HAWASSA UNIVERSITY

POST-GRADUATE PROGRAME

ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES OF DECENTERALIZATION IN EDUCATION

SECTOR: THE CASE OF LOKA ABAYA WOREDA SECONDARY SCHOOLS

By: DANIEL DAYE

Advisor: Melese Milossa (PhD candidate)

CO-Advisor: Endalkachew Garedew (MA)

JUNE 2017
HAWASSA, ETHIOPIA
 HAWASSA UNIVERSITY OF GOVERNANCE AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF DEVLOPMENT MANAGEMENT
POST-GRADUATE PROGRAME

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the requirements of

Degree of Master of Art, in department of
Development Management.

By: DANIEL DAYE

JUNE, 2017
Hawassa, Ethiopia
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all I would to thanks almighty God because helped to come to this end by passing
different hindrances.
Next, I would like to extend my thanks to officials and experts of Woreda Education office as
well as school principals, teachers, ETB, PTA,SIC and other members that participated in this
study for their hospitality, time and willingness. Without their active participation this study
would have been impossible.
My honest thanks goes to my advisor, Melesse Milossa (PhD candidate), and Co-advisory
Endalkachew Garedew (MA) whom I patiently consulted in matters of my study, for contributing
greatly in making this study possible.

I would also extend my gratitude to Ato Teshager Taddesse (MA), and Ato Asfaw Kassa (MA),
for their constructive comments and suggestions in undertaking the research.
Finally, my gratitude goes to my family specially my wife Alemwork Yigezu for the help and
encouragement they gave me throughout my study.

I
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................................................................................................. I

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................II

LIST OF TABLE...........................................................................................................................III

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...................................................................................... V

ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................VI

CHAPTER ONE....................................................................................... .....................................1

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1

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

1.2 Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................. ........5

1.3 Research questions.....................................................................................................................7

1.4 Objectives of the Study ............................................................................................................ 7

1.5. Significance of the Study........................................................................................................ 8

1.6. Scope of the Study .................................................................................................................. 8

1.7 Limitations of the Study .......................................................................................................... 8

1.8 Ethical consideration.................................................................................................................9

1.9 Definition of Key Terms ......................................................................................................... 9

1.10 Organization of the Study.....................................................................................................10

II
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE .............................................11

2.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................11

2.2 The concept and Definition of Decentralization....................................................................11

2.3 Decentralization and Socio-Economic Development ............................................................ 12

2.4 Decentralized Governance and Capacity ...............................................................................13

2.5 Education Decentralization .....................................................................................................13

2.6 Countries Experience with Education Decentralization........................................................, 13

2.7 The Federal Ministry of Education ........................................................................................14

2.8. Reginal Education Bureau......................................................................................................15

2.9 Level of Educational Decentralization................................................................................... 17

2.10 Effect of Decentralization on School Management..............................................................17

2.11 Local Governance: Accountability .....................................................................................18

2.12 Local School Governance and Leadership ......................................................................... 19

2.13 School Program Management.............................................................................................. 19

2.14 School Resources Management............................................................................................ 21

2.15 Challenges to Effective School Discipline ...........................................................................23

2.16 Decision-making in School Management............................................................................ 24

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY..................................... 27

3.1INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................27

3.2The Research Design..............................................................................................................28

3.3 Data Sources ..........................................................................................................................29

3.4 Sample and Sampling Techniques ........................................................................................ 29

III
3.5 Instruments and Procedures of Data Collection ......................................................................32

3.6 Methods of Data Analysis ......................................................................................................33

CHAPTER FOR: PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF ................34

4.1INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................34

. 4.2 Characteristics of the Respondents....................................................................................... 34

4.3 Analysis of the Findings of the Study.................................................................................... 37

5CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................62

5.1INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................62

5.2 Summary................................................................................................................................ 62

5.3 Conclusions..............................................................................................................................66

5.4Recommendations....................................................................................................................67

References................................ ....................................................................................................70

Appendices...................................................................................................................................76

IV
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 List of sample schools and teacher working in the sample schools............................30

Table 2 List of Sample size and sampling technique of Schools, Principals and v/principal...31

.Table 3 FGDs and Key informants sample size and sampling technique..............................32
Table 1 Frequency distribution of respondents by sex and age................................................36

Table 2 Frequency distribution of respondents by educational background and

experiences.....................................................................................................................................37

Table 3 Frequency distribution of respondents by their responsibility....................................38

Table 4: 1 The extent of principals‘ responsibility to implement decentralized education

management...................................................................................................................................40

Table5: 1 Teachers role to implement decentralized Educational decision making and service
delivery..........................................................................................................................................47
Table6.1. School committee role to implement decentralized educational decision making and
services delivery............................................................................................................................55

V
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CPD Continuous Professional Development

CEEC Civics and Ethical Education club
ESDP Education Sector Development Program
ETB Ethiopian Training Board
EU European Union
EFA Education For All
FEDR Federal Ethiopia Republic
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GEQIP General Education Quality Improvement Program
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
LCs Local Councils
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MoE Ministry of Education
PASDP Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to end Poverty
PTA Parent-Teacher Association
SADC Southern African Development Program
SCC Students committee council
SIC School Improvement Committee
SIP School Improvement Program
SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples' Region
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Science
UN-Habitat United Nations Human Settlement Program

WB World Bank

WEO Woreda Education Office

VI
 ABSTRACT
The main purpose of this study was to assess the Achievements and challenges of decentralized
Educational management in secondary schools of Loka- Abaya woreda. To identify weakness and
strength; descriptive research design survey and mixed method was used. 109 respondents were from both
Loka-Abaya and Ossa Secondary schools principals and teachers for questionnaires. WEO experts and
supervisors were interviewed. ETB, PTA, SIC, CEEC and SCC members of secondary schools Loka-
Abaya Woreda were used as FGD unit. The secondary schools were selected from Loka-Abaya woreda.
Survey questionnaire, key informant, FGD interviews were used to collect the necessary information. The
findings showed that there are shared responsibilities in the transferring and recruit teaching staff, and
financial and material resources administration. Performance appraisal and Evaluation were implemented
at school level. Developing the teachers‘ capacity and teachers‘ class management at school level is in
good stand. Nevertheless, the findings indicated some core limitations and gaps which require timely
corrective measures. These are the existence of weak school administration system; lack of financial
resources, lack of experienced teachers; lack of female participation, lack of motivational, inadequacy of
training and instructional aide, poor dedication, lack of parents‘ participation, ineffective and incapability
of school committee, students‘ follow-up the class is not satisfactory. These all are challenges of
decentralization of educational managements, in Loka-Abaya woreda secondary schools.
Recommendations were also given to WEO of supervisors to put certain strategies that make stakeholders
more accountable for discharging their responsibility, school heads to plan to provide training to the
school teachers according to an ongoing program, school heads to make an effort to increase teachers‘ job
satisfaction, the teachers should strengthen their role in class management and teaching-learning process
and parents to support their children at home, follow-up in doing home-work and study and the role of
parents in school learning and teaching to be motivated and encouraged.
 CHAPTER ONE

1 INTRODUCTION
This first chapter deals with the background of the study, statement of the problem, basic
research questions, objectives of the study, significance, delimitation of the study, ethical
consideration, limitations of the study, definition of key terms and organization of the study.

1.1 Background of the study

Educational management and leadership are at the heart of any school life which is responsible
to ensure that all other aspects of school are held together and developed. Educational
management is focused as the process of planning, organizing, directing and controlling
organization resources to the predetermined goals (Davidoff, 2002: 169). This implies that
management in education is the process of arranging resources (human, material, and financial)
which help for the provision of quality education in decentralized school management.

Developing and developed countries are decentralizing their education systems. In some
countries, especially developing countries, educational decentralization is part of a larger
exercise of devolving all public services. In sub-Saharan Africa the factors that encourage
centralization include positive effects such as political stability and economic development, as
well as push factors like existing regional inequalities and inadequacies, real and perceived, of
central governments. Multilateral and bilateral donor communities are encouraging countries in
the South to decentralize and/or privatize public services. Among these countries Uganda has
proceeded quickly in an almost all-at-once decentralization strategy (Naidoo, 2002; Steiner,
2006).

The decentralization of education management from the central level to local (school) level, thus,
gives power to school to take responsibility for their internal management. In transferring power
in this way to lower level in educational organization is giving additional responsibility to
schools. This is often identified as school autonomy or school based management. It may take
the form of creating elected or appointed school councils and give budget and authority to make
important educational decisions. It is also empowering school directors and other committee
members to make decisions within schools (Mulford, 2003; 3).

One of the main objectives of decentralization is to improve social, political and economic
efficiencies of both the central and regional government. Decentralization can exist when the
regional government perceives power to raise some types of taxes and acts as an executing
agency with minimizing influence from the central government (Tanzi, 1995).

In recent years, many countries have increasingly resorted to decentralization measures as a way
to realize effective public service delivery and local self rule. Several political systems
implemented a range of decentralization policies that are designed to bestow different degrees of
power, responsibility and resources-sharing rights to decentralized entities. While some
experimented with the devolved type of decentralization, others experimented with the de-
concentrated and delegated variant. On the other hand, other writers affirmed that developing
countries are reluctant to implement decentralization policy adequately. This is mainly due to
weak organizational structure systems, poor information unlimited needs, weak capacity and
administrative diseconomies (Fenta, 1998)

The decentralization of education management from the system to school level, various
leadership functions what the group does, how it is done and important decisions about what to
do it are made through the use of interactive process involving many different people who
influence each other. This shared, diffused process of leadership are likely to pay more attention
to the complex influence process that occur among members, the context and conditions that
determine when and how organizations practice shared Leadership (Yukl, 2006; P.22).

As a unitary state, Ethiopia has for long time operated under a highly centralized system, with
the center assuming full responsibility for policy. Ethiopian political systems under successive
regimes of the past are noted for their restriction on space for local self-rule and institutional
development. In addition the country is home to several ethnic and cultural groups whose
relationship is loaded with incompatibilities that could pose potential and actual threats to peace
and stability (Tegegne and Kassahun 2004).

2
The Ethiopian Federal system assumed its present shape and form in 1995 following the
adoption of national constitution. The 1995 federal constitution recognized nine regional states
(Tigray, Afar, Amhara, Oromia, Somalia, Benishangul Gumuz ,SNNPS, Gambella and Harari)
and two special administration areas (the cities of Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa) (Solomon,
2007, Tegegne and Kassahun,2004)

The Ethiopia education and training policy, had recognized that the schools, either primary or
secondary to be led by/ with an overall coordination and democratic leadership by boards or
committees, consisting of members from the community (FDRE: 1994; P.29). Accordingly, in
schools, Kebele education and training boards and Parent teacher associations have their own
specified leadership roles. They have key roles in the overall aspects of their schools ranging
from need identification and management to control of school affairs (MOE, 2002).

However, not surprisingly in reality, the nature and extent of teachers and parents involvement
varies across schools. In addition, the charges have also resulted in a major challenge for school
leaders to move to ―a new way of doing things that requires participation and collaboration with
all stakeholders (Cranston, 2001:2). The review of Ethiopian education and training policy
implementation indicated that the role of leadership in secondary schools was found to be less
than satisfactory (MOE, 2008).

In light of the above mentioned; when We come to see educational status in Sidama Zone
Particularly Loka Abaya Woreda; the recent Educational statistics indicates that there are 46
schools in the Woreda Administration; from these, 44 are 1-8 grade level and 2 are secondary
schools. The number of teachers‘ working in grade 1-10 is 768 primary and secondary school
teachers, out of which 593 are males and 175 are females. The 2015/16 statics indicates that the
number of the students in the primary schools is 55913.the number of students increased by
21913 as compared 2012/13 statics of primary and secondary school student population.

3
In addition to that with the increase of the number of students; there is increment of quality of
the students result and gradually showing incremental changes according to the goal .Even if
there is incremental change; still there is turn over, drop out etc among the students even among
the teachers in Sidama zone particularly in study site. Clearly this indicates that the large number
of children and teachers even all school community demanding for education service delivery
which in turn ask for an effective , efficient and collaborative decentralized decision making
process to ensure satisfaction among school community

Therefore from the researcher experience point of view the existed poor interpersonal skill and
managerial role of most secondary schools governance affected decentralized service deliver in
Sidama zone today. So that schools are seriously affected by teachers‘ dissatisfaction and turn
over, low students‘ achievement, constraints of financial and material resources, students
discipline problem. Thus, this study was conducted to assess decentralization achievements and
challenges of education service delivery in the case of Loka-Abaya woreda general secondary
schools of Sidama zone. Through the various findings, it aims at contributing to the improved
management implementation; student management, the extent of principals‘ responsibility to
implement decentralized education decision making and service delivery, role of teachers and
school committees that affect Decentralized Education decision making and service delivery in
addition the prevailing challenges that affect decentralization management at study site.

4
1.2. Statement of the Problem

Almost all educational decentralization reforms assume that decision making closer to the school
level will foster a greater degree of student and teacher motivation, parent participation, a sense
of ownership, curriculum adaptation to local settings, and community willingness to contribute
financially to schools. They also assume that implementation of the decentralization policy will
lead to significant changes. As a process of delivering educational services in a democratic
country, decentralization as a power-sharing device makes good sense since the educational
process should belong to regions and Woredas and not the state. Consequently, strong,
determined and focused leadership must necessarily come from top down and bottom up,
presenting opportunities and not simply problems which are transferred from one level to
another. An effective decentralization initiative requires collaborative and comprehensive
advanced planning followed by a spirit of experimentation, a willingness to be flexible and take
risks, and the persistence to pursue reform in the long-term (Hanson, 1997:7).

Studies undertaken by researchers like, (Meheret, 1998:7), (Kumera, 2006:6), (Tegegne and
Kassahun, 2004:45) show that financial, human and physical resource constraints have inhibited
the successful implementation of decentralization in the provision of public service delivery in
Ethiopia. As they pointed out, most of the problems in the successful implementation of
decentralization in the provision of public service delivery in the Woreda government are
inadequate budget allocation, poor and inadequate revenue base to undertake service delivery,
scarcity of skilled manpower to provide public service delivery- in effective, efficient and quality
of social services in accountable, responsive and transparent fashion, lack of experience in
decentralizes government and effective legal and policy framework, absence in the process of
popular community participation, and lack of efficient organizational structure and locally
adopted working system for planning and budgeting.

5
Apart from this, insufficient experiences in managing federalism, wide gap in administrative and
institutional capacity among the regions have posed serious challenges to the success of
Ethiopia‘s decentralization policy (Fenta, 1998). These factors affect the successful
implementation of decentralization to provide service delivery in Ethiopia in general and the
study areas of Woreda in particular.

The review of the Ethiopian education and training policy and its implementation had also
identified that, leadership in secondary schools was found to be less than satisfactory in
performing technical management, building school culture and attractive school compound,
instituting participatory decision making and school management for teachers and students,
creating orderly school environment by clarifying duties and responsibilities, being skillful in
human relations and communicating with different stakeholders (MOE, 2008).

Having these problems into consideration, the government believed that secondary schools
required more qualified leadership, and paid a great attention to improve qualities in schools.
Among the efforts made were, providing long and short term trainings in managing, workshops,
conference and seminars. Moreover the government has designed educational leadership training
programs for primary as well as secondary school principals. However, when the researcher sees,
there is poor collaboration in decision making, conflicts among school members, lack of interest
on the part of teacher to engage in activities outside and inside class room, students‘ ethical
problems and absenteeism, poor students‘ results. In addition , there is poor follow up,
monitoring system, evaluation and feedback. Also there is no interest among parent-teacher
association and kebele education and training board on school duties and there is interest to be
paid, lack of awareness about issues and they have educational back ground problem.
Regarding principals, poor awareness how to devolve or share authority among stakeholders
and how to give and take responsibilities and to create ownership sense for all educational
duties among all stakeholders.

6
Moreover, poor competence to set accountability and transparence for all educational affairs. In
case of this, there are a number of community grievances for the decentralized education
decision making and service delivery conditions in Loka-Abaya woreda general secondary
schools. Hence, the research forwarded the suggestions to narrow the gaps in assuring schools
capacity on the availability of high trained and motivated stuff, strong and collaborative
leadership, level of coordination and communication in empowering people to be more involved
in the teaching –learning activities and making them accountable and responsible. Therefore, in
order to obtain clear evidence and to justify their dissatisfaction for the services delivery,
researcher interested to conduct this thesis in Loka-Abaya woreda Sidama Zone.

1.3 Research questions

1. In What extent principals implement Decentralized Education management in secondary

school of Loka-Abaya woreda?

2. What are the teachers, PTA and ETB roles in Education decision making and service
delivery in secondary schools of Loka-Abaya woreda?
3. What are the challenges that affecting decentralized education management decision making
and service delivery in secondary schools of Loka-Abaya woreda?

1.4. Objectives of the study

This study has both general and specific objectives.

1.4.1. General objective

The general objective of this study was to assess achievements and challenges of decentralized
education decision making and service delivery in Loka-Abaya woreda secondary schools of
Sidama zone administration. The findings of this research was identified the secondary education
administration system and called for concerted action from concerned bodies. With this general
objective, this paper tried to assess the level of education decentralization, the issues on
principals‘ managerial factor, teachers‘ role and professional capacity development, teaching-
learning process, role of school committees i.e. PTA and ETB.

7
1.4.2. Specific objectives

• To identify the extent of principals responsibility to implement Decentralized Education

management in secondary schools of Loka-Abaya woreda.

• To investigate the roles of teachers, PTA and ETB in Education decision making and
service delivery in secondary schools of Loka-Abaya woreda.

• To find out the challenges that affecting decentralization management implementation in

secondary schools of Loka Abaya woreda.

1.5 Significance of the study.

The researcher believed that conducting research successful on the problem under study can help
those who are working for school improvement. Therefore, this study; Serve as a reference for
principals and other members of the school to minimize the problem and it helps the woreda
education office by providing inputs for their effort to reduce the problem. In addition to that, be
inputs for Sidama zone education department by identifying the major factors that are hindering
collaborative implementation of the decentralized education decision making and service
delivery by school stakeholders. Moreover, serve as a basis for detailed and further study for
those who have interest in same topic.

1.6. Scope of the study

Decentralized Education decision making and service delivery in secondary schools is now the
critical problem, the researcher assumed that the problem is not limited only in secondary
schools Sidama Zone, but it may prevalently affect schools of Loka Abaya Woreda . Therefore,
this study was carried out in 2 selected secondary school of Loka Abaya woreda in sidama zone.
In this study an attempt and focus was made to assess the achievements and challenges of
education decentralization implemented at school level, to identify the extent of principals
responsibility to implement Decentralized Educational management, to investigate the role of
teachers, PTA and ETB that affect decentralized education decision making and service delivery
and to find out challenges that affecting decentralized Education management at secondary
schools. 8
1.7. Limitations of the study
As in other social science researches, this study might face some limitations while doing
research. Such as availability of secondary data sources in schools regarding to educational
decentralization service delivery because the program is relatively newly implemented following
the applicability of decentralization particularize devolution at school level. Other serious
limitation of the study was the time constraints faced the researcher to go out to collect data from
the field, shortage of finance is considered as major challenges.
In addition to these other main influencing limitation was the difficulty of getting questionnaires
administered in full. Thus, getting the organized and complied data required longer time than
anticipated. Therefore, despite the above shortcoming the researcher managed to bring the
research to an end.

1.8. Ethical consideration

Participation of respondents was strictly on voluntary basis. Participants was fully informed as
to the purpose of the study and consented verbally. Measures were taken to ensure the respect,
dignity and freedom of each individual participating in this study. Participants were informed
that the information they provide was kept confidential and was not disclosed to anyone else
including anyone in the schools or outside of school.

1.9 Operational Definitions of Terms

Following are key terms and phrases as used in the context of this research.

Decentralization is transferring authority and responsibility from the central government to field
units or agencies, corporations, non-government and semi-autonomous public authorities etc. to
plan, manage, raise and allocate resources.

De-concentration: typically transfers tasks and work, but not authority, to other units within an
organization.

9
Delegation: transfers decision-making authority from higher to lower hierarchical units.
However, this authority can be withdrawn at the discretion of the delegating unit.

Devolution: is a real form of decentralization which involves the process of transferring decision
making and implementation powers, functions, responsibilities and resources to legal constituted
local governments.

Privatization: refers to transfer of responsibility for public functions to voluntary organizations

or private enterprises to mobilize the capacity and initiatives of civil society organizations Work
for social and economic development.

Educational Decentralization: The process transfers decision-making powers from central

Ministry of Education to intermediate governments, local governments, communities, and
schools.

Educational Management: The process of planning, organizing, directing and controlling the
activities of educational institutions by utilizing human and material resources so as effectively
and efficiently accomplish functions of teaching, extension work and research.

1.10. Organization of the Study

The study was organized into five chapters. The first chapter was deal with the background and
statement of the problem, research question, objectives, limitation and delimitation of the study.
The second chapter was address review of literature related to the topic under study. In chapter
three, the methodology of the study was addressed. In the fourth chapter the data was analyzed,
presented, and interpreted. The summary, conclusion, and recommendation were treated in the
last chap

10
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 INTRODUCTION
This section reviews general literature on the achievements and challenges of decentralization of
education management. Comprise, the Concepts and Definitions of decentralization,
decentralization and Socio-Economic Development, Decentralized Governance and Capacity,
Education Decentralization, Countries Experience with Education Decentralization, The Federal
Ministry of Education, Regional Education Bureau, Level of Educational Decentralization, Effect
of Decentralization on School Management, Local Governance: Accountability, Local School
Governance and Leadership, School Program Management, School Resources Management,
Prevalence of Challenges to Effective School Discipline and Decision-making in School
Management
2.2 The Concepts and Definitions of Decentralization
Decentralization is a major governance theme in recent years that form an item in reform agenda.
The concept of decentralization has too many definitions. However, common definition made by
different writers is focused on this definition. Decentralization is the transfer of decision-making
from the central government to field units or agencies, corporations, non-government and
semiautonomous public authorities etc. This typically entails giving those offices increased
autonomy in terms of plan, managing, raising and allocating resources (Hdned, 2005:4)
2.2.1 Delegation:

Delegation means "transfer of managerial responsibility for specifically designed functions to

organizations that are outside the regular bureaucratic structure and that are only indirectly
controlled by the central government (Rondioelli 1983). In delegation, ultimate accountability
lies with the sovereign authority. Certain specified functions and duties are transferred to agents
with a broad discretion to carry them out. Although there is considerable autonomy accorded in
delegation, it is controlled by the central government directives.

11
 This form of transfer of government responsibilities and authority is done in favor of non-public
entities where planning and administrative responsibility or other public functions are transferred
from government to voluntary, private, or non-governmental institutions with clear benefits and
involvement of the public (Mairaed, 2007).

2.2.2 Privatization

The term decentralization has sometimes been referred to as privatization when it denotes the
transfer of tasks formerly performed by state agencies to the private sector. Its advocates argue
that since power is being transferred from the central government to private firms it is
decentralization since it increases customer‘s choices (Manor 1995). It denotes that, the transfer
of school decision making, responsibilities and management towards a private entity
(UNESCO,2003).The term ‗privatization ‘is an umbrella term referring to many different
educational programs and policies. Privatization involves ―shifting responsibilities for activities
from the public sector to private or quasi-public organizations that are not part of the government
structure (Rondinelli, 1983).

2.3 Decentralization and Socio-Economic Development

The Ethiopian government drive to bring socio-economic development in the country is reflected
in the various strategies, policies and sector development programs it has developed. One of t most
visible impacts of decentralization on socio-economic development is in the area of education
service. The administration of primary and secondary education has been decentralized and as a
result local administration is responsible to deliver these services. Studies indicate that gross
enrollment ratio in primary and secondary schools has increased and the gender gap has declined.
While this may be an achievement of the regional governments in raising the service coverage, the
quality of the service leaves much to be desired. The very high teacher/student ratio affects the
quality of education. Communities‘ participation in Parent-Teacher Association/Kebele education
and training boards with a fair degree of technical assistance of expertise at the disposal of woreda
sector offices, the committees undertake their respective tasks that are mainly corresponding with
the needs of their consistencies (Assefa and Gebre-Egziabher, 2007:42.)
 2.4 Decentralized Governance and Capacity
Institution capacity is defined as the ability to set goals, anticipate needs, make informed
decisions, and attract and manage resources in order to meet those goals. In order to be
competent, agencies must be well equipped with adequately trained personnel. The availability
and full utilization of high trained and motivated staff are of paramount importance for achieving
success in any institution building process (Assefa and Gebre-Egziabher, 2007:46).
2.5 Education Decentralization
The decentralization of school management helps to make authority down to the school level and
give pavement to better efficiency and effectiveness. It also requires the participation of
stakeholders such as policy makers, teachers, students, parents and community members. As per
(Workneh, 2012: 4), School-based management reforms that devolve decision-making authority
to the schools, for example, have had important effects on teacher performance and student
learning by making schools more accountable to their communities. However, researches from
other developing countries show that the decentralization policy does not bring any change as
intended. Decentralization has been initiated in many developing countries as a means of
successful services delivery due to the pressure from international organizations. ―It is not an
internally driven force that will bring realistic outcomes in the system‖. Poverty, difficult social-
political situations and limited economic opportunities were challenges that have been hindered
decimalization from bringing about the intended outcomes in local contexts (Workneh, 2012: 4).
2.6 Countries Experience with Education Decentralization
There is by now a vast accumulated international experience with education decentralization;
among developing regions, the most widespread and far-reaching decentralization reforms have
occurred in Latin America. Argentina transferred the responsibility for financing and providing
K-12 education from the central government to its provincial governments with elected
governors and parliaments; teachers were transferred to provincial payrolls. The central
government retained responsibilities for assessing student performance, for promoting education
reform, and for financing special education programs for the disadvantaged (Hdned, 2003:5).

13
African experience with education decentralization is increasingly rich. It can be viewed on a
spectrum ranging from token efforts at encouraging community participation to real
empowerment of citizens. Parents‘ associations can be found in most countries of the region;
their powers are often vague and advisory in nature. When parents‘ associations are given real
power, the most common form is responsibility for helping manage and finance school
rehabilitation and construction. Parents, and the community, seldom have much say over the real
business of the school—teaching. In a few countries, governments now provide some financing
to parent‘s associations or school management committees to purchase instructional materials
and supplies, textbooks, and the like. Less commonly, school committees or local governments
are given the authority to contract non civil service teachers. And, least common of all is giving
school committees powers to hire and fire teachers and administrators (Hdned, 2003: iv). The
Ugandan education system was one of the best in Sub-Saharan Africa. Uganda, decentralization
is taken to mean the reassignment of some decision-making (management) authority,
responsibility and tasks from the central government to local governments. Legal, financial,
administrative and political management of public functions has become the responsibility of the
local community, under the leadership of Local Councils (LCs). Education has been
decentralized to local governments beginning with primary (an equivalence of elementary)
education. Many programs have been put in place to facilitate decentralization of education
service delivery. It appears that the decentralization of education has been more effect at the
elementary level than at other levels. Most countries in Africa have attempted to shift
responsibilities from MoE offices in the capital city to MoE offices at the regional and/or district
level. Ghana, for example, has undertaken several such decentralization initiatives over the years,
leading most recently to authorizing district assemblies to assume control over primary an

14
2.7 The Federal Ministry of Education
The Federal Ministry of education will undertake the following duties and responsibilities in
addition to those given to it by proclamation. Prepare annual plan of special support in close
consultation with and on the basis of the needs of pastoralist regions and implement the plan;
Build the capacity of Educational management bodies and professionals of pastoralist regions
continuously, and provide technical and professional support to the regions; Solicit additional
resources to pastoralist regions if need be ; Raise the level of commitment of concerned decision
makers, educational management bodies and professionals to the development of pastoralist
education ; Introduce innovative practices and delivery modes acquired from the experiences of
other countries and the findings of local research activities to expand access and improve quality
of education in pastoralist areas.

2.8. Regional Education Bureau

The Education Bureau will undertake the following duties and responsibilities; Prepare curricula
for formal primary education, alternative basic education and non- formal adult education in
accordance with the Education and Training Policy, the curriculum framework developed at
federal level, and by taking into account the socio-economic and cultural realities of the
pastoralist population ; Prepare teaching - learning materials on the basis of the above stated
curricula for the various target groups and programs, publish and distribute them to schools /
learning centers ; Ensure that educational management bodies and professionals at various levels
are fully committed to the education of pastoralists ; Provide material, professional and technical
support to woreda education offices, and build the capacity of educational management bodies
and professionals at woreda level ; Coordinate, monitor and evaluate the activities of non-
governmental and civic organizations that are engaged in pastoralist education,

15
as well as give them the necessary support to make their efforts fruitful ; Devise and implement
an incentive system that will attract teachers and other professionals to work in the region ;
Clearly identify the region's needs for special support and communicate them to the federal
ministry of education on time. Woreda Education Office Accordingly, based on the book
entailed Educational Management, Community Participation and Finance Guideline of Ministry
of Education (2002), and proclamation woreda adopt the following major duties and
responsibilities ; - Build and manage ABE centers, formal schools, boarding schools and hostel
with the active participation of the community ; Devise strategies for the realization of EFA
goals in the woreda. Provide consolidated supervisory support to ABE centers and allocate the
necessary budget and transportation facility accordingly; Organize forums for continuous short-
term in -service training and experience -sharing for ABE facilitators in the woreda. Put in place
an incentive system that will attract teachers and professionals to work in the woreda. Sensitize,
mobilize and build the capacity of the woreda community so as to enable it to actively participate
in the construction of schools educational management ; Establish close working relationship
with governmental and non - government partners so as to collaborate work for the common
goals of pastoralist education in the woreda. Encourage educated people working in other sector
offices in the Woreda to participate in the education of pastoralists Make situational assessment
of educational activities in the woreda, identify needs for special support and apply the support
received to improve education in the woreda.

According to ESDP III (2005) the deepening of decentralization to Woreda level has contributed
to strengthen Woreda level educational institutions. It has also offered opportunities to
strengthen local governance, encourage initiatives, increase accountability, broaden the
participation of communities, and improve school management and transparency. However, the
review of Ethiopian education and training policy and its implementation in had showed that
leadership in secondary schools was found to be less than satisfactory (MOE, 2008). After this
review onwards, the government had taken several measures to improve qualities of leadership in
schools.

16
However, the SNNPREB general education quality assurance package, community mobilization
document has reported that most of principals assigned in schools were unable to lead their
schools by organizing and facilitating the wider school community to achieve school goals
(SNNPR-EB, 2011/12).Kebele Education and Training Management Board Give decision on
teacher‘s career appraisal when it is presented to it by the school director; Recruit teachers and
other staff members according to the demand of the schools ; Mobilize the local community to
extend financial, material, labor etc. contribution to build the capacity of the schools and enhance
the educational activities in their locality ; Encourage the schools are decided to be built in the
area by the government, draw requirements that make a certain place eligible to host the
construction of the schools and Coordinate the local community and other bodies.‘

Any activity carried out in the schools in aimed at supporting improved teaching and learning
process. The arm of teaching and learning process is to raise the learning progress and
achievements of students. Students are the primary users of this process. In order to get quality
education students are expected to play their own part in the development of their school. They
are expected to involve in the maintained and improvement of their own environment (MOE
2006, 136).One of the stakeholders described in the SIP is student clubs. The document outlines
the importance of student participation in school decision-making for improving teaching and
learning. Thus, to ensure the participation of students in school activities (MOE 1998): Students
should get suitable opportunities to work in partnership with adults in schools ; Students should
get training and responsibility that help them to offer solutions to problems ; Schools should
work cooperatively with schools to promote student participation ; Students should take
initiatives to establish clubs, and take responsibility for improving students‘ discipline in
classroom ; Students should conduct surveys on the consistency of teaching methods and
Students should participate in activities that connect their school with parents and the
community.

17
2.9 Level of Educational Decentralization
An effective decentralization strategy requires a balanced, power-sharing arrangement between
the center setting policy and the periphery carrying it out. The power-sharing arrangement
devised by reform planners must avoid the classic problem often encountered in Latin America
where responsibility is decentralized but without the necessary authority, training or financing to
carry out the tasks. Consequently, an organization and management analysis should be conducted
early to determine where in the educational system specific responsibility and authority should
be assigned, and no such assignment should be made unless the essential support (e.g., finance,
technical training) exists to carry out decisions. Surprisingly, most decentralization reforms are
initiated with very little previous study and a minimal amount of serious planning (Hanson,
1997:8).

2.10 Effect of Decentralization on School Management

In the course of development, countries and private sectors have realized the importance of
decentralization. This is with the understanding that decentralization empowers or enables people
become more involved in the planning and implementation of their activities and this in turn will
make them more accountable and responsible (Madeira, 2012: 4). More has been said about
educational decentralization. However, more work and study is required to answer the questions
that ―can educational decentralization raise quality‖? The main fundamental rationale for school
decentralization is to enhance governance and autonomy by those managing schools. The
understanding is that, when school management is empowered and given full autonomy and
freedom, service deliver and quality of output will improve and implementation efficiency
increases drastically (Donald and Boon-Ling, 2007:1).
Experience has shown that organizational productivity and quality service deliver show
tremendous improvement through increased accountability felling and management ownership.
This holds true in school level decentralization (Donald and Boon-Ling, 2007:8).

18
2.11 Local Governance: Accountability
Decentralization (devolution) offers significant opportunities to improve government
accountability. It creates the possibility of exerting stronger pressures on government
performance both from below (the demand side) and from above (the supply side).
Decentralization reshapes power relations among the local residents, local governments,
producers of local government services, and higher levels of government including central
government (Yilmaz et al., 2008:1).

2.11.1 Social Accountability

Social accountability mechanisms can give poor and marginalized people a more direct voice in
the policies that local governments formulate and implement. Such mechanisms are often part of
broader efforts to deepen democracy and ensure a robust public sphere for citizens to give
feedback and control government action. The practical form of the participatory practices and
arrangements include public meetings, citizen juries, forums for various social groups, such as
the young or the elderly, neighborhood assemblies, multi-choice referendums accompanied by
active public debate and discussions, and activism by nongovernmental organizations and other
community groups (Yilmaz et al., 2008:24). Public accountability in the administrative sphere
refers to local civil servants being accountable to their top administrative officers and to such
outside officials or entities as public audit officers, ombudsmen, regulators, a particular
administrative agency, or a board or committee. Similar measures are needed to ensure
transparency and openness of the procurement process to avoid misconduct and corruption.
These measures call for appropriate channels for administrative audits that can be initiated by
bureaucrats or elected leaders and by civil society groups (Yilmaz et al., 2008:18).

19
2.12 Local School Governance and Leadership
There are two basic models of decision-making authority in a decentralized school: (1) Authority
is transferred to the school director who receives advice on decision making from an elected
schools council (e.g., parents, teachers, staff, and sometimes students); (2) Authority is
transferred to the school council where a power-sharing arrangement exists between the council
and the school director, each with defined duties and responsibilities. Both models can be
effective depending on the goodwill of the participants. Strong, collaborative leadership from the
school director and the council members is important. The danger of the first model is that some
directors may routinely ignore the advice of the council. The second model can be problematic if
the director and the council members engage in disputes over task responsibilities. The second
operates more effectively if the school council concerns itself with setting overall goals and
policy for the development of the school and the evaluation of its progress, but does not become
involved in micro-managing day-to-day affairs. Under this second model, the school director
should not try to set policy. In all cases, if the school councilor the school director violates
national educational policy, the ministry of education would be entitled to intervene (Hanson,
1997:28).

2.13. School Program Management

2.13.1 Developing plans to manage and lead
School improvement plans, or development plans, generally include a sequence of activities
beginning with a needs assessment or situational analysis, followed by planning, implementation
or action, and evaluation, leading to a further development cycle. The idea of the school as a
learning organization is promoting a learning culture. Staff will need support in developing the
kind of critical reflection that makes ongoing professional learning possible. Staff meetings
should focus as much on key learning and teaching issues as they do on administrative matters
(Department of Education, South Africa, 2008:33)

20
2.13.2 Improving school Administration
In education decentralization system, the school supervisor of the school must study trends and
issues in the curriculum continuously. He/she needs to stay well-informed of what the role of
true professional is in the school setting. Supervisors have to talk with teachers about innovative
ideas in teaching. The supervisor and the teacher must learn from each other in improving the
curriculum; visit classrooms to guide in curriculum improvement; red current literature on trends
and development in the curriculum; meet with other supervisors in the district and conduct
research to improve the curriculum (Bahaskara Rao and Ediger, 2003:20).

2.13.3 Supervision
The supervisor of institution has many responsibilities in working with teachers in improving the
curriculum in decentralization system. A knowledgeable supervisor who is reflective, caring and
cooperative is needed to work effectively with teachers. Continuous growth and development is
necessary for each supervisor to function effectively in working with teachers in curriculum
improvement. The effects of working with teachers‘ quality program of supervision should be
reflected with in pupils in the classroom setting (Bahaskara Rao and Ediger, 2003:27)

2.13.4 Collaboration Teaching and Learning

There are numerous situations whereby collaboration is possible in the school setting. Working
together collectively for the good of institution is a must. Thus teachers, students, and principals
need to have a common agenda in curriculum improvement in terms of school cooperation to
develop professional schools and PTA cooperation to change from what is to what should be in
terms of objective, learning opportunities and evaluation procedures for students. (Bahaskara
Rao and Ediger, 2003:184).

21
2.13.5 Performance Management
It is seen as a means of funding and helping schools to improve by supporting and enhancing the
work of teachers. In education decentralization reforms, it ensures that attention is focused on
effective teaching and school leadership which in turn, benefits students, teachers and schools,
and thus should become an integral part of the school‘s culture. Thus works through a three-stage
of cycle: Planning: team leaders (head teachers, deputy head teachers and senior teachers with
management responsibilities) meet with individual teachers to discuss the latter‘s proprieties.
These priorities are to include both the needs of pupils, but also the professional priorities of
teachers and the objective are to be agreed for the coming year. Monitoring: the teacher and the
team leader keep progress under review and take supportive action when it is needed.
Reviewing: this is undertaken at the end of the year and aims at recognize achievements and
identify area for improvement and professional development (Coleman and Glover, 2010:89)

2.13.6 School climate and Culture

Moral and motivation of school personal must be appraised continuously to develop and
maintain teacher enthusiasm and purpose for teaching is also important element in education
decentralization. (Bahaskara Rao and Ediger, 2003, 99) stressed the following broad goals of
school administrators; quality human relations in working with teachers, knowledge of the
curriculum, including multi-cultural education working with the lay public, working with support
personnel, and working effectively with work crew in the school setting.

22
2.14 School Resources Management
2.14.1 Continuous Teacher Professional Development
The Continuous Professional Development (CPD) program is important to raise the achievement
of students in schools and higher education institutions in decentralized education system. Like
any development, school performance is a function of improving the quality of teachers and the
school teaching community through continuous professional development. Knowledge and skills
are not static but improve continuously through further training and experience. Carrier
development is a longer term exercise. Through carrier development teach skill enhancement
programs, teachers – students and parents relationship and accountability felling will improved
with ultimate result of school quality improvement. According to MOE (2009:16) all teachers
must be actively engaged in their own learning process, working with their colleagues, identifying
their own needs and the wide range of activities, formal and informal, that will bring about
improvement of their own practice and the practice of others (Chalchisa, n.d.: 2).

2.14.2 Human Resources Capacity

There are terms like ‗capacity‘ and ‗capability‘ which are often confusing and misunderstood,
Capacity refers to the overall ability of groups and individuals to actually perform their assigned
responsibilities. It includes the capability, the overall size of tasks, resources, and frameworks
within which they are discharged. Capability, on the other hand, refers to the individual's or group
knowledge, skill, and attitude and their competence that is necessary to accomplish their assigned
tasks and responsibilities (Wudu 2005: 2). It is a critical element of capacity and one major
determinant of efficient and effective performance. (Wudu 2005: 2) defined capacity as the
process of identifying and developing the management skills that help to address policy problems;
attracting, absorbing, and managing financial, human and information resources; and operating
programs effectively, including evaluating program out comes to guide future activities.
Decentralization is not only about devolution of power and enhancing the accountability fillings
of staffs. Decentralization, without capacity enhancement and staff carrier development efforts
will not result much. Institutional capacity building has various dimensions. Some institutions
consider that staff training is adequate for performance improvement.

23
For sustainable and long term efficiency enhancement, capacity building efforts should consider
systemic level capacity, financial level capacity, networking, monitoring, and evaluation
capacities. An integrated and comprehensive capacity building design will result greater
accountability, sustainability, improved governance, transparency, reduction in bureaucratic
chains, etc. (Wudu, 2005: 3).
2.14.3 Resource Allocation at the School Level
It is at the school that resources from the sources interact in order to achieve the educational
goals and objectives outlined in the curriculum. The school head must recruit qualified and
competent teachers. The deployment of these teachers to subject areas and classes is one form of
allocating resources at the school level. The school heads should allocate the time, material and
human resources at their disposal for the benefit of all. Failure to competently allocate these
resources may result in failure to achieve the curriculum goals and objectives the school is set up
to achieve (SADC, 2000: 36).
2.14.4 Financing
Some institutions do not have the responsibility to manage finance. Financial management is
handled at higher level and lower level institutions are told to do what. This is not what
Decentralization is all about (Workneh, 2012: 3) According to (Oumer, 2009: 39) schools can
generate resources from income-generating activities, through government, families, the
community and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Schools may also benefit from
resources (cash, in kind or in labor) used for activities and inputs.
2.14. Prevalence of Challenges
The Ethiopian school system has passed through various challenges and this has greatly affected
the teaching outcomes. Most schools did not have proper school management systems and there
was no proper system for management enhancement program both at policy and strategic level.
Management is a basic tool for any institutional performance improvement. Well-developed
management clearly shows roles and responsibilities among all stakeholders in those institutions.
Proper school management shows the roles of teachers, school managers, student and parents
and the wider community (Workneh, 2012: 26).

24
2.15 Challenges to Effective School Discipline
Too often, schools fail to understand that maintaining safety, including the correction of
misbehavior, is a prerequisite for developing self-discipline, but it is not sufficient. Schools and
other institutions that are effective in establishing and maintaining order and safety are not
necessarily effective in developing self-discipline or in preventing future behavior problems.
This is most evident when adult supervision, systematic rewards, clear rules and expectations,
and consequences for misbehavior are the primary techniques used to manage behavior.
Certainly, fair and reasonable policies governing serious and chronic behavior problems, as well
as the strategic use of rewards, should be part of a school-wide discipline program. However,
effective schools make this only one part of a much more comprehensive plan. A comprehensive
school-wide plan consists of a full range of evidence-based strategies and techniques to achieve
four important goals: developing self-discipline, preventing misbehavior, correcting
misbehavior, and remediating and responding to serious and chronic behavior problems. (Bear;
2010: S4H18-1)
2.16 Decision-making in School Management
2.16.1 The Role of Head Teachers in Promoting Key Decision-making
Like any organization, head teachers are the key responsible individuals in school management.
They are very important for improving teacher management and teacher motivation and for
improving students‘ achievement. It is argued that the important elements in the head teachers‘
managerial skills include a good educational background, ability to create a good work
environment, public relations skills and the ability to communicate well with stakeholders. These
elements can be considered as the essence of educational management. Effective management of
schools may lead to improved performance and productivity. Therefore, head teachers can make a
key contribution to the creation of a conducive environment for the staff to achieve these things
(Workneh, 2012:4). The SIP says that any individual who participates in the activities of the
school can participate in the evaluation process. Head teachers are empowered to make key
decisions and lead all stakeholders at school level, including ensuring that the rights of all
stakeholders are maintained and their opinions are heard and considered. They need to explain
how the school community members, i.e. teachers, school committee, student representatives and
clubs, can participate in school improvement activities.
25
They need to have strategic planning, program design, implementation, and monitoring and
evaluation skill. As head teacher, he/she should know the capacity of his/her staff, timely identify
capacity gaps, develop skill development plans, train and upgrade his/her staff capacities.
Teachers must be rewarded for good performance and their contribution has to be recognized and
promoted. Teachers must be encouraged to participate at all stages school development strategic
planning and implementation (Workneh, 2012: 7-8).

2.16.2 The Role of PTA in Promoting Key Decision-making

When we talk about school decentralization, we are talking about the involvement of the
community at all stages of development planning. Through decentralization, we are aiming at
empowering communities on decision making, increase their ownership felling, morals and
communities of among stakeholders. An important achievement has been observed in South
Africa in this regard, since school-based governance is often integrated with participatory
decision-making. Another advantage is that decentralization empowers communities to mobilize
resources. In Ghana, for example, decentralization helps to enhance the efficiency of school
management and accountability.
Decentralization motivates parents to show greater interest in their children‘s education. In some
Cases, the functioning of local education offices were financed by communities. The
involvement of parents, teachers, local councilors and education officials in school management
can help to promote decision-making at school level, which improves the quality of schooling
and students‘ achievement. However, the implementation of decision-making through the full
participation of parents and communities entails challenges. When compared with teachers and
head teachers, community groups do not focus on education matters and this often creates
conflict (Workneh, 2012: 5).

26
To conclude, the Government of Ethiopia has recently focused on improving school-based
management through the devolution of education decision-making to school level. To achieve
this objective, it has promoted the roles of various education stakeholders in decision-making.
Specifically ; It has tried to strengthen the relationship between the WEOs and the schools
through monitoring and capacity-building schemes; the recent education programs such as ESDP
IV, GEQIP and SIP give more power to head teachers and administrators to coordinate the roles
of communities, parents and local administration in school decision-making ; the policy
emphasizes the importance of the participation of communities, parents and teachers (through
PTAs) for the improvement of critical decision-making at school level ; as a key local
administration unit working closely with the community, kebele administration is considered as
one of the key stakeholders for enhancing school- based management and the participation of
students in education management is also a way of promoting participatory decision-making at
school level. SNNPREB(2009;101), Effective principals are those who developed a sense of
collective responsibility with in the school community, increased the role of stakeholders in
school leadership, making the school learning community by providing in-service trainings for
teachers, strengthening inbuilt supervision and provide constructive feedbacks. Moreover,
effective principals create a good, democratic and shared leadership within the school, form
different extra-curricular clubs and enable them to play key role in improving students
achievements and behaviors, providing specific tasks for followers and follow-up its
implementation, identify the weakness and strength of followers, support and have strategy to
motivate followers .

27
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEACH DESIGN AND METHODOLOG

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter comprises the following sections, research design, target population, sample size,
and sampling procedures, research instruments i.e. questionnaires, interview and Focus group
discussion, data collection procedures and data analysis plan.

3.2 Description of the study area

Loka Abaya Woreda is one of the woredas among 19 Woredas and 4 city Administrations in
Sidama zone; SNNRP which is located at 42 km from Hawassa to the South direction and shares
its borders with Borcha, Dalle woredas and, Yirgalem in the north, Chuko in the West and
Humbo woreda in wolayta in the east and in Oromia Guje zone in the south. The settlement of
woreda is mountainous and found 1400m above sea level. The Loka Abaya Woreda has 27
administrative kebeles among these 9(33.3%) found in low land or kola zone and 18(66.66%)
found in midland (woynadega) climate zone. According to2007 Housing and population Census
the total population of Woreda is 120589, among this 64524 are males and 56065 are females
(Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency, statistical Abstract: 2008).

The Economic base of the Woreda is Dominantly Subsistence Agriculture, Mainly Crop and
Live Stock Production as the major Source of Livelihood for the Woreda‘s Population. Majority
of the Population live in rural areas where there are few socio economic infrastructure like
electric, light, roads, portable water, health center and education facilities.
The recent Educational statistics indicates that there are 46 schools in the Woreda
Administration; from these, 44 are 1-8 grade level and 2 are secondary schools. The number of
teachers‘ work in grade 1-10 are 768 primary and secondary school teachers, out of which 593
are males and 175 are females. The 2015/16 statics indicates that the number of the students in
the primary schools is 55913.the number of students increased by 21913 as compared 2012/13
statics of primary and secondary school student population.

28
In addition to that with the increase of the number of students; there is no increment of quality of
the students result this much according to the goal.

Even if there is incremental change; still there is turn over, drop out etc among the students even
among the teachers in Sidama zone particularly in study site. Clearly this indicates that the large
number of children and teachers even all school community demanding for education service
which in turn ask for an effective , efficient and collaborative decentralized decision making
process to ensure satisfaction among school community.

3.3. Research Design

The study was adopted deceptive survey design. It, therefore, was used both quantitative and
qualitative methods. Using mixed research method was neutralized the based on any sample
method; the more dominant approach was used in the research and it was quantitative. But
qualitative data was obtained from interviews and focus group discussions were used to support
Quantitative data. It was used as a means for convergence and integrating qualitative and
quantitative data (Creswell, 2009:14). The descriptive survey design was adopted in this study on
the ground that was found to be helpful to obtain reliable and relevant information (Leedy &
Ormord, 2005).

Descriptive survey method involves acquiring information about one or more groups of people-
perhaps about their characteristics, opinions, attitudes or previous experiences. Similarly, Best
and kahan (2003) noted that descriptive research design helps to describe and interpret the
current conditions. Descriptive survey method was used to gather adequate and relevant data on
the actual practice and existing challenges and achievements of decentralized service deliver at
selected secondary schools.

29
3.4. Sources of Data
To conduct the study both primary and secondary sources of data was used. The primary sources
include data gathered through both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative data
was collected using a structured questionnaire consisting of close ended and open ended from
Teachers, Principals, and vice principals working at the study schools. Qualitative data was
collected using key informants who have deep knowledge about decentralization in Education
sector at the study area by semi-structured questions. These were Supervisors, Woreda Education
Office Head and Experts. Again focus group discussion participants were used for qualitative
data by semi-structured questions. In this regard, two focus group discussions were conducted in
both study schools. The focus group discussion participants comprised Kebele Education and
Training Board (ETB) chair men, Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) chair men, School
Improvement Committee (SIC) chair men , Student council Committee Members chair
men(SCC) and Civics and Ethical Club Committee Members(CEEC) chair men. Secondary
source Data was gathered from books, Journal articles, Magazines, Newspapers, internets etc.
helps to compare and contrast the result of the findings from Questionnaire. In addition to these
sources of secondary data report, manual and policy documents were consulted because
documents provide supplementary information.

3.5. Sample and Sampling Techniques

There are 19 woredas and 4 City administrations in Sadama Zone. From these, Loka Abaya
Woreda was selected purposely because to get evidences of exercising decentralization in study
area. Here also there were a number of grievances among the School Community. I witnessed
this when I was working at the education office. In this Woreda, there were 2 Secondary schools
in two Clusters. These schools were selected for study because there are only 2 secondary
schools in Loka Abaya woreda.
 30

In any research, taking sample size is usually a critical issue. A great deal of care needs in order
to prevent a bias. A perfect result was obtained when a research was conducted with the whole
population. However, due to constraints in time, expense (money) and efforts required to conduct
a research on every person, an optimal sample size has to be taken. Regarding this, (Zenebe,
2002) indicated that it is generally not necessary to study all the possible member of a
population. In survey study, it is extremely important that the individuals was included in a
sample constitute a representative of individuals in the population. Based on these facts,
therefore 2 or both secondary schools were taken simply for the study out of 44 primary schools
and 2 secondary schools by the researcher as sample schools because the researcher‘s intention
to face with matured population at secondary school to get intended out comes. The names of
schools are: Loka Abaya and Ossa secondary schools. The sample schools are 100% of the
secondary schools.

For quantitative Data a total of 92 respondents were selected. The all of 87 teachers were
participated in study area. While all 2 principals and 3vice principals were also participated.
Because, principals, and Vice principals, were school managers and they were expected to be a
source of information for all school activities regarding the decentralized Educational decision
making process in study area at all. Thus the Sample populations of 92 respondents were
participated on the deep survey of the study area. Through structured and semi-structured
questionnaires was collected factual information from the indicated respondents. For qualitative
information 5 key informants were sampled purposely for in-depth interview out of 20 group
members. The Key informants comprised of 2 cluster Supervisors and 3woreda education
Experts. All key informant members were selected purposively. Because, these entities have
paramount importance to obtain deep information about decentralization and service delivery in
Education Sector Particularly at Secondary Schools. In addition, for qualitative information 12
members were participated in the two focus groups from 94 population members.

31
Accordingly 6 participants comprised in each group discussants that was conducted in the study
areas. The focus group discussion comprised 2 PTA chair men members out of 16, 2 ETB chair
men from 16 members , 2 School Improvement Committee chair men (SIC) from 18 Members, 4
Student Councils first and vice student council head students from 30 group members and 2
Civic and Ethical Education Club Committee first and vice head out of 14 members. In each
group was tried to keep a gender composition as much as possible but there was no female
among school committees.

Table 1 List of sample schools and teacher working in the sample schools

No Name of Sample Schools Cluster Grade Number of Teachers in each

Level School
Male Female Total
1 Loka Abaya Secondary school Hantate 9-10 46 22 68
2 Ossa Secondary School Ossa 9-10 16 8 24
Total 62 30 92

Table 2 List of Sample size and sampling technique of Schools, Principals and v/principals
working in the Sample Schools.
Grade
No Schools Cluster Principals V/Principals Total
Level

M F M F M F
Hantate
1 Loka Abaya S.S 9-10 1 - 2 - 3 -

2 Ossa S.S Ossa 9-10 1 - 1 - 2 -

Total 2 3 5

Note: All Principals, V/principals, Teachers and Schools were selected for the sample
study.
 32

Table 3 FGDs and Key informants sample size and sampling technique.

No Type of Population Sample % of Sample Instruments

respondents population Sample technique
Population
1 Council of 30 4 13.3 Purposive FGD
Students
2 PTA Committee 16 2 12.5% Purposive FGD
Members
3 ETB Committee 16 2 12.5% Purposive FGD
Members
4 SIC Committee 18 2 11.1% Purposive FGD
Members
5 Civic & Ethical 14 2 14.3% Purposive FGD
Club committee
6 Cluster 2 2 100% Purposive Key
Supervisors informant
7 Woreda education 16 3 18.8% Purposive Key
office Head& informant
Expert
TOTAL 112 17 15.2%

33
3.6. Instruments and Procedures Data collection.
Instruments of data collection are basic tools to gather data to seek possible solutions for
observed problems. In order to achieve the purpose of this study; questionnaires, interview, and
Focus group discussion were used.

3.6.1Questionnaire
According to Best and (Kahn,2005), questionnaire is an inquiry form of data gathering
instruments in which respondents answer to the questions provided or respond to statements in
writing and used to obtain factual information. The questionnaire was contained both close and
open ended questions. Close ended questionnaire was as first part for principals, teachers and
school committees, as open ended questionnaire second part. This was distributed to the
Principals and teachers. Questionnaire is not only instrument to gather information but also
serves as appropriate tool to obtain a variety of opinions with in relatively short period of time
regarding to this (Koul ,1996) suggested that questionnaire is widely used in educational research
to obtain information about certain conditions and practices and to acquire opinions and
attitudes of individual and groups.

3.6.2. Interview
Interview questions were provided for 5 members out of these 2 of them are Cluster Supervisors,
3 are Woreda education experts through face to face conversation. Semi-structured interview was
conducted to obtain information about proper practices of decentralized education service
delivers and how collaborative decision making rule principles obeyed and good governance
particularly (transparency, accountability and responsibility) applied in study area. The purpose
of the interview is to make the study in depth and gather information from the factual
expressions and gestures can be read from the respondents about the raised issue and it helps to
compare and contrast other data gathered through different sources. It was also conducted by the
researcher in Amharic to minimize and overcome language barrier and promote better
understanding and later translated in to English.

34
3.6.3 Focus Group Discussion
To get in-depth information about the role of principals teachers and school committees FGD
comprised PTA, ETB , School Improvement Committee(SIC),civic and Ethical Education club
Committee(CEEC) and student council committee(SCC) were participated in FGD. The total
number of participant is 12.each group contains six (6) members. Among this 2from PTA, 2
from ETB, 2from SIC 2 from CEEC, 4 from SCC. For the study, necessary arrangements were
taken about the researcher‘s assistance that facilitated the discussion and the discussants
schedule. For FGD discussion semi-structured guiding questions were provided. The discussion
media was Sidama language, because they communicate with their language and to make
discussion clear (Muhidin, 2010) wrote that the purpose of the FGD was supplemented and
enriched the information that was collected through observation and discussion. (Wellington,
1996) stated that a focus group discussion among a number of small groups has been considered
as a good instrument to get versatile information. By initiating all discussants for active
participation FGD was made in the school. The numbers of participants was six in each group.
As (Dornyei, 2007) stated that the size of a focus group discussion should be arranged between
6-10 people.

35
3.7. Method of Data Analysis

The questionnaire data was disseminated for Principals, Vice Principals and Teachers and was
collected from 2 schools. It was Organized, Coded and fed into computer for analysis using
SPSS Version-20. Based on the research questions to be answered, the Data was analyzed using
descriptive statics such as Percentage, Means, and standard deviations. The Likert was applied
for each statement that has been computed figures by converting the categorical replies to a
numerical scale, where values of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 were assigned for strongly agree, agree, neutral,
disagree and strongly disagree respectively. Through which to measure degree to which rules
and regulations were implemented, the level of stakeholders participation in the collaborative
decision making follow up ,monitoring and evaluation and to see the level of participation of the
stakeholders in the evaluation. Finally, to see devolution of power responsibilities and
accountabilities to carry out the annual activities, qualitative analysis (narrative) was used for
Data collection through interviews and FGD. Moreover, major information and or opinion
reported by respondents through the semi-structured questions were considered in data
interpretation by categorizing similar responses together.

36
 CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter deals with the presentation, analysis and interpretation of the data collected from the
respondents. The first part of the chapter discusses about the characteristics of respondents while
the second part deals with the analysis of the findings of the study, corresponding to the basic
research questions.
4.1 Characteristics of the Respondents
Total respondents for this research are 109, from those quantitative questionnaires were
distributed to 5 high school principals and 87 teachers for the total respondents 92.the
remaining respondents from the total samples were participated in qualitative interview. These
were woredas educational experts, supervisors, PTA, ETB, SIC, CEEC and SCC committee
members. Out of these questionnaires 86(93.4%) were filled in and returned. However, 6(5.6%)
questionnaires were discarded because they were incomplete and inappropriately filled in. Thus,
the characteristics of the respondents were examined in terms of sex, age, years of service,
academic qualification and position based on the lower case. Responses to the request for
personal data in the first section of the questionnaires obtained from the school respondents. The
key informant interviews guide was employed to 3 educational experts and 2 supervisors.
Because the information that the researcher got from the respondents became saturated on the
third respondent therefore the researcher remained conducting in-depth interview 3 experts,2
supervisors, 2 PTA,2 ETB , 2SIC, 2CEEC , and 4 SCC for total 12committee members. To get
adequate information for the issue and to give in-depth descriptions as well as for triangulation
and cross checking purposes of the study. The analysis and interpretation of the data are
presented following each table and figure.

37
Table 1 Shows frequency distribution of respondents by sex and age

Principals and teachers N=86 % N=17

Fre Comm. % Super % Expert %
12 70.5 2 11.7 3 17.6
Sex Male 66 76.7 12 70.5 2 11.7
Female 20 23.3 - - - -
Age <20 9 10.5
21-30 54 62.8 2 11.7 3 17.6
31-40 23 26.7 12 70.5
Total 86 100

Note comm. = committee, Fre =frequency

Table 4.1 Shows that sex of the sample respondents of both secondary schools who accounted
for 23.3% female and 76.7% of males. This indicates that the number of female participants in
both high schools could be characterized by absolutely low. Regarding with the age, 10.5% of
respondents were found below 20 age ranges, 62.8% were found between 21-30 age groups and
26.7% were found between 31-40 age ranges. This indicates that from both most respondents
concentrated between 21-30 ages it means most of participants dominated by young age group
and respondents that were found below the age groups of 20 were very low. Concerning with
schools committees, WEO experts and supervisors, 12(70.5%), were male and they were found
also between31-40 age groups. regarding with experts and supervisors, 2(11.7%) and 3(17.6%)
were supervisors and experts respectively. Regarding the sex distribution, females respondents
were not participated among the experts, supervisors and schools committee because no female
among them.

38
Table 2. Shows frequency distribution of respondents by educational background and works
experiences.

Respondents N=109
N %
Education level Certificate 12 11
Diploma 4 3.6
1st degree 88 80.7
2nd degree 5 4.6
Others - -
Experiences 1-5 32 29.3
6-10 63 57.8
11-15 8 9.3
Non respondent rate 6 5.5
Total 109 100

Concerning their academic qualification, Table 2, item (i) shows that 12(11%) were grade 10th
complete, 4(3.6%) diploma holders, 88(80.7%) were 1st degree graduates and 5(4.6%) were MA
holders. The data suggests the tendency of 1st degree holders in both schools staffs are higher
than compared to 2nd degree and diplomas holders. Table 2, item (ii) indicates that out of
32(29.3%) have 1-5 years experiences,63(57.8%)(6-10) years services and 8(9.3%) have (11-15)
years experiences in teaching profession in high schools. this indicates that most of respondents
have average 6-10 years services and there is low amounts of respondents between 11-15 years
experiences. This indicated that in both high schools dominated by relatively experienced
teachers. It would be, therefore, relatively possible to assume from these data that having longer
years of service in the education system would help to possess rich experience and better
understanding of the various issues in teaching- learning activities.

39
Table 3 Shows frequency distribution of respondents by their responsibility

No Responsibility No %
1 Principal 2 1.83
2 Vice principal 3 2.75
3 Teachers 86 78.9
4 PTA 2 1.83
5 ETB 2 1.83
6 SIC 2 1.83
7 CEEC 2 1.83
8 SCC 4 3.66
9 WEO experts and supervisors 5 4.58
Total 109 100

Table 3, item presents concerning the position held by respondents and shows that 2(1.83%)
percent of the both secondary schools respondents were composed of principals, 3(2.75 percent)
v/principals members, 86(78.9 percent) teachers, 2(1.83 percent) PTA committee members,
2(1.83 percent ) were ETB committee members,2(1.83 percent ) were SIC committee
members,2(1.83 percent) were CEEC committee members,4(3.66 percent) were SCC committee
members and 5(4.58 percent ) were woreda education experts and Ossa and Loka Abaya
secondary schools supervisors respondents. The distribution would, therefore, be regarded as
unbiased since respondents were drawn from the diverse and appropriate posts. There for;
researcher could get the enough information to solve decentralized educational decision making
and service delivery implementation problems.

40
 4.2 Analysis of the findings of the study

4.2.1 Analysis of the Extent of principals’ responsibility to implement Decentralized

Education management.

Decentralized Education management decision making and service delivery in different issues is
believed to improve the quality of education, and therefore improve instruction. Moreover, as
has been stated by (Moharman et.al., 1992), the participation of stakeholders in different issues
of service delivery and decision making is likely to yield higher quality products and services,
less absenteeism, less turnover, better problem solving, and less management over-head. In
short, greater organizational effectiveness can be brought by making stakeholder to participate
indecision making and services delivery. Thus, the first purpose of this study was to identify the
extent of principals‘ responsibility in the implementation of decentralized education
management. For this purpose, 17 decentralized educational decision making and service
delivery questionnaires were presented for principals and teachers on principals‘ managerial
role.
In each of these areas principals and teachers were requested to give on the extent of principals
responsibility to implement decentralization management on the rating scale that varies from
strongly disagree to strongly agree. The summaries of respondents in each area of services
delivery were shown in the following successive table (table 3).

41
Table 4.1 Response on the extent of principals’ responsibility to implement decentralized education
management

No Item Respondents Responses of Teachers and school leaders

N M SD t=value Sig(2tail)
1 Principal develop evaluation and Teachers 81 3.4 1.17 -975 0.099
performance Appraisal at school
level School leaders 5 .053 0.754 -628 0.063

Total 86 .3.93 1.924 -1603 0.162

2 Principal develop the school vision, Teachers 81 3.1 1.06 .089

mission and goal together with School leaders 5 0.43 0.68 -865
teachers and parents Total 86 3..53 0.87
3 Principals have responsibility for Teachers 81 2.3 1.108 .093
financial and material management School leaders 5 .41 0.712 -904
at school level Total 86 2.71 1.910
4 Principal develop the organizational Teachers 81 2.86 1.023 .086
decision making structure
that School leaders 5 0.31 0.658 -836
involve all teachers, parents and
stake holders of the school. Total 86 3.17 1.841
5 Principals draw income generating Teachers 81 2.5 1.0 -.081 .001
strategies together with teachers, Leaders 5 0.41 0.56
parent councils(ETB and PTA Total 86 2.91 1.56

6 Principals lead schools with Teacher 81 2.56 0.62 0.74 .0021

Decentralized collaborative Leader 5 0.45 0.33
decision making knowledge and Total 86 3.01 0.5
human skill.

42
No Item Respondents Responses of Teachers and school
leaders
N M SD t=value Sig(2tail)
7 Principals work in the Teachers 81 2.8 1.56 .067 .000
autonomous decision making
Leaders 5 0.21 0.032
operational process.
Total 86 3.01 1.9

8 Principals empower and build Teachers 81 2.71 1.41 0.81 0.001

confidence of teachers and Leaders 5 0.45 0.12
parents or all stakeholders Total 86 3.16 1.53
9 Principals build trust and Teachers 81 2.73 0.53 -0.75 0.002
strong team in the school Leaders 5 0.13 0.041
community Total 86 2.84 0.57
10 Principals regularly seek Teachers 81 2.9 0.72 .062 0.0013
advice and consultwith Leaders 5 0.31 0.02
teachers and parents or with
Total 86 3.21 .74
all stakeholders at school
11 Principals balance time and Teachers 81 2.71 0.89. .0074 0.003
work load for teachers, parents Leaders 5 0.43 0.012
with discussing them at school. Total 86 3.14 0.901
12 Principals participate all stalk Teachers 81 2.65 0.32 -0.71 0.002
holders in problem Leaders 5 0.4 0.053
identification, planning and Total 86 3.05 0.37
implementing at school

43
No Item Respondents Responses of Teachers and school
leaders
N M SD t=value Sig(2tail)
13 Principals encourage teachers Teachers 81 2.56 0.46 -0.63 0.0012
in facilitating and organizing
school based professional Leaders 5 0.39 0.83
development at school level.
Total 86 2.95 1.29

14 principals present annual Teachers 81 3.21 0.65 0.89 0.0056

work report for school Leaders 5 0.57 0.24
community Total 86 3.78 0.89
15 Principals have responsibility Teachers 81 2.5 .91 -0051 0.0016
to work with teachers in Leaders 5 0.31 0.031
class room through Total 86 2.81 0.941
observation demonstration
and consultation
16 Principals developed good Teachers 81 2.91 0.76
leadership at school level Leaders 5 0.23 0.09

Total 86 3.14 .085

17 Principals have responsibility Teachers 81 2.9 0.82 -0001 0.000
for Recruiting Teaches at Leaders 5 0.12 0.021
school level
Total 86 3.02 0.84

Total grand mean 43.1

Key: Frequency, SA=strongly agree, Ag=agree, N=Neutral, DA=Disagree, SDA=strongly

disagree, M=Mean, SD= Standard Deviation

44
In comparison with other items, the extent of principals‘ responsibility to implement
decentralized education management at school level of leaders and teachers respondents
regarding Evaluation and performance appraisal at school level shows that (item 1) is relatively
medium. Nearly35 (38.4%) of the respondents agreed on the Evaluation and performance
appraisal at school level 40(43%) and 16(17.5%) were strongly disagreed with (m=1.8, sd=0.96)
Relatively speaking that is quite discouraging. That means majority of leaders and teachers
responses shows evaluation and performance appraisal at school level implemented but it is not
strong enough.

In interview of key informants showed that evaluation and performance appraisal at school level
is not strong enough but slightly good and principals evaluate with all stakeholders. They also
indicated that the school has full responsibility to do evaluation and there is also transparent
system even to nominate individuals for awards at department level. FDGs also supported as
there is evaluation and performance appraisal at school in collaboration with all stakeholders..
2. Principal develop the school vision, mission and goal together with teachers and parents On
the other hand, of the responses have shown strongly agree 34(37.3%), agreed 37(40.6%),
disagreed 20 (21%). Majority of respondents agreed that there is plan preparation in
collaboration. This indicated that principals prepare school plan with all stakeholders. The other
point Key informants disclosed that Principals also prepare school mission, vision, strategy and
annual plan with all stakeholders at school level according to woreda office education goal.FDG
also indicated that there is discussion about education plan with stakeholders.

For item 3 Principals have responsibility for financial and material management at school level,
Item 4 Principal develop the organizational decision making structure that involve all teachers,
parents and stake holders of the school and ,

45
Item 9 Principals build trust and strong team in the school community. (30%) and 11(36.7%) of
respondents have reported Principals have shared implementation of Principals responsibility for
financial and material management and Principal develop the organizational decision making
at school level with (m=,2.61sd=1.9)and (m=2.91,sd=1.84) preparing the plan of the school
budget and determining the mechanism of controlling and supervising the setting plan,
respectively. thus, teachers' involvement in both last items found to be discouraging since the
mean values for both items, fall below the average point.

Item5. Principals draw income generating strategies together with teachers, parent councils
(ETB, SIC and PTA) strongly agree 8(8.7%),46(50.5) agreed 36(39.5%) and 1(1.3%) strongly
disagreed. The following responses of Key informants expressed that the responsibility of
allocating school material and financial resources are the WEO, distribution and controlling
responsibility is the school. FDG also supported this so far WEO allocate the material and budget
school has the administration power at school to use effectively and as their action plan.

Generally for items 9,11,13,15 mean average falls between (2.71-2.94). This shows that trust
of Principals and strong team in the school community, balancing of time and work load for
teachers, encourage teachers in facilitating and organizing school based professional
development and responsibility to evaluate school performance and class supervision,
demonstration ,feed back at school level is slightly medium.

In addition to that, above in the table 3 items 1,2,8,10,12, 16 and17 mean average ranges
between (1.74-1.98). This shows that Principals formulate school vision, mission and goal in
transparency way with teachers and parents, to strive and build confidence among all
stakeholders participates them on school plan formulation and to set good leadership at school
level is relatively not satisfactory.

46
The total calculated mean score for both leaders and teachers' (M=43.1; SD=16.04,P<0.05) for
the all items this reveals there is statistical significance difference of responses for the factors
that affects to implement decentralization and delivery of services at school level. There is
common responsibility woreda and school to hire and fire teachers at school level‖ but it is not
fully implemented at school level. This indicated that, principals do not implemented their
responsibility is not fully at school level.

The next expression of interview of key informant principals develop organizational structure
decision making that involve teachers, parents and all stakeholders, responsibility is given for
school to make school affairs decision making with school management bodies. According to
FGD school decision making at school level is irregular and weak principals do not participate
all stake holders and dominated by them there is no transparence even they hidden specially
financial issue.
For the questions of principals prepare time table with teachers to balance work load, key
informants interview disclosed that whenever the school principals plan to perform any activity,
it is used to involve teachers and PTA in the process ,discussed together and decided together.
FGD also agreed that principals participates teachers and PTA at time table preparation.

The following response of Key informants said that at school mobilizing parents and school
communities‘ school is responsible but mobilizing school communities for generating financial,
material and ideal contribution issues is weak, so could not perform their responsibility
effectively. FGDs disclosed that at school sometimes principals mobilize parents and school
communities but it is not strong enough.

The other Key informant responses implied that; principals‘ autonomous decision making,
creating confidence among teachers and setting strong healthy team spirit among school
community is ineffective, sometimes experienced conflict among school community, delay
service decision making at school with need of external support. FGDs expressed that there is no
healthy team spirit at school level, no timely and autonomous decision making, no enough
confidence among teachers.

47
The other interview of Key informant disclosed that principals has full responsibility to set
consultation system at school level to develop strong communication among school, but it is very
weak, where as FDG said that there is no enough consultation and clinical treatment at school
level in our life.
For the questions of principals prepare time table with teachers to balance work load, key
informants interview disclosed that whenever the school principals plan to perform any activity,
it is used to involve teachers and PTA in the process, discussed together and decided together.
FGDs also agreed that principals participates teachers and PTA at time table preparation.
The following interview of Key informant indicated that, school are full responsible in
identification of problems, planning, implementing and evaluating at school level depending on
national goal collaborating with all stake holders, here there is good stand to do this activities
collaboratively principals with all stakeholders .In the same manner FDG said they do participate
all stakeholders and they do with all stakeholders. The other interview of key informants
expressed that based on need assessment staff training is given at all level.FDG expressed the
same thing.
The other interview of Key informant disclosed that school principals are full responsible and
has full authority to follow-up instructional process i.e. class room observation, demonstration,
and consultation process is taking place as per the process of quality standard. FDGs said that
principals sometimes follow-up the teaching learning process in class room. This shows that
there is an existence of poor level of coordination between principals and teachers.
The following interview of Key informants disclosed that it is not strong enough participator
and transparent leadership style at school level, but they are trying to participate all stake holders
regularly.FDG expressed that the implementation of school leadership is not satisfactory as
intended. The last one of key informants‘ responses showed that regarding the responsibility of
recruiting teachers as with regard to human resources, woreda and schools have conceded
amounts of power around teachers‘ carrier promotion, and transfer. There is the tendency of
power to hire and fire teachers at school level i.e. school do not have full responsibility school to
hire and fire and only schools have power of need identification, but woreda has full
responsibility to hire and fire teachers depending on school need.
48
In addition to that interview results also showed that decentralization and services delivery is not
clearly devolved and implemented at the school level, other key informants like supervisors and
woreda education experts also revealed that even if there is decentralization and decision making
process in the school their implementation is not strong enough as intended.

49
Table 5: 4. 2 Teachers, PTA and ETB roles to implement decentralized Educational decision making and
service delivery
N Items Responde Leaders and Teachers responses in percent
o nt N SA Ag Neu DA SDA
Teachers play active Leaders 5 - 2(40%) - 3(60)
decision making role Teachers 81 4(4.7%) 31(36%) 10(11.6%) 32(37.5%) 9(10.5%)
through the organizational Total 86 4(4.7%) 33(76%) 10(11.6%) 35(97.5%) 9(10.5%)
structure of the school.
2 Teachers are committed Leaders 5 - 2(40%) - 3(60%)
to work collaboration in Teachers 81 7(8.1%) 24(27.9%) 16(18.6%) 36(41.9%) 3(3.5%)
using the various
Total 86 7(8.1%) 26(67.9%) 16(18.6%) 39(101.9%) 3(3.5%)
opportunities created by
the schools.
3 Teachers play cooperative Leaders 5 - 2(40%) - - 3(60%)
role with principal in
Teachers 81 3(3.5%) 18(20.9%) 25(29.1%) 40(46.5%) -
developing strategies to
obtain teaching learning Total 86 3(3.5%) 20(60) 25(29.1%) 40(46.5%) 3(60)
Resources for or of the
school.
4 Teachers are actively Leader 5 - 3(60%) - 1(20%) 1(20%)
collaborating with Teachers 81 2(2.3%) 37(43.%) 8(9.3%) 36(41.9%) 3(3.5%)
principals in setting
Total 2(2.3%) 40 8(9.3) 37(63%) 4(23.5)
vision, mission and goal
of the school.
5 Teachers regularly Leaders 5 - - - 3(60%) 2(40%)
communicate with Teachers 81 12(4%) 20(23.3%) 4(4.7%) 50(58.1%) -
principals and parent
Total 86 12(4%) 20(23.3%) 4(4.7%) 53(118.1%) 2(40%)
councils (ETB and PTA)
or with all stakeholders.
6 Teachers highly interested Leaders 5 1(20%) 1(20%) - 3(60%) -
to play advisory and Teachers 81 20(23.3%) 18(20.9%) 48(58.1%) -
consultative role with
principals on policy Total 86 21(43.3%) 19(60.9%) 51(40%) -
matter and operational
procedure of the school

50
Principals and teachers responses on the teachers‘ implementation role that affect decentralized
Education decision making and service delivery.
The responses of item1, Teachers play active decision making role through the organizational
structure of the school.

principals 2 (40%) said agree,3(60%) said disagree and teachers 4(4.7%) said strongly
agree,31(36%) agree,10(11.6%) neutral, 32(37.5%) disagree and 9(10.5%) strongly disagree of
the question that teachers play active decision making role thro this responses shows that most of
principals and teachers said disagree therefore teachers participation in decision making is low.
Key informants disclosed that responsibility is given to perform decision making with teachers at
school level; sometimes principals do not involve them regularly especially financial affairs.
FGDs expressed that principals hidden necessary decision making for school stakeholders, they
dominate alone.
Item 2 Teachers are committed to work collaboration in using the various opportunities created
by the schools. ,principals said2(40%)agree,3(60%) said disagree and teachers 7(8.1%)said
strongly agree,24(27.9%) agree,16(18.6%) neutral 34(41.4%) disagree and 3(3.5%) strongly
disagree most of principal and teachers said disagree on the question of teachers are committed
to work in collaboration with principals by the created opportunity ,the survey showed that the
no commitment to collaborate with principals because of lack of transparency of the principals to
participate them.
Item 3 Teachers play cooperative role with principal in developing strategies to obtain teaching
learning Resources for or of the school. , Principals 2(40%) agree and 3(60%) said strongly
disagree and teachers 3 (3.5%) said strongly agree,18(20.9&) said agree,25(29.1%) neutral
,40(46.5%) disagree here most of teachers and principal showed their disagreement on
cooperation with principals to school resources to facilitate teaching learning process . Key
informants indicated that no interest to collaborate with principal because of no transparency at
school level for all things .FDGs disclosed that teachers have to be collaborated with principals,
but principals approach remotes teachers from them.

51
Item 4Teachers are actively collaborating with principals in setting vision, mission and goal of
the school. ,principals 3(60%) said agree ,1(20%) disagree and 1(20%) strongly disagree,
teachers 2(2.3%) strongly agree,36(41.9%)agree,8(9.3%) neutral ,37(43%)disagree and3(3.5%)
strongly disagree. here most of principals and teachers said agree in the same manner the
question of setting mission, vision and goal of the school with principals in collaboration here the
survey showed that progress in dong mission vision and school goal in common and they
functionally showed their role in collaboration. It implied that at school level principals
collaboratively with teachers and other stakeholders set school mission, vision, and plan. The
response of Key informants disclosed that teachers are one of stakeholders to prepare school
mission, vision and strategy with principals but sometimes school principals do not participates
them regularly. FDG also expressed that teachers do not participate and has no interest on issue
Item 5 Teachers regularly communicate with principals and parent councils (ETB and PTA) or
with all stakeholders. Principals 3 (60%) said disagree and 2(40%) strongly disagree. and
teachers 12(4%) said strongly agree20 (23.3%) said disagree,4(4.7%) neutral and50(58.1%)
strongly disagree implied that there is no healthy communication among school communities.
Key informants showed that sometimes reflected conflict at school level by the ineffective
decision making and service delivery, in the same manner FGDs showed that there is no enough
healthy communication among all stake holders in the case of unsatisfied service delivery.
Item 6 Teachers highly interested to play advisory and consultative role with principals on policy
matter and operational procedure of the school, principals 1(20%) strongly agree,1(20%) agree,
3(40%) said disagree ,teachers 20(23.3%) said strongly agree,18(20.9%) agree and48(58.1%)said
disagree. In the same manner most of teachers replied that teachers are not interested to play
advisory and consultative role with principals on policy matter and operational procedure at
school level this indicated that there is no commonly agreed decentralized education decision
making and discussion between principals and teachers.
The responses of key informants showed that Teachers and principals have shared responsibility
on policy mater and operational procedures .FDGs showed that teachers and principals do not
discuss on the policy mater sometimes only principal do alone and share for the teacher
52
Table5.
N Item Respond Leaders and Teachers responses in percent
o ents
N SA Ag Neu DA SDA

1 Teachers accomplish their Leaders 5 1(20%) 3(60%) - 1(20%)

role and responsibilities with Teachers 81 4(4.7%) 14(16.3%) 26(30.2%) 42(48.8%) -
confidence and freely Total 86 5(24.7%) 17(76.3%) 26(30.2%) 43(68.8%)
2 Teachers give rewards and Leaders 5 2(40%) 3(60%)
recognitions for good Teachers 81
performed students. 44(51.2%)
37(45.6%
Total 86 39(85.6%) 47(20.9%) 44(51.2%) 25(85.6%) 2(40%)

3 Teachers and students have Leaders 5 - 3(60%) - 2(40%) -

Excellent join responsibility Teachers 81 8(9.3%) 38(44.2%) 22(25.6%) 18(20.9%)
in the school Total 86 8(9.3%) 41(104.2 22(25.6%) 20(60%)
%)
4 Teachers are working as Leaders 5 - 1(20%) - 4(80%) -
strong team in their Teachers 81 2(2.3%) 41(47.7%) 10(11.6%) 33(38.4%)
departments to set good Total 86 2(2.3%) 42(67.7%) 10(11.6%) 37(118.4
standard of teaching learning %)
activities.
5 Teachers manage class room Leaders 5 1(20%) 1(20%) 2(40%) 1(20%)
correctly to improve student Teachers 81 2(2.3%) 17(19.8%) 6(7%) 53(66.1%) 8(9.3%)
result and to make Total 86 3(22.3%) 18(39.8%) 6(7%) 55(106.1 8(29.3%)
conducive teaching learning %)
environment
6 Teachers prepare lesson plan Leaders 5 4(80%) 1(20%)
and annual plan to make Teachers 81 77(2.3%) 4(19.8%)
teaching effective Total 86 3(22.3%) 17(19.8%)

53
Item 1Teachers accomplish their role and responsibilities with confidence and freely ,principals
1(20%) strongly agree ,3(60%) agree and1(20%) disagree and teachers 4(4.7%) strongly agree
,14(17.2%)agree,42(48.8%) s disagree and 26(30.2%) strongly disagree for this question the
responses of most of principals agreed teachers to accomplish their role and responsibilities
freely and confidential but most of teachers replied in contrary side, that teachers could not play
their role and responsibilities because of the interference of principals and external power on
teacher duties. Key informant said that there is border line on the responsibility of teachers,
principals have leadership responsibility, where as teachers have managing teaching teaching-
learning activities by making suitable teaching environments for students ,also they do have
knowledge where and when they have common duties. FDG disclosed that principals and
teachers know their responsibility but they do not perform as intended. Therefore teachers do not
play their role and responsibility confidential and freely.
Item 2 Teachers give rewards and recognitions for good performed students. principals 2(40%)
strongly agree and 3(60%) agree and regarding teachers 44(54.3%) strongly agree, 37(45.6%)
agree. the responses of most of principals shows their agreements. relatively teachers replied in
the same manner regarding question that teachers give rewards and recognition for good
performed students in every class .Key informant showed that schools are fully responsible to
give rewards and recognition for effective students. FDGs implied that teachers give rewards and
recognition for good performed students with discussing school managements based on their
results
Item 3 Teachers and students have join responsibility in the school, principals 3(60%) agree and
2(40%) disagree and responses of teachers expresses that 8(9.3%) strongly agree ,38(44.2%)
agree 22(25.6%)disagree and 17(20.9%) strongly disagree for this question most of principals
strongly agreed that teachers and students have joint responsibilities at school, in the same
manner the most teachers response implied most of time students do not do their home work,
come late, this affects teaching- learning activities directly and indirectly .Key informant
indicated that school can have its internal policy rule regarding discipliner maters.

54
FGDs indicated that teachers have executed in good manner of class room management
activities, continuous assessment, and final evaluation, but majority students are not doing
homework and assignments on time, are not willing in giving proper respect to teachers and
other staffs that became a challenge in teaching learning activities.
Item 4 Teachers are working as strong team in their departments to set good standard of teaching
learning activities., principals 1(20%) agree and 4(80%) disagree and teachers response 2(2.3%)
strongly agree 42(47.7%) agree,33(40.7%) disagree and10(11.6%) strongly disagree. For this
question most principals said disagree they do not believed that teachers are not working as
strong team to get good standard on teaching- learning activities on the contrary most of
teachers replied working as strong team to effective teaching-learning activities. FDGs disclosed
even if there is healthy team among teachers and principals, teachers are trying to make effective
of teaching –learning activities at school level.
Item 5 Teachers manage class room correctly to improve student result and to make conducive
teaching learning environment , principals 2(20%) strongly agree ,3(60%) disagree and 1(20%)
strongly disagree and teachers2(2.3%) strongly agree,17(19.8%) agree ,6(7%) neutral ,53(66.1%)
agree and the rest 8(9.3%) said strongly disagree in this response most of principals and teachers
are in the different track principals response implied that teachers manage students at moderate
level but teachers believed that they manage students to effective teaching learning activities.
Key informant teachers fully responsible to manage students to make teaching-learning process
effective. FDGs showed that teachers are interested to manage students for effective learning-
teaching activities, but students are not willing by respecting school expectations.
Item 6 Teachers prepare lesson plan and annual plan to make teaching effective , principals
4(80%) strongly agree, 1(20%) and regarding teachers response, 77(95%) strongly agree, 4(5%)
agree. In this response most of principals and teachers are responded strongly agree and agree in
the same manner teachers prepare their lesson and annual plan to make ever teaching-learning
activities effective and to finish the student text book according to their time table. Key
informants disclosed that whenever teachers are responsibly to prepare their lesson and annual
plans. FDG indicated that in our opinion all teachers prepare lesson and annual plan regularly to
lead their accordingly.

55
Table6. 4.2 Principals and Teachers responses with the respect school committee role in
decentralized educational decision making and services delivery.
N Items Principals and teachers responses in percent
o
Respond N SA Ag Neu DA SDA

ents % % % % %
1 ETB, and PTA, , and Leaders 5 - 2(40) 2(40) 1(20)
effectively know their role Teachers 81 6(7.4) 21(26.2 . 21(26.2) 38(46.
and responsibilities of the %) 9)
school Total 86
2 ETB and PTA develop Leaders 5 - - - 3(60) 2(40)
efficient strategies for the Teachers 81 20(24.6) 21(25.9) - 45(55.5) -
active participation of parent Total 86
and communities of the school
3 ETB and PTA participate, Leaders 5 - 2(40)
parents and communities to Teachers 81 8(9.8) 21(25.9) - 20(24.6)
develop vision, mission and Total 86
goal of the school.
4 ETB and PTA actively Leaders 5 - - - -
participate, parents and stake Teachers 81 10(12.3) 20(24.6) - 56(69.1)
holders in problem Total 86
prioritization, planning,
implementing, evaluating and
financial decision making of
the school
5 PTA and ETB mobilize Leaders 5 - - - 3(60)
parents and the school Teachers 81 8(9.8) 16(19.7) 4(4.9) 58(71.6)
communities to take part in Total 86
labor, money kind and idea
contribution of the school.

56
The responses of principals and teachers with the respect to the stakeholders or school
committees‘ role in the implementation of decentralized educational affair decision making and
service delivery.
Item1 ETB, and PTA, , and effectively know their role and responsibilities of the school
,principals 1(20%) agree ,3(60%) disagree and 1(20%) said strongly disagree and teachers
replied 6(7.4%) strongly agree ,21(26.2%) agree,21(26.2%) disagree and 38(46.9%) said
strongly disagree here most of principals said disagree and most of teachers said strongly
disagree this responses relatively in the same track and implied that school committee didn‘t
have knowledge how to perform their role and responsibility effectively . Key informant
disclosed that principals are responsible to nominate with need parents with setting criteria, but
sometimes school principals do not give attention as expected FDGs school committees i.e. PTA
and ETB represent without setting expected goal, because they are not qualified and experienced
enough, in addition to that they do not timely training and work shop to build their capacity,
more over they interested to be paid.
Item 2ETB and PTA develop efficient strategies for the active participation of parent and
communities of the school, principals 3(60%) said disagree and 2(40%) said strongly disagree
and teachers response were 20(24.6%) strongly agree, 21(26.2%) and 45(55.5%) said disagree
regarding this responses most of principals and teachers similarly responded this implied that
school committees do not develop efficient strategies to participate actively parents and school
communities. Key informants disclosed that school committees i.e. PTA and ETB has full
responsibility to administer parents and school communities and develop with them school
strategies for school quality improvement programs. FGD indicated that PTA and ETB and do
not have potential to set effective strategies in collaboration with parents and school community,
and they are not empowered their capacity to perform and set decentralized management at
school level. .

57
Item3ETB and PTA participate, parents and communities to develop vision, mission and goal of
the school, principals replied 2(40%) disagree and 3(60%) strongly disagree and teachers
8(9.8%) strongly agree, 21(26.2%) agree,20(24.6%) disagree and 37(45.6%) said strongly
disagree here also most of principals and teachers replied strongly disagree by reacting the
question school committees participate school parents and communities on the school vision,
mission, and strategies. Key informant described that school has full responsibility in the
involvement of school, and school committee also are responsible in formulation of school plan.
FGDs implied that school committee does not have enough interest to be involved in plan
preparation and the like; sometimes they say we do not have salary to perform and participate
equally with principals and teachers.
Item4 ETB and PTA actively participate, parents and stake holders in problem prioritization,
planning, implementing, evaluating and financial decision making of the school, principals
5(100%) said strongly disagree ,teachers10(12.4%) strongly agree ,20(24.6%) agree and
56(69.1%) strongly disagree, regarding this question most of teachers and all of principals
replied strongly disagree the survey showed that school committees i.e. PTA and ETB do not
involve school community in problem identification or prioritization, planning, implementation
and financial decision making affairs. Key informant disclosed that here also school committee
i.e. PTA and ETB has full responsibility to involve school community and parents in problem
identification, planning, implementing and financial decision making. FGDs disclosed that,
school committee do not discuss with parents and school communities on the problem
identification and plan implementation but sometimes involve and discuss on financial
contribution issue.
Item 5and PTA mobilize ETB parents and the school communities to take part in labor, money
kind and idea contribution of the school ,principals3(60%) agree, 1(20%) disagree,1(20%)
strongly disagree and teachers 8(9.8%)strongly agree,58(71.6%) agree,16(19.7%) disagree and
4(4.9%) strongly disagree; most of principals said strongly disagree and relatively in the same
manner teachers replied disagree for the question the survey showed that; school committees i.e.
PTA and ETB mobilize school community to take part labor ,money and idea contribution at
school improvement program.
58
Key informant implied that decentralization rule and regulation gives school committee to
administer and to mobilize for all school improvement affairs. FDGs disclosed those school
committees mobilize parents and school community to contribute financial and material for
school improvement program.Table6.
No Items Principals and teachers responses in percent

Respond N SA Ag Neu DA SDA

ents % % % % %

1 ETB and PTA Leaders 5 - - - 2(40) 3(60)

prepare their school Teachers 81 38(46.9) - 6(7.4) 42(51.8)
decentralized policies, Total 86
rules, and regulations
in collaboration with
principals and
teachers
2 ETB and PTA take Leaders 5 2(40) - - 3(60) -
fair decisions for Teachers 81 - 30(37) 3(3.7) 40(49.3) 13(16)
every disciplinary Total 86
issues accordingly
with the directives
3 ETB and PTA give Leaders 5 - 1(20) - 2(40) 2(40)
priority to full fill Teachers 81 - 20(24.6) - 48(59.2) 18(22.2)
school responsibilities Total 86
with transparence and
accountability
4 PTA and ETB involve Leaders 5 2(40) - - 1(20)
in follow-up of their 2(40)
child. Teachers 81 12(14) 36(44.4) - 29(35.8) 5(11.1)
Tot al 86
Q=Question

59
Item1 ETB and PTA prepare their school decentralized policies, rules, and regulations in
collaboration with principals and teachers, Principal 2(40%) disagree and 3(60%) strongly
disagree, and teachers38(46.9%) strongly agree,6(7.4%) agree and 42(51.8%) disagree; for this
question, most of principals said strongly disagree whereas most of teachers relatively in the
same degree replied disagree here the survey implied that school committees i.e. PTA, and ETB
do not prepare their plan to implement school decentralized policies, rules and regulation in
collaboration with principals and teachers .Key informant implied that school committee has its
own plan to devolve in school community and parent. FDG said that school committees do not
prepare their plan regularly in effective manner in collaboration with teachers and principals and
they only exchange idea only with them.

Item 2 ETB and PTA take fair decisions for every disciplinary issues accordingly with the
directives, principals, 2 (40%) strongly agree and 3(60%) disagree and teachers3 (3.7%) strongly
agree, 30(37%) agree,40(49.3%) disagree and13(16%) strongly disagree the survey for this
question showed that most of principals and teachers said disagree because school committees
rarely take fair decisions for every disciplinary issues accordingly with the directives. Key
informant disclosed that school committee even all stakeholders has fully authorized to make
proper and necessary educational decision making at school level but they do not perform as
intended. FGD implied that school committee could not perform their authority effectively at
school level and also there is no enough need to make timely and effective decision, excessively
they delay decision making issues.
Item 3ETB and PTA give priority to full fill school responsibilities with transparence and
accountability principals 1(20%) agree, 2(40%) disagree and 2(40%) strongly disagree, and
teachers 20(24.6%) agree,48(59.2%) disagree and 18(22.2%) strongly disagree ,here the study
described that most of principals said disagree and strongly disagree and in relatively the same
manner most of teachers replied disagree for the question school committees scarcely give
priority to fulfill school responsibility with transparence and accountable manner .Key informant
disclosed that decentralization rules and regulations command them to make decision and to give
service in accountable and transparence manner for their clients.
60
FDGs mentioned that are not empowered to fulfill their responsibility to make visible for their
customers and set satisfaction among school community.
Item 4 PTA and ETB involve in follow-up of their child. Principals, 2(40%) strongly agree,
2(40%) disagree and1 (20%) strongly disagree, and regarding teachers 12(14%) strongly agree,
29(35.8%) agree, 30(44.4%) disagree and 5(11.1%) replied strongly disagree, the study here
most of principals and teachers replied disagree to the question; school committees rarely follow
their student to stay at school. Key informant implied that school committee is full authorized in
follow-up of their students to insure decentralized responsibility. FDGs disclosed that parents
follow-up of their child is not strong as expected

61
4. 3. Challenges that affecting decentralized education management in secondary schools of
Loka-Abaya woreda

In open-ended questions principals 5(100%) and teachers 81(100%) responded that at study
schools there are a number of problems that hinder effective decentralized management. They
asked to indicate whether finances received from the government meet the instructional materials
and resources needs and what about transparency on utilization of school stakeholders to make
clear the way in which resources performed. In the response, all principals (100%), teachers
(100%) reported that they were inadequate and hence they were not able to achieve their set goal.
They also added that funds were not disbursed in school on time and this could also contribute to
late completion of school projects. In addition to other challenges such as some schools failing to
get money for no good reason, some of the funds being diverted to other exceptional things. Lack
of transparence in the management of school resources, lack of accountability on the use of
school resources and delays in the disbursement of funds .Key informant disclosed that schools
received material supports from woreda even if materials do not delivered in time from the zone
more over there is no enough support from woreda .FDGs also showed that there is no enough
support from woreda office and money allocated from woreda delivered after planed time. This
indicated that WEO did not fully support the school and resources were not delivered in time.
Another challenges related to school finances that listed by respondents were financial
management, procurement of goods and services, budgeting, inadequate and untimely funds,
lack of experience of principals, conflict of interest by school management committee, poor
delivery of materials, documentation of financial management, problem in prioritization of
needs, lack of in service training on financial management, procurement procedure, and lack of
educational management knowledge at school level. The solution that given for stated challenges
were Zone education administration, WEO, school management committee and parent and
sponsors could put these issues in to considerations in order to improve school management.
Moreover, inspect schools regularly, ensures teachers are conversant with the changing
curriculum, school committee should attend seminars and workshops which would help them to
acquire skills hence improving their management and also organize for regular meeting with all
school

62
 CHAPTER FIVE

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this final chapter of the thesis deals with major findings of the study, conclusion
and recommendations.
Findings were concluded and recommended based on the three basic questions, they are as
follow:-
1. The extent of principals‘ responsibility to implement Education decentralization management
in Loka-Abaya woreda secondary schools.
2. The role of teachers, PTA and ETB affecting the implementation of education decentralization
decision making and service delivery in Loka-Abaya woreda secondary schools.
3. Challenges that affecting decentralized education management in secondary school of loka
Abaya woreda.
5.2 Summary
The main purpose of this study was to assess the achievements and challenges of
decentralization of educational management in both selected secondary schools of Loka-Abaya
woreda Administration in terms of the extent of the extent of principals responsibility in
implementation of education decentralization management at school level; investigating school
stakeholders role i.e. PTA and ETB role that affecting the implementation of education
decentralization decision making and service delivery at school level, identifying the challenges
that affecting decentralized education management in Loka-Abaya woreda secondary schools,
and propose pertinent recommendations accordingly. Descriptive research methodology used.
109 respondents from both secondary schools examining respondents from both schools
principals, teachers, PTA, ETB , SIC,CEEC and SIC members of Secondary schools in Loka
Abaya woreda Administration were used sampling unit and Administration based on purposive
sampling.

63
Survey questionnaire, key informant interviews, FGDs surveyed. Five (5) principals, teachers
(87), filled questionnaires, an official, two experts and two cluster supervisors from Loka-Abaya
woreda Administration Education office, and 12 schools committee were also interviewed and
discussed on the issues.. The secondary schools were selected from the Loka Abaya-woreda to
collect the necessary information. Data were analyzed using the ―Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences‖ (SPSS) version 20 software.
1. The Extent of principals’ responsibility to implement Educational Decentralization
management
From the analysis undertaken, regarding the extent principals responsibility in the
implementation of education decentralization management at school level, the following has
been found:
a) Performance appraisal and evaluation was implemented and principals have full responsibility
to perform at school level. The survey indicated that performance appraisal and evaluation at
school level is to somewhat achieved because it performed at school level and the school has full
responsibility to do evaluation and there is also transparent system even to nominate individual
for awards at department level. Principals practically showed their authorized responsibility
even if it is not enough strong.
b) The authority for recruiting teachers is implementing at school level depending on schools
need here school and woreda education office has shared responsibility.
c) There is here also shared power in financial management by woreda administration and
school. The school materials are provided by the WEO and the school has power to administer it.
In order to use economy of scale, material distribution is carried out at woreda level.
d. There is authority to develop teachers at school level. From the triangulation the researchers
found that staff training is done based on need assessment at school. Majority of the teachers are
since recent years attending first and second degree.
e) Principals participates all stakeholders in problem identification and planning at both
secondary schools.

64
f) There is not satisfactory level of PTA and ETB encouragement in decision-making in both
secondary schools. But they have full responsibility in teaching learning process to promote
education quality and to exercise an extensive role of decision-making at school level, but it is
not enough as intended.

g, preparing time table principals with teachers and PTA were slightly in good stands and during
time table preparation to make work load fair for all stake holders specially teachers and parent
representatives are participated..
h. Characteristics of leadership at study site. The finding indicated that principals teachers
communication for example in time table preparation, planning, discussion good but it is not
strong enough in doing all things in collaboration with all stake holders, delegation of
responsibility ,motivation development plan and involving in planning and decision making.

2.1 Teachers role in Education decentralization decision making and service delivery.
From the analysis undertaken, regarding teachers role in implementing education
decentralization decision making and service delivery in study schools in the process of
managing teaching-learning activities; such as human and material capacities, local school
governance and leadership the following has been indicated:
a) Regarding Students and Teachers common responsibility:-
Students’ responsibility:-
- There is good stand regarding students attending classes regularly. But, the situation of
attending the lessons offered by the teachers is not in good stand. The level of doing homework
and assignments on time is also not satisfactory..
There is no enough interest of student‘s responsibility in executing the proper directive sand
advice . Teachers do not agree in their proper handling textbooks and other teaching aids and to
some extent students have follow their responsibility in giving respects to teachers & other staffs.
Expertise also revealed that school can have its internal policy regarding discipline maters.

65
.Teachers’ responsibilities:-
- There are enough motives of teachers giving appropriate help and supporting for students and
classroom management activities. But, in the continuous students‘ progress evaluation system
teachers do not accept their attending in both secondary schools in Loka- Abaya Woreda
secondary schools.
2.2. Role of PTA and ETB in Education decision making and service delivery.
The researcher was tried to investigate the role of PTA, and ETB, towards the quality of
education and found the following:
The finding indicated that respondents do not agree in parent‘s involvement in decision making
,in performing their duties according to educational goal, they do not mobilize school community
in the rule and regulation to school financial material and the like issues, and also they are poor
in helping and following-up their children at home.
The analysis also indicated that school committee, i.e. PTA and ETB has no enough
communication with school communities‘ in general teaching-learning activities such as follow-
up, coordinate, support and solve the problems that arise at school level. In addition to that, they
do not have plan lead school community, even they have an interest to be paid for their school
responsibility.

3. Challenges that affect education decentralization management in secondary schools of

Loka-Abaya woreda.

Regarding factors that affecting educational decentralization management in Loka- Abaya

Woreda secondary education, survey indicated that in study schools there is no enough
experienced and skilled leader, there is no enough collaboration for decentralized education
decision making, in addition to that at school level all decision making dominated by school
principals to some extent it make management centralized or from up to down, financial issues
are hidden for school community, lack of transparence accountability, school committee doing
things unknowingly. Moreover, there is financial problem to facilitate schools teaching learning
activities. This all challenges made decentralization ineffective in multi direction.

66
5.2 Conclusions
The research concluded in the assessed secondary schools of Loka- Abaya woreda
Administration the decentralization of educational management is well cascaded and to some
extent achieved. The core management aspect of this policy such as the authority to recruit
teaching staff, administration and developing teachers‘ capacity ,teachers class room
management , performance appraisal and evaluation ,planning with stakeholder and PTA and
ETB involvement in decision-making processes implemented at school level. Financial and
material resources allocation is in hand of woreda and schools have the responsibility to
administer at school level.
On the other hand, the findings indicated that there is poor planning communication strategy for
consultation and doing consultation with individuals and group of teachers. Doing staff
evaluation and performance appraisal is in good stand. The communication with parents on
student progress is low. Students do not attend the lessons offered by the teachers, and they do
not do their homework and assignments. The students responsibility in executing directives and
advises, handling textbooks and other teaching aids are low. Lack of sufficient instructional and
professional material to building teachers‘ professional capacity, organizing short training and
experience programs was also another challenge affecting secondary school decentralized
management.
In the same manner, the school leaders have low level of dedication, do not challenge teachers to
grow and plan more carefully. School leaders do not perform the delegation of responsibility;
refrain from motivating staffs .In addition to that, the limited capacities of teachers and leaders
have contributed to the poor decentralized management in study secondary schools. Similarly
it was found out the parents‘ involvement in following up their children in home-work doing and
support are very poor. More over schools are faced financial and material scarcity to facilitate
educational environment for the students‘ outcome improvement. These all are the implication
for the challenges of decentralization of educational management in secondary schools of Loka-
Abaya woreda.

67
5.3 Recommendations
The study recommends the following key actions in order to address the limitations and gaps
identified by the research. The recommendations are believed to become useful if undertaken in
coordinated manner by all those concerned bodies. These are:
1. WEO should be able to put certain strategies that make stakeholders more accountable for
discharging their responsibility.

2. School heads should be able to plan to provide training to the school teachers according to an
ongoing program so that they can perform their task in a better way.
3. Supervisors should do evaluation for the benefits of both the school as well as to the teachers
themselves.

4. Appraisal should be given to the teacher with a clear understanding of how the supervisor
feels the teacher is performing the job, clear up any misunderstandings about what is expected,
establish a program of improvement and improving the working relationship between the
supervisor and the teacher.
5. School heads should employ certain strategies in an effort to increase teachers‘ job
satisfaction: in-service training, involving teachers in planning and decision making, giving more
responsibilities, recognition for quality of work and good ideas, creating positive interaction
between members of staff and making transparent system in the school.
6. School heads should seek other opportunities to get adequate instruction aids that help to
upgrade teachers‘ performance capacities, such as information technology access.
7. The Schools should maintain regular communication with students on behavioral and
academic expectations as well as creating cooperative learning environment between the school
and the students. They should schedule a meeting with stakeholders and discuss on student issue
as well as the overall the teaching-learning progress on agreed up on and this should be
institutionalized into the school management structure.

68
8. The WEO must be strengthen its role in CPD plan, monitoring and evaluating the CPD
activities, supporting and following-up the teaching-learning progresses, able to communicate
the success or failure and work closely with the school communities.

9. Parents should support their children at home, follow-up in doing home-work, study and
timeframe must take it as an everyday activity.
10The role of parents in school learning and teaching should also be motivated and encouraged.
11. Principals should build awareness on the problem identification, planning and as well as
implementing among the school stakeholders

12. Principals should give necessary feed- back for teachers and community representatives.

13. School principals should be competent, capable and well experienced with educational status.

69
 References

Ayele,z .(2009). Decentralization and primary Education in Tanzania what are the contemporary
successes and challenges? Master Thesis University of 0510, 2008. Retrieved from http

//www.duo vl0.no/sok/work. Htm working =8217.

Alec Ian Gershberg, HDNED (2005). Towards an Education Decentralization Strategy for

Turkey: Guideposts from international experience, Policy Note for the Turkey Education
Sector Study, the World Bank; March 2005
Alec Ian Gershberg, HDNED (2003). EDUCATION DECENTRALIZATION IN AFRICA:
A Review of Recent Policy and Practice, Donald R. Winkler Research Triangle Institute,
August 2003, www.worldbank.org/.../decentralization/.../Winkle.doc
Assefa, Taye and Gebre-Egziabher, Tegegne (2007). Decentralization in Ethiopia. By the
Authors and Forum for Social Studies (FSS), Addis Ababa
Bardhan, Pranab (2002). ―Decentralization of Governance and Development‖ Journal of
Economic Perspective, Volume 16 Issue (4)
Bear, George (2010). Discipline: Effective School Practice, National Association of School
Psychologist, University of Delaware, Newark, 2010.
Bossuyt, Jean and Jermy Gould (2000), "Decentralization and Poverty Reduction: Elaborating
the Linkagesin Policy Management Brief 12 Helsinki: Institution of Development
Studies
Bray, M. (1985). Decentralization and equally of educational opportunity in paper New Guinea
in J.Langlo and M, helean, CEDS). The control of education; International Perspective.

Bossuyt and Jerm. (2000). Decentralization and poverty Reduction: elaborating the linkages in
policy management brief 12: Helsinki institution of devolvement studies. Cabral, Lidia
(2011). Decentralization in Africa: Scope, Motivations and Impact on Service
Delivery and Poverty, Overseas Development Institute, March 2011,
70
City Government of Addis Ababa Education Bureau 2006 E.C (2013/2014), Education Statistics
Annual Abstract
Coleman, Marianne and Glover Derek (2010). Educational Leadership and Management
Developing Insights and Skills, Printed in the UK by Bell & Bin Ltd, 2010, Glasgow

Centralization- Decentralization debate (pp.142-158) University of London, U k. Heinemann

Education book Ltd.
Department of Education, South Africa (2008). Managing teaching and learning, A module of
the Advanced Certificate: Education (School Management and Leadership). of
Education 2008, Republic of South Africa.
Desalegn Chalchisa (n.d.). Continuous Teacher Professional Development: The Ethiopian
context; Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
Donald, Winkler and Boon-Ling, Yeo (2007). AED: Education Quality Improvement Program 2
(EQUIP 2), Identifying the Impact of Education Decentralization on the quality of
Education, working Paper http://www.equip123.net/docs/e2-DecentQuality_WP.pdf
Educational Quality Improvement Program (EQUIP2), USAID working Paper

FDRE.(1994). Education and Training policy Addis Ababa Ethiopia.

.FDRE. (2002). Education and Training Policy and its Implementation .Addis Ababa, Ethiopia:
Ethiopia Federal Ministry of Education.

Fenta Maudefro. (1998). Decentralization in post Derg Ethiopia; Aspects of federal regional
relation MA, Thesis RLDS, Addis Ababa university

Fritzen, SA.( 2006). Problem and prospects of decentralization in developing countries A draft
submitted for consideration by encyclopedia of public administration and public policy
.National University of Singapore; Singapore;LKY school of public police.

Gupta, B.C Vijay Gupta. (2004) .An introduction to statistical methods (23rd edi). New Delhi;
VLKAS publishing house pvt. Ltd.

71
Hanson, Mark (1997). Educational Decentralization: Issues and Challenges, Note No. 9,
(November 1997)
Harris, Lois and Brown, Gavin (2010). ―Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation‖,
Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, PP 1-19, Volume 15, Number 1,

Heredia-Ortiz, Eunice, (2007). "The Impact of Education Decentralization on Education Output:

A Cross-Country Study." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2007.

Hil, Paul T. and Bonan, Josephine (1991). Decentralization and Accountability in Public
Education, Rand Corp., Santa Monica, CA. Inst. for Education and Training, Chicago, IL
1991
Huber and West, M. (2002). Developing school Leadership A critical .Review current practices
Approaches and Issues and direction for the future. Second international hand book of
Educational leadership and Administration Dordrecht klower.
Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology, Methods and Techniques, Second Revised
Edition, University of Rajasthan, Juipur (India), New Age International Publisher, 2004
Kumera kenea. (2007). Decentralized Governance and service delivery A case study of Digelv
and Tije woreda of Arsi zone ,Oromia Region; Unpublished; MA, Thesis RCDS/AAu,
Addis Ababa .
Landau, Sabine and Everitt, Brian S.(2004). A Handbook of Statistical Analyses using SPSS;
HAPMAN & HALL/CRC, 2004
Meheret Ayenew. (1998). some preliminary objections on institutional 2nd Administrative Gaps
in Ethiopia Decentralization process. Working papers No.1, regional and local
development studies Addis Ababa University September 1998.

Mehert Ayenew. (2006). Rapid Assessment of decentralization in Ethiopia: A.A .university of

Addis Ababa. Madeira, Ricardo (2012). The Effects of Decentralization on Schooling:
Evidence from the Sao
Paulo Stateís Education Reform, University of Sao Paulo, September 2012;

72
MoE (2009). Ministry of Education, Continuous Professional Development for Primary and
Secondary School Teachers, Leaders and Supervisors in Ethiopia, the Framework, October
2009,
MoE (2008). Ministry of Education, General Education Quality Improvement Package (GEQIP),
Ministry of Education, November 2008
MOE. (2006). Decentralization management of Education in Ethiopia a Reference manual A.A

MOE. (2008). Review of Education and Training policy its implantations A.A Andenct printers.

MOE. (2002). Education sector development program III program action plan. Addis Ababa
Ethiopia: Ethiopia federal ministry of education.

MOE. (2009). Ministry of Education continuous professional development for primary and
secondary school teacher, leader and supervisors in Ethiopia the frame work October
2009.

MOE. (1994) .Education Leadership and Administration community participation and finance
directive.

Namukasa, Immaculate and Buye, Ronald (2007). "Decentralization and Education in Uganda,"
Canadian and International Education /Education canadienne et international: Vol.
36:
Nsibambi, Apolo (1998).‖Introduction.‖ In Decentralization and Civil Society in Uganda: The
Quefor Good Governance. Uganda: Apolo Nsibamib (Ed), Fountain PublisheLtd.pp.1-
2
Oumer, Jeilu (2009). ―The Challenges of Free Primary Education in Ethiopia‖, College of
Education, University of Addis Ababa 2009, http://unesdoc.unesco.org
Oulai, Dramane, Lugaz Candy, Minas Alemayehu, Teklehaimanot Haileselassie (2011) Analysis
Of capacity development in educational planning and management in Ethiopia,
http://www.iiep.unesco.org/

73
ORI (2014). ―Basic Research Concepts‖, Office of Research Integrity (ORI), Web Based
Training Material, http://ori.hhs.gov/education/products/sdsu/index.html
Schools: Evidence from the Young Lives Qualitative School Survey, working paper 86,
November 2012, http://www.younglives.org.uk
Southern African Development Community (SADC) (2000). Curriculum Practice, Module 14,

Solomon Nigussie. (2007). Fiscal Federalism in Ethiopia Ethnic –based Federal system, Utrecht
University Nether lands.

pp 61, the commonwealth of Learning, http://www.col.org/stamp/Module14.pdf

Tegegen Gebre- Egziabher and kassahun Berhanu.(2004). The role of Denaturalization
Governance in building local institution diffusing ethnic conflicts and alleviating power
in Ethiopia .Regional Development Dialogue Vo1.25. No.1, United Nations for Regional
Development (NAGOV). Japan.

Tegen Gegre- Egziadheg. (1998). the influence of Decentralization some Aspects of local and
regional Development planning in. Ethiopia. Instruction of Development Research
(IDR) A.A.U.

Tuki Gary. (2006). Leadership in organization--- Dorling kinderaly (India). Pvt. Ltd.

UN-Habitat (2002). Local Democracy and Decentralization in East and Southern Africa, Un- S
Habitat 2002, Hs/670/02e ISBN: 92-1-131666-9, Website: www.Unhabitat.Org
UN-Habitat (2008). ETHIOPIA: ADDIS ABABA URBAN PROFILE, HS/1003/08E
ISBN: 978-92-1-131982-8, Printing: UNON, Publishing Services Section, Nairobi, And
ISO 14001:2004-certified Website: www.Unhabitat.Or WoredaNet-Ethiopian Government
Network.
UNESCO (2007) Education For All by 2015: Will We Make It? Education For All Global
Monitoring Report, Paris: UNESCO

Workneh Abebe (2012). School Management and Decision-making in Ethiopian Government

74
World Bank. (1997). Rational for Decentralization URC. Http www L HYPERLINK
"http://www.ciein/"iein org) Decentralization (entry wab site) (Inddex.htm)
Wudu, Aliyou Decentralized Human Resources Management and Capacity: The case of Basona
Worana Woreda in North Shoa Zone, ANRS, June 2005, Unpublished Theses, Addis
Ababa University
Yilmaz, Serdar, Beris, Yakup and Serrano-Berthet, Rodrigo (2008). Local Government
Discretion and Accountability: A Diagnostic Framework for Local Governance; Social
Development, the World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433; Paper No.
113 / July 2

75
 APPENDICES I

Hawassa University
School of postgraduate studies Department of development management

1. Questionnaires were filled by principals, V/principals and teachers of the general

secondary schools of Loka-Abaya woreda and Ossa.

Dear respondents! My name is Daniel Daye

The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect relevant data to the study entitled‖ the
decentralization achievements and challenges of education service delivery in the case of loka-
Abaya woreda general secondary schools of Sidama zone.‖ Your school has been chosen for this
purpose. The success of this study largely depends on your cooperation and genuine response to
the questions. Therefore, you are kindly requested to read each of the statements carefully and to
respond them honestly and frankly. I promise that your response or information that you supply
was used only for academic purpose. The information you provide is strictly confidential and
was kept confidential.

Thank you in anticipation of receiving your returns.

General direction

• No need to write your name

• Read all the instructions and items before answering

• No need to consult others to fill the questionnaires

• Please, provide appropriate response by using ―√” to choose one of the suggested scale
which best suits your opinion. And kindly write your opinion briefly for the short answer
questions on the space provided.

• Please do not leave the question not answered.

76
1.1. Background Information of the Respondents

Instruction 1: indicate your responses by circling the given options or writing on blank space
provided.

• Name of the school _____________________

• Sex: A, male B, female

• What is your age arrangement? A, 20 years and below C, 31-40 years

B, 21-30 years D, 41 years and above

• Educational background

A, Certificate C, first degree

B, Diploma D, second degree E, others................................................

• What is your work experience?

A, 1-5 years B, 6-10 years C, 11-15 years D, 16-20 years

E, 21-25 years F, 26-30 years G, 31 years and above

77
1.2. The questionnaire were filled by principals, V/principals and teachers on principals’
role

Instruction 2: Dear respondents! You are kindly requested to indicate the extent you feel after
carefully reading each item listed in the table below. Please, use the scale given here under and
mark ―√” in the box for your choice. First, carefully understand the meanings of scales below.

Scales: 1. strongly agree 2. Agree, 3. Neutral 4. Disagree, and 5. Strongly disagree

No The role of principals in the decentralization achievements and Scale

challenges of education service delivery. 1 2 3 4 5
1
1 Principal develop the school vision, mission and goal together
with teachers and parents

Principals have responsibility for financial and material

management at school level
2 Principal develop the organizational decision making structure
that involve all teachers, parents and stake holders of the school.
3 Principals draw income generating strategies together with
teachers, parent councils(ETB,SIC and PTA)
4 Principals lead schools with Decentralized collaborative decision
making knowledge and human skill.
5 Principals work in the autonomous decision making operational
process.
6
7 Principals empower and build confidence of teachers and parents
or all stakeholders
8 Principals build trust and strong team in the school community.
9 Principals regularly seek advice and consult with teachers and
parents or with all stakeholders
10 Principals balance time and work load for teachers, parents with
discussing them.
 12 Principals participate all stalk holders in problem identification,
implementing, evaluating performance.
14
15 Principals encourage teachers in facilitating and organizing
school based professional development at school level.
16 Principals have responsibility to evaluate school performance at
school level with commonly agreed tools s
17 Principals share the school decision making power with teachers,
parents and or all stakeholders
18 .principals present work report for school community in school
levels
19
Principals developed good leadership at school level
Principals have responsibility for Recruiting Teaches at school
level

Instruction 3: - Give short answers for the following items.

21. How do you think is the decentralized education service delivery is effective in your school?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

79

22. Who are making decisions in your school?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23. What is the problem associated with the autonomies of principals which affect to decentralize
collaborative education service delivery and decision making of the school and how it affects
effectiveness of principals?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23. How do you see financial and material situation at school level.

............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................

80

25. What challenges affect principals to involve those stake holders in school planning and
financial decision of the school?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

26.What do you suggest to overcome the problem?-------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

27. What are the roles of woreda Education office(WEO) and cluster supervisors in decentralized
management educational or service delivery and decision making in secondary
schools?..............................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................

.1. Follow up, monitoring, control and Evaluation in secondary

schools?..............................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
.2. How do you see their performance appraisal with all
stakeholders?......................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
........................................

81

.3. In what manure WEO create experience sharing programs among schools?
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................

28. How do you see students situation to follow lesson, do homework, attendance, class activities
and their outcomes

............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................

82
1.3 The questionnaire were filled by principals, V/Principals and teachers on teachers’ role

Instruction 4: Dear respondents! You are kindly requested to indicate the extent of your
agreement on the items given on the table below after carefully reading each item. Please, use the
scale given here under and mark ―√” in the box for your choice. First, carefully understand the
meanings of scales below.

Scales: 1. strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral 4. Disagree and 5. Strongly disagree

No The roles of teachers on the decentralization achievements and Scale

challenges of education service delivery. 1 2 3 4 5

1 Teachers play active decision making role through the organizational

structure of the school.
2 Teachers are committed to work collaboration in using the various opportunities
created by the schools.
3 Teachers play cooperative role with principal in developing strategies to obtain
teaching learning Resources for or of the school.
4 Teachers are actively collaborating with principals in setting vision, mission and goal
of the school.
5 .
6 Teachers regularly communicate with principals and parent councils (ETB and PTA)
or with all stakeholders.
7 Teachers highly interested to play advisory and consultative role with principals on
policy matter and operational procedure of the school.
8 Teachers accomplish their role and responsibilities with confidence and freely.
9 Teachers are volunteer in take part in school problem identification and planning,
implementing, performance evaluation, financial issue and school policy rule and
regulation.
10 .Teachers prepare lesson and annual plan for their work effectiveness regularly

11 Teachers and students have Excellent join responsibility in the school

12 Teachers are working as strong team in their departments to set good standard of
teaching learning activities.
13 Teachers build strong and integrated team spirit within the school community.
83
Instruction 5: Give short answers for the following items

41. What are the problems associated with the roles of teachers which affect school based
decentralized collaborative education service delivery and decision making and how does affect
effectiveness of decentralized service delivery and decision making implementations?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

........................................................................................................................

42. What are main managerial challenges that affect your day to day teaching- learning
activities at your school?
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------.................................................................................................................................................

43 What are your key recommendation which could address the above indicated challenges
specifically; and any other suggestion that may improve the secondary school management in
Loka Abaya and Ossa?
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
44. What are teachers and students joint responsibilities
............................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................

84
1.4 The questionnaires were filled by principals and teachers on ETB and PTA role

Instruction 6: Dear respondents! You are kindly requested to indicate the extent of your
agreement on the items given on the table below after carefully reading each item. Please, use the
scale given here under and mark ―√” in the box for your choice. First, carefully understand the
meanings of scales below. Scales: 1. strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Neutral 4. Disagree and 5.
Strongly disagree

No The roles of ETB and PTA, , on the decentralization achievements Scale

and challenges of education service delivery. 1 2 3 4 5
1 ETB and PTA, , and effectively know their role and responsibilities
of the school.
2
3 ETB and PTA develop efficient strategies for the active
participation of parent and communities of the school.
4 ETBand PTA participates, parents and communities to develop
vision, mission and goal of the school.
5 ETB and PTA actively participate, parents and stake holders in
problem prioritization, planning, implementing, evaluating and
financial decision making of the school.
6 ETB and PTA mobilize parents and the school communities to take
part in labor, money kind and idea contribution of the school.
7 ETB and PTA, , prepare their school decentralized policies, rules,
and regulations in collaboration with principals and teachers
8 ETB and PTA, , take fair decisions for every disciplinary issues
accordingly with the directives
9 ETB and PTA, , give priority to full fill school responsibilities with
transparence and accountability.

10 PTA and ETB, involve in follow-up of their child.

85
Instruction 7: give short answer for the following items.

57. What are the problems associated with the roles of ETB and PTA which affect principals in
the decentralized education service delivery and how do affect them?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

58.How do the principals give them opportunity to discuss on educational quality improvement
affairs -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

59. In what manner they play significant role for decentralized service deliver and decision
making _____________________________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

60. What solutions you suggest to overcome the problems?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

61. In what manner all school community discipline problems are

discussed?..........................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................

62. What are the PTA and teachers joint responsibility?.................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................

86
2. An Interview was conducted with Education office heads, experts, and cluster supervisor of
Loka-Abaya woreda General Secondary Schools

Appendices II

2.1. Name of school: Loka Abaya and Ossa secondary schools

2.2 Key Informants Background

1. Sex: A. male B. female

2. What is your age?

3. What is your work experience? (If any)

4. What is your educational status?

2.3. Guiding Questions

63. What is the essence of education decentralization in case of Loka Abaya and Ossa school
context?

64. How do you understand Loka Abaya and Ossa school duties and responsibilities?

65. What role do you have in school-based decision making?

66. In what issues have you made decisions?

67. What opportunities help you to involve in school-based decisions regarding decentralized
education service delivery?

68. What kinds of challenges that encountered effective implementations of decentralized

education service delivery and decision making or management?

69. If your answer to question number‘‘ 68‘‘ is ‗‘yes‘‘

A. what are these challenges?

87
B. what solution do you suggest to overcome the challenges?

70. Do you mention one by one the successes of decentralized education service delivery
and decision making in Loka Abaya Ossa schools so far?

71. How do schools principals participate all stakeholders in all decentralized education service
deliver and decision making, problem identification, planning and evaluation in the school?

72 .How do you see all stakeholders roles to ensure decentralized education management in
Loka Abaya and Ossa secondary schools

73. How do decentralized education management affect teaching-learning activities in Loka

Abaya and Ossa secondary schools?

Appendices III
3. Focus Discussion Group (FDG) (PTA, ETB, SIC, CEEC and SCC)
1. Sex A. male B .Female

2. What is your age?

3. What is your work experience?

4. What is your Educational status?

IIII. Guiding Questions

74. Do the principals participate Teachers, PTA and ETB, in all educational affairs and decision
making of the school?

75. What are the ways of participation of stakeholders that participate them school principals?

76. What are successes of the stakeholder‘s participation, discussion and decision making in the
schools?

88
77. How do the principals build the capacity of the all stake holders to achieve decentralized
education management of service delivery and decision making objectives or goals?

78. How do you evaluate decentralized education service delivery and decision making
implementation in Loka Abaya and Ossa secondary schools?
79. How do decentralized education management affect teaching learning activities in your
school?
80.What kinds of roles play Woreda education office(WEO) and cluster supervisors on
decentralized education service delivery and decision making ( discuss their follow up,
monitoring, control and performance appraisal assessments and evaluation)

Appendices V SIDAMIC VERSION

FGD Shiqqino xamo sidaamu affiinni.

Rosine mini gashshoot uyinonnissi gashshoote rosi mini baalante hajora horoonisiranno gari
hiitooti?

.Konne rosu minira uyinoonni gashshoote hiikko garinni lainnanni?

.Rosu minira uyinooni gashshooti ragunni hara hoogatenni abbino qarra mitto mittonika hanni
kakkayissine hasaabbe?

.Rosiune mini giddoonni hajamaanote hajo yannatenni tiro afidhannoronna hoogannoro hasaawa
asse

.Rosine mini giddonni baalaniti hajo laanno bissa hasaawa mitteenni assitanoro halashitine
hasaabbe.

.Rosiisaano rosaano amaddano garanna rosaano roso harunisitanno gara hasaabbe?

89