No 3 18 24 27 10
% 3.7 22 29.3 33 12

From Table 4.6, item 1 focuses on Community involvement in SIP plan implementation 9 (15%)
teachers and 12 (14.7%) students responded high, 14 (23%) teachers and 15 (18.3%) students’
responded moderate while the majority 37 (61.7%) teacher and 55 (67%) students responded low.
This implies that the participation of community in SIP plan implementation was low. Item 2
40
was about parents having an information about school self evaluation process, 3 (5%) teachers
and 16 (19.4%) students responded high, on the other hand 15 (25%) teachers and 10 (12.3%)
students rated moderate. However, the majority of respondents 42 (70%) teachers and 56 (67.3%)
students rated low. item 3 focuses on parent involvement in decision making process 6 (10%)
teachers and 21 (25.7%) students choose high, 24 (40%) teachers and 24 (29.3%) students
choose moderate, the majority 30 (50%) teachers and 37 (45%) students believe that the parent
participation in decision making is very low.

Similarly, interview conducted with school principals, supervisors, Woreda education office core
process owner. Show that, there was a weakness in getting the parents having information about
school self-evaluation process. In fact there is community participation in giving positive ideas
for better performance of schools and also support in labor activities to some extent. This differ
from school to school, in some schools there is no any participation at all and the awareness
creation done so far was not enough and not in position to achieve SIP objective. Further
investigation through focused group discussion with parents showed that community
involvement in designing education responses did not occur at very much point. This indicate
that community participation in SIP plan implementation was low and their only participation is
in the meetings when school open and closed. This is due to lack of awareness about the SIP
implementation.

However, to enhance community participation on SIP implementation it is mostly school

principals‟ responsibility to aware and motivate the community actively to participate in the
issue of the school. From this we can see that insufficient involvement of school community is
one factor that affect SIP implementation. However, participation through the
contribution/extraction/ of money and material was low though it differs from school to school.

4.5.2.4.Teaching learning domain

It is the major determinant of students’ achievement that indicates what is going in the class
room. Not much powerful and sustainable change happens in teaching learning process unless it
happens in class rooms (Earl, 2003). This domain focuses on the actual interaction between
teachers and learners (students). The following items stated the teaching learning process, and
were rated by the researching during school observation of the study as follow.

41
Table 4.7: Response on Teaching-Learning Domain

No Items Respondents Responses

SA A UD D SD
1 Teaching process meet the Teachers 3 19 28 10 -
general need of students and % 5 31.7 46.7 16.6 0
curriculum standard Students - 31 32 19 -
% 0 37.8 39 23.2 0
2 Teachers' know their students Teachers - 14 31 15 -
% 0 23.3 51.7 25 0
Students - 18 53 11 -
% 0 22 64.6 13.4 0
3 Appropriateness of lesson plan Teachers 6 19 22 13 -
and students' progress is Suitable % 10 31.7 36.7 21.6 0
provision Students - 9 50 23 -
% 0 11 61 28 0
4 Quality of teaching and teachers' Teachers - 7 17 36 -
professional progress is very % 0 11.7 28.3 60 0
high Students - - 23 59 -
% 0 0 28 72 0
5 Teachers are identifying Teachers - 20 31 9 -
individual need of students % 0 33.3 51.7 15 0
Students - 23 22 37 -
% 0 28 27 45 0
6 Students' centered method of Teachers - 25 11 24 -
teaching was practiced % 0 41.7 18.3 40 0
Students - 9 31 42 -
% 0 11 37.8 51.2 0
7 Teachers' are giving the tutorial Teachers - 21 - 39 -
support to the students % 0 35 0 65 0
Students - - 15 67 -
% 0 0 18.3 82.7 0
8 teachers are using different Teachers - 21 8 31 -
techniques to motivate students % 0 35 13.3 51.7 0
Students - 22 24 36 -
% 0 26.8 29.2 44 0
9 laboratory services are provided Teachers - - 16 19 25
to the students % 0 0 26.7 31.7 41.6
Students - - - 25 57
% 0 0 0 30.5 69.5

42
As shown in table 4.7, the results of the respondents on the implementation of SIP related to
teaching learning domain indicates that 22 (36.7 %) teachers and 31 (37.8 %) students agree that
teaching process meet the general need of students and curriculum, 28 (46.7 %) teachers and 32
(39 %) students rate undicided, 10 (16.6 %) teachers and 19 (23.2 %) students disagree.
Regarding item 2 of the table 14 (23.3 %) teachers and 18 (22 %) students agree that teachers
know their students, 31 (51.7 %) teachers and 53 (64.6 %) students rate undecided, 15 (25 %)
teachers and 11 (13.4 %) students disagree. Regarding appropriateness of lesson plan and
students' progress is suitable provision; 25 (41.7 %) teachers 9 (11 %) students agree, 22 (36.7 %)
teachers and 50 (61 %) students’ rate undecided, 13 (21.6 %) teachers and 23 (28 %) students
disagree. About the quality of teaching and teachers' professional progress is very high 7 (11.7 %)
teachers agree, 17 (28.3 %) teachers and 23 (28 %) students rate undecided, 36 (60 %) teachers
and 59 (72 %) students disagree.

In the case of identifying individual need of students by their teachers 20 (33.3 %) teachers and
23 (28 %) students agree, 31 (51.7 %) teachers and 22 (27 %) students’ rate undecided, 9 (15 %)
teachers and 37 (45 %) students disagree. Practice of students' centered method of teaching was
rate as; 25 (41.7 %) teachers and 9 (11 %) students agree, 11 (18.3 %) teachers and 31 (37.8 %)
students rate undecided, 24 (40 %) teachers and 42 (51.2 %) students disagree. 21 (35 %)
teachers agree that teachers' are giving tutorial support to the students, while 15 (18.3 %)
students rate undecided, and the majority 39 (65 %) teachers and 67 (82.7 %) students disagree.
21 (35 %) teachers and 22 (26.8 %) students agree agree that teachers are using different
techniques to motivate students’, 8 (13.3 %) teachers and 24 (29.2 %) students’ rate undecided,
31 (51.7 %) teachers and 36 (44 %) students disagree. About laboratory services are provided to
the students’ 16 (26.7 %) teachers’ rate undecided, 44 (73.3 %) teachers and 82 (100 %) students
disagree.

On the other hand, data collected through interview from school principals, supervisors and
education office core process owner indicates that teachers give tutorial to students to catch up
uncovered topics regardless of students level of attainment. They did not give tutorial support by
identifying students level of understanding. However, tutorial should be given especially to low
achievers to help them understand the subject matter and improve their results. This shows that
attention has not been given in categorizing students by their level of achievement to support
learners.

43
In addition, laboratory works, and inadequate reference book and teaching materials in sample
schools were insufficient. Furthermore, the observation check list reveals that the level of
laboratory and library services provided to students in the majority of sample schools is low.
Besides, there was no laboratory in some schools and the schools which have libratory rooms,
they had no chemicals, and low number of libraries with shortage of books and poor quality of
services. However, Bishop (1995) claims that the availability of facilities such as teaching
material equipment‟s and laboratory apparatus in the school have an acceleration or deadening
influence in the students learning that in turn affect students achievement.

Thus, from the given responses and observation results shown in table 7.1, it can be inferred that
most of the sample schools had no laboratory works and library services which hinders the
teaching learning process. This might imply the primary schools leadership’s failure in
considering the role of teaching and learning domain of school improvement program, Further
investigation through focused group discussion with active-parents showed that teaching learning
domain is totally absent in the Makuey Woreda schools. Therefore, from the above discussion, it
can be deduced that the implementation of teaching learning domain in implementing SIP was at
low level.

4.5.2.5.The learning environment domain

School improvement framework MoE (2007) suggested that schools should create a learning
environment that could effectively meet the diverse needs of the learners. School class rooms
should be neat, conducive and attractive in order to inspire students motivation and learning
process. In this regard, this domain mainly focuses on making school environment safety and
health relation for teaching learning process since, safety and conducive-learning environment
helps school leaders, teachers and students to feel secured and contributed to their maximum
potential for teaching and learning process.

44
Table 4.8: Response on Learning Environment Domain

No Items Respondents Responses

SD D UD A SA
1 Students learning desire has been Teachers - 31 11 18 -
improved % 0 51.7 18.3 30 0
Students - 42 29 11 -
% 0 51.2 35.4 13.4 0
2 Assistance is given to the Teachers - 31 8 21 -
students to help them develop % 0 51.7 13.3 35 0
self-confidence and responsible Students 34 29 19 - -
% 41.5 35.4 23.1 0 0
3 School environment is safe, Teachers 7 32 21 - -
suitable, supportive and % 11.7 53.3 35 0 0
appealing for students Students 13 41 28 - -
% 16 50 34 0 0
4 Adequate latrine is allocated for Teachers 3 43 14 - -
male and female students % 5 71.7 23.3 0 0
Students 45 21 16 - -
% 55 25.5 19.5 0 0
5 Class-rooms are suitable for Teachers 11 34 15 - -
teaching-learning % 18.3 56.7 25 0 0
Students 41 18 23 - -
% 50 22 28 0 0
6 Student free from bullying and Teachers - 7 26 24 -
fear of stigma % 0 11.7 43.3 40 0
Students - 41 11 30 -
% 0 50 13.4 36.6 0

Table 4.8, indicates that the opinions of respondents on the implementation of safety and
conducive learning environment in each sample schools. As seen from the data, 31 (51.7 %)
teachers and 42 (51.2 %) students disagree that the students learning desire has been improved,
11 (18.3 %) teachers and 29 (35.4 %) students rate undecided, 18 (30 %) teachers and 11 (13.4 %)
45
students agree. Regarding the assistance given to the students to help them develop self-
confidence and responsible 31 (51.7 %) teachers and 63 (76.9 %) students disagree, 8 (13.3 %)
teachers and 19 (23.1 %) students’ rate undecided, only 21 (35 %) teachers agree. In case of
school environment is safe, suitable, supportive and appealing for students; 39 (65 %) teachers
and 54 (66 %) students disagree, 21 (35 %) teachers and 28 (34 %) students rate undecided.
About adequate latrine is allocated for male and female students the result show that 46 (76.7 %)
teachers and 66 (80.5 %) students disagree, 14 (23.3 %) teachers and 16 (19.5 %) students rate
undecided. 45 (75 %) teachers and 59 (72 %) students disagree that class-rooms are suitable for
teaching-learning, 15 (25 %) teachers and 23 (28 %) students rate undecided. 7 (11.7 %) teachers
and 41 (50 %) students disagree that student are free from bullying and fear of stigma, 26
(43.3 %) teachers and 11 (13.4 %) students rate undecided, 24 (40 %) teachers and 30 (36.6 %)
students agree.

Table 7.1, shows the observation checklist results on learning environment domain, it generally
indicates that the implementation of safety and conducive learning environment in each sample
schools is low. The class rooms are not suitable for teaching and learning process, adequacy of
latrine were not provided for both genders, in some cases there are schools which does not have
toilets at all. However, the researcher observed that in some schools there were attempts to make
school compound attractive for school community and to facilitate teaching learning process.
Focus group discussion with active parents about learning environment domain, reveal that the
school environment is not safe and healthy; it does not meet the standards and it is not suitable to
the teaching and learning activities and there is inadequate awareness of SIP implementation
from school principals and Woreda education office. This indicates that there is no safe and
healthy relationship among school communities’.

4.5.3. Monitoring and evaluation of SIP implementation

Monitoring is periodical follow up of a certain program to achieve its intended objectives. It also
helps to make an immediate action if there are gaps between planed and the implemented
activities. This can be feasible when the concerned bodies are involved in monitoring and
evaluation. For effective implementation of the program it is logical to put workable monitoring,
and evaluation mechanism in to practice.

46
Table 4.9: Response on School Improvement Program Monitoring and Evaluation

No Items Respondents Responses

SD D UD A SA
1 School improvement committees Teachers 22 12 20 6 -
have fixed meeting schedules for % 36.7 20 33.3 10 0
their school visits
2 Woreda educational experts and Teachers 18 16 16 8 2
supervisors have fixed schedules % 30 26.7 26.7 13.3 3.3
for their school visits
3 Support is given for internal Teachers 19 14 13 10 4
supervisors % 31.6 23.3 21.7 16.7 6.7
4 Students receive regular feedback Teachers 7 27 18 8 -
about what they need to do to % 11.7 45 30 13.3 0
improve. Students 39 33 10 - -
% 47.6 40.2 12.2 0 0
5 Teachers receive regular feedback Teachers - 10 29 13 8
on how they are doing % 0 16.7 48.3 21.7 13.3

Table 4.9, item 1 indicates if school improvement committees have a fixed meeting schedule for
their school visit. Out of the total teacher respondents the majority 34 (56.7 %) teachers disagree,
20 (33.3 %) teachers undecided, and only 6 (10 %) teachers agree. Item 2 deals with the woreda
educational experts and supervisors if they has fixed schedules for their school visits and give
technical support for the implementation of SIP, to justify this issues the majority 34 (56.7 %) of
teachers disagree, 16 (26.7 %) of teachers rated undecided and only 10 (16.6 %) of teachers
agree. Under item 3, respondents rate the support given for internal supervisors. Accordingly, the
results of the respondents show that the majority 33 (54.9 %) of teachers disagree, 13 (21.7 %) of
teachers rated undecided, 14 (23.4 %) of teachers agree. Item 4 identify if students receive
feedback about what they need to do to improve. The results show that the majority 34 (56.7 %)
of teachers and 72 (87.8 %) of students disagree, 18 (30 %) of teachers and 10 (12.2 %) rated
undecided, 8 (13.3 %) of teachers agree. Finally item 5 of the table show the respondents on the
idea that if teachers receive regular feedback on how they are doing the response show that 10
(16.7 %) of teachers disagree, 29 (48.3 %) of teachers undecided, 21 (35 %) of teachers agree.

47
Moreover, the data obtained from the interview from Woreda education office core process
owner, supervisors and principals revealed that supervisors were not fully familiarized in
activities of schools, and there is no continuous follow-up and supervision to evaluate the
performance of schools and implementation of school improvement program. The monitoring
and evaluation given by Primary school supervisors and woreda educational experts to
implement SIP was low. This showed that insufficient monitoring and evaluation was one of the
factors which influences SIP implementation. The FGD conducted with active parents show that
there is problem in Woreda education office that there is a lack of well design order to make
checklist for monitoring and evaluation to check the school activities. This shows that, there is
unwillingness in educational experts to run the activities and to involve the community in the
approval of the SIP.

4.5.4. The Success to Implement SIP

The most successful way to stifle school improvement program is to involve members in any
school activities; first to deny themselves in areas which they are equipped to function. It is the
responsibilities of every government primary school principal to discover where, and how, each
member can contribute to the school improvement program and strategies. All who are willing
do have a place, the key is to find that place.

48
 Table 4.10: the Successful of the Government Primary School to Implement SIP

No Items Respondents Responses

SD D UD A SA M S.D
1 Progress (successful) brought Teachers 13 28 19 - - 1.28 .452
to the government primary % 21.7 46.7 31.6 0 0
school with respect to Students 11 48 23 - - 1.55 .772
classroom management % 13.4 58.5 28.1 0 0
2 Progress (successful) brought Teachers 14 24 12 8 2 1.63 .762
to the government primary % 23.3 40 20 13.3 3.4
school with respect to school Students 8 38 27 9 - 2.89 .315
environment % 10 46 33 11 0
3 The contribution to Teachers - 23 20 17 - 1.32 .468
government primary school to % 0 38.3 33.3 28.4 0
brought positive relationships Students 15 33 17 15 2 1.28 .452
between teachers and students % 40.3 20.7 18.3
18.3 2.4
in light of SIP
4 The participation of parents to Teachers - 10 15 26 9 1.55 .772
follow up their children and % 0 16.7 25 43.3 15
involved in their learning to Students 10 23 12 21 16 1.63 .762
improve their achievements % 12.2 28 14.6 25.6 19.6

From table 4.10, indicates the response of the respondents about the successfulness of the
government primary schools to implement SIP. About progress (successful) brought to the
government primary school with respect to classroom management 41 (68.4 %) teachers and 59
(71.9 %) students disagree, 19 (31.6 %) teachers and 23 (28.1 %) students choose undecided, and
no one agree. Regarding the progress (successful) brought to the government primary school
with respect to school environment 38 (63.3 %) of teachers and 46 (56 %) students disagree, 12
(20 %) teachers and 27 (33 %) students choose undecided, 10 (16.7 %) teachers and 9 (11 %)
students agree.

The contribution to government primary school to bring positive relationships between teachers
and students in light of SIP 23 (38.3 %) teachers and 48 (58.6 %) students disagree, 20 (33.3 %)
teachers and 17 (20.7 %) students choose undecided, 17 (28.4 %) teachers and 17 (20.7 %)
49
students agree. Regarding the participation of parents to follow up their children and involved in
their learning to improve their achievements 10 (16.7 %) teachers and 33 (40.2 %) students
disagree, 15 (25 %) teachers and 12 (14.6 %) students chose undecided, 35 (58.3 %) teachers and
37 (45.2 %) students agree.

Interview was conducted with principals, supervisors and Woreda education office coreproce
owner. shows that, there was a weakness both side region and Woreda level, regional educational
bureau do not have well record for the problem that they were investigated, no fixed checklist
and schedule. In addition to Woreda level many of supervisors, active-parent, teachers and
students are lament the fact that although they do not attend school improvement program
training seminars, they are not encouraged to become involved in SIP activities when they return
to their schools. Consequently, many primary schools are not active in school improvement
program, lack of enough school demand and lack of well-trained people in their midst.
Occasionally some members of stakeholders will voluntarily offer their service, but many others
conclude that they are neither needed nor wanted.

Further investigation through focused group discussion with active- parents, shows the same
response with the above mention, as a researcher observed, there is unwillingness from active-
parents to participate in session meeting and do not come on time. Researcher observed lack of
awareness, knowledge gap and ignorant are main common problem in the study area. This might
imply the government fails to bring positive change to entire government primary schools in
Makuey Woreda.

4.5.5. Challenges on SIP Implementation

The implementation of SIP might be challenged due to various reasons in this respect, Fullan
(2001) has noted that when a new initiative is introduced undoubtedly, it will create difficult to
both individuals and institutions. Thus, for success of the program it needs to consider
challenging factors prior to the implementation of the program. Moreover, it was indicated in the
review of related literature that, several factors are likely to affect the effective implementation
of SIP. Accordingly, the respondents provided their responses in the way summarized in the
following table.

50
Table 4.11: Teachers and Students Response on the Challenges of the School Improvement
Program

No Items Respond Responses

ents SD D UD A SA M S.D
1 Lack of training on SIP Teachers - - 7 18 35 2.89 .315
negatively affects its % 0 0 11.7 30 58.3
implementation Students - - 12 23 47 2.85 .356
% 0 0 14.7 28 57.3
2 Low stakeholders Teachers - - 9 24 27 2.88 .329
involvement in SIP % 0 0 15 40 45
implementation Students - 10 5 29 38 2.70 .679
% 0 12.2 6 35.4 46.4
3 The competency of Teachers - - 8 18 34 2.90 .299
leadership is not enough % 0 0 13.3 30 56.7
to lead SIP Students - - 14 21 47 2.66 .757
implementation % 0 0 17 25.7 57.3
4 Poor performance of Teachers - - 7 24 29 2.91 .281
school improvement % 0 0 11.7 40
48.3
committee
5 poor performance of Teachers - - 8 20 32 2.90 .299
follow up supervisor on % 0 0 13.4 33.3
53.3
SIP implementation
6 Insufficient school
Teachers - - 9 11 40 2.89 .315
facilities (lack of % 0 0 15 18.3 66.7
laboratory apparatus and Students - - 12 29 41 2.85 .356
pedagogy center % 0 0 14.6 35.3 50
7 Lack of financial resourceTeachers - 10 5 22 23 2.88 .329
to implement SIP % 0 16.7 8.3 36.7 38.3
8 Inadequate of planning Teachers - 14 - 38 8 2.90 .299
SIP % 0 23.3 0 63.3 13.4
Students - 4 9 29 40 2.84 .367
% 0 5 10 35.4 49.6
9 Lack of teachers' Teachers 7 26 18 9 - 2.91 .281
commitment to implement % 11.7 43.3 30 15 0
SIP Students - - 10 14 58 2.76 .658
% 0 0 12.2 17 70.8
Table 4.11, present the responses of the respondents on the challenges faced in the school
improvement program implementation. Considering if lack of training on SIP negatively affects
its implementation 2 (11.7 %) teachers and 12 (14.7 %) students choose undecided, the majority
51
53 (88.3 %) teachers and 70 (85.3 %) students agree. About low stakeholders involvement in SIP
implementation 10 (12.2 %) students disagree, 9 (15 %) teachers and 5 (6 %) students choose
undecided, 51 (85 %) teachers and 67 (81.8 %) students agree. Regarding the leadership
competency to lead SIP implementation 8 (13.3 %) teachers and 14 (17 %) students’ choose
undecided, while the majority 52 (86.7 %) teachers and 68 (83 %) students agree that the
leadership competency is not enough to lead SIP implementation. About the poor performance of
school improvement committee 7 (11.7 %) teachers’ rate undecided, 53 (88.3 %) teachers agree
that the performance of school improvement committee is poor.

8 (13.4 %) teachers’ rate undecided, 52 (86.6 %) teachers agree that there is poor performance of
follow up of supervisors on SIP implementation. 9 (15 %) teachers and 12 (14.6 %) students’
rate undecided, 51 (85 %) teachers and 70 (85.3 %) students agree that school facilities are
insufficient (lack of laboratory apparatus and pedagogy center). 10 (16.7 %) teachers disagree on
the lack of financial resource to implement SIP, 5 (8.3 %) teachers rate undecided, 45 (75 %)
agree on the lack of financial resource to implement SIP. 14 (23.3 %) teachers and 4 (5 %)
students’ disagree that there is inadequate of planning SIP. 9 (10 %) students rate undecided, the
majority 46 (76.7 %) teachers and 69 (85 %) students agree that there is inadequate of SIP
planning in the schools. 33 (45 %) teachers disagree on the lack of teachers' commitment to
`implement SIP, 18 (30 %) teachers and 10 (12.2 %) students rate undecided, 9 (15 %) teachers
and 72 (87.8 %) students agree that there a lack of teachers' commitment to implement SIP.

Data collected through interview from Woreda education offices core process owner, supervisors,
principals and focus group discussion, showed that insufficient school facilities (lack of
laboratory, library and pedagogical centers), inability of school committee to play their role and
lack of follow-up and supervision on SIP implementation are found to be the main three top
series problems to the effectiveness of SIP implementation.

52
 CHAPTER FIVE
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the analysis and interpretation of the data gathered from questionnaires,
interviews, focus group discussions and observation, the following summary, conclusions and
recommendations were made. Chapter five is comprised of three sections the first section
provides review of the study and its finding in summary form. The second section draws
conclusion based on findings. The third section consists of recommendations for teachers,
principals, supervisors, Woreda educational office core process owner.

5.4. Summary
To provide quality education, the capacity of school has to be developed. The school
improvement program enables schools to provide quality of education by capacitating them,
taking experiences of schools having good performance in country and the experiences of other
countries. However, when new program is introduced, there are challenges and resistances from
implementers. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the status of school
improvement program implementation in government primary schools of Makuey Woreda,
Gambella Regional States, to identify the level of awareness teachers, principals, parents and
students, the six school improvement program domains and the challenges of school
improvement program dimension were measured through the perception of teachers and students
using questionnaires. However, the perceptions of principals, supervisors, Woreda educational
office core process owner and active-parents were measured through qualitative method, to
identify basic problems encountered with the implementation of SIP and then to provide
recommendations to the identified problems.

In order to achieve this purpose the study was aimed at seeking answers for the following basic
questions.

1. What is the current status of school implementation program in Makuey Woreda primary
schools?
2. To what extents are the stakeholders are aware about school improvement program?
3. How stakeholders are involved and contribute for the implementation of school
improvement program /SIP/ activities in Makuey Woreda primary schools?

53
 4. What are the major challenges that affect implementation of SIP in Makuey Woreda
Primary school?
5. What measures need to be taken to make SIP more successful?

Thus, to conduct the study appropriate research method, sampling techniques and instruments
have been developed and employed. In this research both quantitative and qualitative research
approaches and survey method were implemented. As to sampling technique simple random
sampling and purposive sampling method are used. Separate questionnaires were prepared and
distributed to 60 teachers and 82 students. Moreover, interviews were made with 16 school
principals, 2 supervisors and 1 woreda education office core process owner. In addition, FGD
was conducted with 32 active parents to obtain qualitative data which are used to supplement the
quantitative analysis after categorizing and developing into main themes. Again, observation
check list and document review were also used to strengthen and enrich the data obtained from
the questionnaire and interview. The quantitative data obtained from questionnaire were
analyzed using statistical tools such as percentage and mean value and data obtained from
interview, focus group discussion and document analysis was qualitatively narrated and
described. Then from the analysis made, the following major findings were drawn.

 In most of the schools, the result of the study showed that the status of SIP practice was
low. The schools are not receiving any training recently, the only training was conducted
in 2008 & 2009 only 52 (63.4%) from the presenece teachers took SIP training and 36.6%
(30) of teachers did not attend the SIP training and all students 82 (100%) did not attend
SIP training at all.
 There are also low level of school improvement program planning in five dimensions in
difference behaviors with an aggregate mean value of 1.678 and 1.63 for students and
teachers respectively preparation on self-evaluation of school's strategic planning were
not used to analyze the school strategic plan.
 Similarly as to SIP committee took to lead and coordinate to develop the strategic plan,
the study revealed that all the respondent groups had at low level of agreement; only
school directors were considered as responsible bodies.
 Moreover, the study showed that there was weak involvement of stake holders (teachers,
students and parents) in the planning and implementation of SIP plan. The responsibility
of planning was remaining in the hands of school principals.

54
  The most common selected factors affecting the implementation of SIP responded by
entire respondent revealed the shortage of budget for implementation of SIP, insufficient
school facilities (lack of laboratory, library and pedagogical centers), inability of school
committee to play their role, low stakeholders participation and Lack of follow-up and
supervision on SIP implementation found to be the series problems to the effectiveness of
SIP implementation. Over all, concerning the domains of the SIP, it is impossible to say
they are implemented as expected.
 With regard to the provision of adequate orientation to stakeholder on SIP, the status of
organizing and allocating the necessary resources for the implementation of SIP, and on
the collecting of the necessary information in line with four school domains for the
purpose of SIP implementation, the majority of respondents had set their disagreement.
 Concerning the challenges of SIP, The study indicated that there was weakness of
teachers, students and community in the involvement of planning SIP. The responsibility
of planning SIP remained in the hands of school leaders. It was also found out that the
presence of facilities, lack of teachers‘ commitment to implement school improvement
program, inadequacy of planning of school improvement program, lack of financial
resources to implement school improvement program, poor performance of school
improvement program committee and in effectiveness of leadership to lead school
improvement program inhibited schools from the implementation of school improvement
program.

5.5. Conclusions
There is no doubt that successful school improvement is related to systematically planning,
monitoring and evaluation process which enable to increase student‟s achievement. Hence,the
key stake holders (teachers, students and parents) should also be encouraged to have active
participation in SIP planning and implementation by continuously awaring them . The extent of
providing monitoring and evaluation by concerned bodies and the extent of school leadership
capacity determine the extent of stake holders‟ participation in planning and implementing SIP.
Therefore, based on the findings of the study the following conclusions were drawn:-

1. Lack of awareness and capacity building of stakeholders make school improvement

program implementation very difficult if not impossible. Lack of practical training on the
use of SIP guidelines was the major challenges that hinder the implementation of SIP in

55
 government primary schools of Makuey Woreda Gambella Regional State. The major
activities of SIP such as provision of adequate awareness regarding SIP training to
stakeholders such as teachers, principals, supervisors, students and active-parents was
absence.
2. The study revealed that the planning of SIP for implementation in most schools does not
involve conducting self-evaluation. Moreover, there was weak involvement of stake
holders (teachers, students and parents) in the planning of SIP, the responsibility of
planning remained in the hands of school leaders due to lack of commitment of leaders to
invite stakeholders in planning. This implies that low involvement of key stakeholders in
planning and implementing SIP was the most challenging factor affecting the success of
SIP in the schools.
3. Majority of schools implement SIP at low level performance with respect to four domains;
there is no safe and conducive learning environment with insufficient school facilities
(lack of laboratory, toilets, library and pedagogical centers), low implementation of
teaching and learning process, ineffectiveness of leadership and management capacity to
lead school improvement program and there is no community involvement in the process.
4. The extent of monitoring and evaluation process carried out was weak; there is no
continuous follow up/supervision/to evaluates the performance of schools and providing
professional /technical /support /by educational officials.
5. Shortage of budget for implementation of SIP, and Lack of follow-up and supervision on
SIP implementation are series problems to the effectiveness of SIP implementation.
6. Inability of school committee to play their role and low stakeholders participation.
7. Lack of commitment to implement school improvement program and poor performance
of school improvement program committee.

5.6. Recommendations
The central focus of SIP was to improving student’s achievements, in order to improve academic
achievements of students, schools should implement school improvement program properly by
making awareness creation for all stakeholders to implement and improve the four domains of
SIP, perform continuous monitoring and evaluation on the implementation of SIP and identifying
challenges that affect the implementation of SIP. Therefore, based on the findings and
conclusions drawn the following recommendations are forwarded.

56
1. The finding of the study revealed that lack of training on SIP plan implementation
affected the program. Woreda education officers and school personnel in collaboration
with the regional education bureaus heads; have to provide capabity building and
awareness creation trainings to develop common understanding on the school
improvement program plan implementation among the school communities before and
during the academic year commenced.
2. School leaders need to make network with woreda education officers and make
awareness and inspiration for the communities, parents, students and teachers on the
objectives of SIP planning and the role of all stakeholders.
3. The school principals have to give attention to planning, and should initiate commitments
in developing strategic plan that entirely involves conducting self-evaluation by
participating key stakeholder (teachers, students and parents) and deploy by building
consensus among stakeholders for effective program implementation.
4. Schools should make an effort to mobilize and involve stakeholders (teachers, students
and parents) to participate for the success of SIP implementation.
5. Woreda educational bureau and schools should make great effort to strengthen their
relationship with local authorities and communities by creating forum so that they could
get necessary support from them and create mechanisms that enable school principals,
teachers, parents, students and educational officials at every level of education sectors to
work together, trust each other on SIP implementation.
6. Stakeholders could be encouraged to come-up with some school improvement program
decisional areas and find possible solutions to the problems posed. This would help them
to contribute their share in the school improvement program preparation and
implementation without being excluded by the principals.
7. Empowering the capacity of school principals and SIP team committee in each school to
work successfully and closely with stakeholders so as to make the implementation visible
requires attention.
8. The government should allocate additional budget to the school grant for successful SIP
implementation and moreover, in order to solve their problems of finance and material
resource, the schools should design income-generating mechanisms by taking in to
account the available school facilities and technical experts to make involvement of all
the school stakeholders. On top of this, Woreda educational office and schools should
57
 allocate budget to motivate school principals, teachers and other stakeholders who
perform well.
9. The monitoring, evaluation and supporting to SIP implementation should be done
continuously and timely to increase demand for active-learning and upgrade school
principals and teachers to have high experience skills knowledge in their respected
schools.
10. Promoting the involvement of stakeholders and avoided unwillingness, ignorance to
participate in the implementation process of SIP to starting from the beginning.
11. The community should have the experience of supporting schools in different ways such
as supervising the classroom condition, checking of school environment concerning
about toilets if they were divided in to two male and female, repairing desks, constructing
teacher’s staff and financial support.
12. The cluster supervisors made regular supervision to support schools. They report the
problems encountered to the woreda education office that could react on the problem
reported.
13. Moreover, schools should evaluate the implementation process of their school; they could
improve their weakness in the future to implement SIP effectively.

58
 6. REFERENCE
Abaya Gelaleta and Tamiru Jote (2009).Educational supervision school improvement
(unpublished teaching material).Jimma University.

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

Admas, D. (1993). Defining Educational Quality: Improving Educational Quality Project

Publication. Arlington, VA: Institute for International Research.

Desalegn Chalchisa (2010). Continuous Teachers Professional Development: The Ethiopian

context. Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.

Development Activities (2nd edition). London: David Fulton publishers Ltd.

Dimmock, C and et al (1993) School-based Management and School Effectiveness. New York:
Routledge.

EIC (2000).School Improvement Planning a Handbook for Principals, Teachers, and School
Councils. Retrieved from:http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/sihend.pdf

EQAO (2005).Guide to School and Board: A Handbook for School and Board Leaders. Toronto,
Ontario M5B 2M9.

Frew, Amsale. (2010). Practices and Challenges of Implementing School Improvement Program
in Primary Schools o Jimma City Administration. Unpublished Senior Essay. Addis
Ababa University.

Fullan, M. (1991). The new Meaning of Educational Change. New York: Teachers College Press.

Harris, A. (2001). Building the Capacity for School Improvement: School Leadership and
Management, Final Report, 21(3): 261–270.

Harris, A. (2002). School Improvement: What's in It for Schools? London: RoutledgeFalmer

Press.

Harris, A. (2005) Teacher Leadership and School Improvement. In Harris, A. et al. (Eds.),
Effective Leadership for School Improvement. London: Routledgefalmer.

XI
Hopkins, D. (1994). School Improvement in an Era of Change. Promotion Qualityin School.
London: Cassell.

Hopkins, D. (2001). School Improvement for Real. Routledge.Flamer.

Hopkins, D. (2002). Improving the Quality of Education for All: A Handbook of Staff

Hopkins, D. (2004). School Improvement for Real (Eds.). London: RouledgeFalmer.

Hopkins, D. (2005).Instructional Leadership and school Improvement. In Harris, a. et al. (Eds.)

Effective Leadership for School Improvement London: RouledgeFalmer.

Hopkins, D., and Harris, A. (1997).School improvement: Improving Education Quality for All.
Supporting for Learning, Vol. 12 No 4.Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9604.00035/pdf

Hussen, T. and Postlwaite, N. (1994). The International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd Ed).
Oxford: Elsevier science Ltd.

improvement. Unpublished Guideline Paper. Addis Ababa: Ministry of Education.

Jose, F.and Gonzales (2002) Method of research and Thesis writing. Paris: national book store,
Acebost.

Lemessa Abdi (2012). The implementation of school improvement program in secondary school
of east Wollega Zone

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

London: Continuum. Jeilu Oumer. (2009). the challenges of free primary education in
Ethiopia. Paris, UNESCO,

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating Research in to Action. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.

MoE (1994).Education and Training Policy: Federal Democratic Republic Government of

Ethiopia. (1st Edition), Addis Ababa. St. George Printing Press

MoE (2005). Education Sector Development Program III. Addis Ababa: MOE.

MoE (2006).Decentralized Management of Education in Ethiopia: A reference manual. Addis

Ababa, Ethiopia.

XII
MoE (2007).School Improvement Program Framework. Addis Ababa

MoE (2007).The school improvement program (Blue Print). Addis Ababa: Ministry of Education.

MoE (2009).Continuous professional development for primary and secondary school Teachers,
leaders, and supervisors in Ethiopia: The Framework. Addis Ababa(Unpublished
Training Manual).

MoE (2010). School Improvement Program Guidelines Final Draft. Improving the quality of
Education and Student Results for All Children at primary and Secondary Schools.

MoE (2010).Education Sector Development Program IV (ESDP IV).Addis Ababa Ministry of

Education.

MoE, (2007).General Education Quality Improvement Program /GEQIP/.Program Document.

Addis Ababa

MoE, (2012). School improvement program Frame work (revised edition). Addis Ababa.

MoE.(2007). Teachers’ development program in Ethiopia (Blue Print). Addis Ababa:

Plan international Sudan (2006). End term evaluation of school improvement project. Khartoum

Rondenelli, et al.(1990). Planning Education Reforms in Developing Countries: The

Contingency Approach. Durhan and London: Duke University Press.

Simpkins, K. (2009). Quality education and the essential need for school

XIII
 Appendix
A Questionaire for Students
Addis Abba University
College: Education and Behavioral Studies
Department: Educational Planning and Management
Dear respondent,

This questionnaire is intended for collecting data on the implementation of School improvement
program in primary schools. The required data is of vital importance for the success of this study
which is a partial fulfillment for a master‘s degree. As such, the value of this questionnaire relies
on your genuine responses because there is no right or wrong answer, what is important is that
you provide your genuine response to the best of your knowledge. The information gathered
through this questionnaire will be used strictly for academic purposes and will be kept
confidential.
Note:
- No need of writing your name.
- Make a tick mark () on the space provided to show your responses.
- If you change your response, please cancel the former one.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation

Part 1. General Information

1. Name of the school
2. Name of the Woreda
3. 3. Sex: Male Female
4. Age: lessthan 18 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 above55
5. Grade
a. Grade 7 b. Grade 8
6. Did you receive any training on SIP as teachers?
a. Yes b. No

XIV
Part 2. Objective related question

The following are statements about the Four Domains of school improvement program. Please
show the degree of your agreement or disagreement by putting () in the space provided under
the rating scales that closely represent your opinion. 5(Strongly agree) 4(Agree) 3(Undecided)
2(Disagree) 1(strongly disagree) Very high= 5 High= 4 Medium= 3 Low= 2 Very Low= 1

1. School Improvement Planning

S/No Items Scales
5 4 3 2 1
1. Strategic plan of the school was prepared based on self-
evaluation.

2. The training provided relates to SIP planning

3. The involvement of stakeholders in developing SIP plan
4. Provision of enough information to teaches on national strategic
plan
5. Teachers' planning skill meet the need of various students

2. Leadership and Management Domain

S/No Item 5 4 3 2 1
1. School leaders communicating with the community on the
program toward school improvement

3. Community involvement domain

No Items Scales
5 4 3 2 1
1. Community participation on SIP plan to improve standard and
future interest
2. Parents have information about school self evaluation process
3. Parent are involve in decision making process

XV
 4. Teaching and Learning Domain
S/No Item 5 4 3 2 1
1. Teaching process meet the general need of students and curriculum
standard
2. Teachers' know their students
3. Suitability and appropriateness of lesson planning and students'
progress provision
4. Quality of teaching and teachers' professional progress is very high
5. Teachers are identifying individual need of students
6. Students' centered method of teaching was practiced
7. Teachers' are giving the tutorial support to the students
8. Laboratory services are provided to the students
9. Teachers are using different techniques to motivate students

5. Learning Environment Domain

S/No Item Scales
5 4 3 2 1
1. Students learning desire has been improved
2. Assistance is given to the students to help them develop
self-confidence and responsible
3. School environment is safe, suitable, supportive and
appealing for students
4. Adequate latrine is allocated for male and female students
5. Class-rooms are suitable for teaching-learning
6. Student free from bullying and fear of stigma
6. School Improvement Program Monitoring and Evaluation
S/No Item Scale
5 4 3 2 1
1. Students receive regular feedback about what they need to do
to improve.

XVI
 7. The successful of government primary school to implement SIP
S/no Item Scale
5 4 3 2 1
1. Progress( successful ) brought to the government primary
school with respect to classroom management
2. Progress(successful) brought to the government primary
school with respect to school environment
3. The contribution to government primary school to brought
positive relationship between teacher and student in light of
SIP
4. The participation of parent to follow up their children and
involved in their learning to improve their achievements

8. Challenges of School Improvement Program

S/No Item 5 4 3 2 1
1. Lack of training on SIP negatively affects its
implementation
2. Low stakeholders involvement in SIP implementation
3. Insufficient school facilities (lack of laboratory apparatus
and pedagogy center)
4. Inadequate of planning SIP
5. Lack of teachers‘ commitment to implement SIP

XVII
 B Questionnaire for Teachers
Addis Abba University
College: Education and Behavioral Studies
Department: Educational Planning and Management

Dear respondent,

This questionnaire is intended for collecting data on the implementation of School improvement
program in primary schools. The required data is of vital importance for the success of this study
which is a partial fulfillment for a master‘s degree. As such, the value of this questionnaire relies
on your genuine responses because there is no right or wrong answer, what is important is that
you provide your genuine response to the best of your knowledge. The information gathered
through this questionnaire will be used strictly for academic purposes and will be kept
confidential.

Note:
- No need of writing your name.
- Make a tick mark () on the space provided to show your responses.
- If you change your response, please cancel the former one.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation

Part 1. General Information

Personal background Information’s
1. Name of the school
2. Name of the Woreda
3. 3. Sex: Male Female
4. 4. Age: 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 above55
5. Educational Background:
a. Diploma b. Bachelor degree c. Master degree
d. Doctorate degree e. Any other
6. Years of Service in the school: ______________ years.
7. Did you receive any training on SIP?
a. Yes b. No

XVIII
Part 2. Objective related questions
The following are statements about the Four Domains of school improvement program. Please
show the degree of your agreement or disagreement by putting () in the space provided under
the rating scales that closely represent your opinion. 5(Strongly agree) 4(Agree) 3(Undecided)
2(Disagree) 1(strongly disagree) Very high= 5 High= 4 Medium= 3 Low= 2 Very Low= 1

1. School Improvement Planning

S/No Items Scales
5 4 3 2 1
1. Strategic plan of the school was prepared based on self-evaluation.

2. The training provided relates to SIP planning

3. The involvement of stakeholders in developing SIP plan
4. Provision of enough information to teaches on national strategic
plan
5. Teachers' planning skill meet the need of various students

2. Leadership and Management Domain

S/No Item 5 4 3 2 1
1. School leaders designed to improve the learning environment by
beautifying the school compound
2. School leaders communicating with the community on the
program toward school improvement
3. Principals have been regularly supervising classroom instruction
to give constructive feedback for teachers

3. Community involvement domain

No Items Scales
5 4 3 2 1
1. Community participation on SIP plan to improve standard and
future interest
2. parents have information about school self-evaluation process
3. Parent are involve in decision making process

XIX
 4. Teaching and Learning Domain
S/No Item 5 4 3 2 1
1. Teaching process meet the general need of students and
curriculum standard
2. Teachers' know their students
3. Suitability and appropriateness of lesson planning and students'
progress provision
4. Quality of teaching and teachers' professional progress is very
high
5. Teachers are identifying individual need of students
6. Students' centered method of teaching was practiced
7. Teachers' are giving the tutorial support to the students
8. Laboratory services are provided to the students
9. Teachers are using different techniques to motivate students

5. Learning Environment Domain

S/No Item Scales
5 4 3 2 1
1. Students learning desire has been improved
2. Assistance is given to the students to help them develop
self-confidence and responsible
3. School environment is safe, suitable, supportive and
appealing for students
4. Adequate latrine is allocated for male and female students
5. Class-rooms are suitable for teaching-learning
6. Student free from bullying and fear of stigma

XX
 6. School Improvement Program Monitoring and Evaluation
S/No Item Scale
5 4 3 2 1
1. School improvement committees have fixed meeting time.
2. Woreda educational experts and supervisors have fixed
schedules for their school visits.
3. Support is given for internal supervisors.
4. Students receive regular feedback about what they need to do
to improve.
5. Teachers receive regular feedback on how they are doing.

6. The successful of government primary school to implement SIP

S/no Item Scale
5 4 3 2 1
1. Progress (successful) brought to the government primary
school with respect to classroom management
2. Progress (successful) brought to the government primary school
with respect to school environment
3. The contribution to government primary school to brought
positive relationship between teacher and student in light of SIP
4. The participation of parent to follow up their children and
involved in their learning to improve their achievements

7. Challenges of School Improvement Program

S/No Item 5 4 3 2 1
1. Lack of training on SIP negatively affects its
implementation
2. Low stakeholders involvement in SIP implementation
3. The competency of leadership is not enough to lead SIP
implementation
4. Poor performance of school improvement committee
5. Poor performance of follow up supervisors on SIP

XXI
 implementation
6. Insufficient school facilities (lack of laboratory apparatus
and pedagogy center)
7. Lack of financial resources to implement SIP
8. Inadequate of planning SIP
9. Lack of teachers‘ commitment to implement SIP

XXII
 C Interview Guide
Addis Abba University
College: Education and Behavioral Studies
Department: Educational Planning and Management
Interview Guide line with Woreda education office coreproce owner, supervisors and
principals.

Questions related to practices of principals in facilitating Teaching and Learning

1. Did you receive any training on School Improvement Program? Yes No

If No what is the reason
2. How many time your school conducting training for school improvement program?
3. For what purpose of your school conducting training of school improvement program?
4. Parent, together with local community were actively involved in creating conducive
school environment?
5. Do you think that woreda education offices have given professional and support to the
school in order to encourage the implementation of school improvement program?
6. Do you think that the school grants were properly managed and used for the intended
purpose in the primary schools? What was its contribution in improving the primary
school?
7. Do you observe that primary school principals have put adequate efforts to implement the
program? Have they adequate awareness on the implementation of the program?
8. How do you evaluate students ‘achievement after the program has been introduced into
the primary school?
9. What progress (success) has the school improvement program brought to the primary
schools with respect to the school domains?
10. What are the major factors that are hampered the implementation of the program in the
primary school?
11. What measures need to be taken to make SIP more successful?

Thank you!!

XXIII
 D FGD Guide
Addis Abba University
College: Education and Behavioral Studies
Department: Educational Planning and Management
Focus Group Discussion Guide line

Questions related to practices of principals, teachers and parent in facilitating Teaching and
Learning

1. Is there any positive relationship between teachers and student?

2. Is your school compound is highly safe for teacher and student and they feel secure in the
school?
3. Is there any teaching and learning materials are adequately available in the school?
4. Do you think that classroom are suitable place and have conducive condition for teaching
and learning?
5. What participation were given to parents to follow up their children and involved in their
learning to improve their achievements?
6. What are the major factors that are hampered the implementation of the program?
7. What progress (success) has the school improvement program brought to you with
respect to the school domains?

Thank you!!

XXIV
 Table 7.1: Observation Check List Results

No Activities Conditions School Total

Nyini- Gier Puokueth Kondey Batokdol Tor- Bildak Adura No %
nyang morok
1 School Environment
1.1. The extent to Good - 0
which school have Satisfactory - 0
a well kept and Poor - 0
attractive school V. Poor/Absent X X X X X X X X 8 100
compound
1.2. The availability of Good - 0
toilet for both male
Satisfactory - 0
and female
students separately Poor X 1 12.5
V. Poor/Absent X X X X X X X 7 87.5
1.3. The availability of Good - 0
water supply
Satisfactory - 0
Poor - 0
V. Poor/Absent X X X X X X X X 8 100
1.4. The availability of Good - 0
school fence
Satisfactory - 0
Poor X 1 12.5
V. Poor/Absent X X X X X X X 7 87.5
2. Class room learning facilities
2.1. Avalibility of Good - 0
students furnature
Satisfactory - 0

XXV
 such as table chair Poor - 0
V. Poor/Absent X X X X X X X X 8 100
2.2. Availability Good - 0
enough ofstudents
Satisfactory - 0
class rooms
Poor X 1 12.5
V. Poor/Absent X X X X X X X 7 87.5
2.3. Existence of Good - 0
laboratory with
Satisfactory - 0
sufficient chemical
and equiments Poor - 0
V. Poor/Absent X X X X X X X X 8 100
2.4. Availability of Good - 0
library with
Satisfactory - 0
sufficient books
Poor - 0
V. Poor/Absent X X X X X X X X 8 100
2.5. Availability of Good - 0
pedagogical center
Satisfactory - 0
and teaching aids
Poor X 1 12.5
V. Poor/Absent X X X X X X X 7 87.5

XXVI