School Management

Three exist three forms of School management that are analogous to School success; administrative authority over instruction, policy making in relation to School performance standards and effective supervision of School instructional policies (Wellisch et al, 1978 in SOE, 1978, Vol.51).

More recently across the Scholarly world has been a growing scope on the aspect of which

school facilities are prerequisite for academic progress. As a result, initial discussions

incorporated identifiable quantitative variables , in particular teacher versus pupil ratio, time

span of teachers' experience and time span of pupils exposure to learning (Wellisch et al, 1978

in SOE, 1978, Vol.51). These are termed as "status variables"(Wellisch et al, 1978 in SOE, 1978, Vol.51, p.211). However the research community has shifted its attention towards the relevance of broader variables in form of " leadership in School administration, coordination of all School

programs and administrator-teacher-student relations(Wellisch et al, 1978 in SOE, 1978,

Vol.51, p.211). These are labeled as "process-variables"(Wellisch et al, 1978 in SOE, 1978, Vol.51, p.211). What is of importance to appreciate is that the "status variables unlike the process variables are accessible easily and allow for manipulation. The "process-variables" nonetheless provide the sketch-map for assessing Schools' productivity or level of "effectiveness "(Wellisch et al, 1978 in SOE, 1978, Vol.51, p.211). From the domain of process variables emerges the School management premise. Just as each UPE School in Uganda is required to have a School management committee(SMC), it emerged crucial to adopt the 'process variables' . This is because the 3 key stakeholders in promoting School development are management(administration), teachers responsibility and parental involvement. To examine the relevance of management towards School performance requires the adoption of the 3 process variables discussed above. Teacher responsibility on the other hand is examined from the domain of pedagogy which in turn incorporates the 3 status variables previously labeled.

To effectively understand the relevance of management to School academic performance required discussing the SMCs' role in terms of (I) provision of leadership in class instruction, (II)

115

coordinating School programs and (III) policy making towards pupil progress in School. It must be appreciated that leadership in instruction and coordination of programs have overtime proved crucial in promoting pupil class achievement (Wellisch et al, 1978 in SOE, 1978, Vol.51). On the other hand the policy making towards pupil progress has met differing stand-points with literature stating both the benefits and hindrances of these policies (Wellisch et al, 1978; SOE,1978,Vol.51). One such policy that operates among most UPE Schools in Uganda is that of 'automatic pupil promotion.

The Policy of student progression

To begin with, research on the policy of student progression dates as far back as 1929 in a study conducted by Klene & Branson (1929) in Wellisch et al(1978) in SOE (1978, Vol.51). This research revealed an interesting point; that the performance of pupils that repeated class did not differ largely with those that were automatically promoted (Klene & Branson, 1929 in Wellisch et al, 1978 in SOE, 1978, Vol.51). In relation to this policy of pupil progression, research reveals different explanations in support of either automatic promotion vis-à-vis repetition. One such research was conducted on Philadelphia elementary Schools in 1973 and accordingly revealed that the repetition policy was not as relevant as the automatic promotion policy in determining

pupil achievement (Reiter, 1978 in Wellisch et al, 1978 in SOE, 1978, Vol.51). However another

study conducted by the American Council for Basic Education argued that the automatic pupil

promotion was a hindrance to pupil achievement. This is because relying on such a

policy(automatic promotion) obstructed the avenue for pupils to demonstrate their academic potential, which would lead to high esteem levels among students that is an indicator of quality performance (Levine, 1966, p.18-23 in Wellisch et al, 1978 in SOE, 1978, Vol.51). Thus it was relevant to adopt similar measurements of automatic promotion versus repetition of pupils in assessing the SMC's policy on pupil promotion in Ugandan UPE Schools. This has been already stated as an arena which has received low attention in developing countries as opposed to the developed world.

The coordination of School programs

Previous research has as well adopted the coordination of School programs in explaining management roles in basic education (Wellisch et al, 1978 in SOE, 1978, Vol.51). This

116

coordination is regarded as necessary for School program implementation (ibid). One study conducted in the Michigan elementary Schools revealed that the high program coordination in schools produced a higher level of pupil achievement in reading tests (Michigan State Department of Education, 1976; Wellisch et al, 1978 in SOE, 1978, Vol.51). Similarly another study conducted in Los Angeles examining reading achievement among pupils found that the coordination in programming by the School management bore a positive outcome on pupil achievement. This is because the coordination entailed a review and exchange among teachers and management, discussing better ways for effective the teaching (Armor et al, 1976, p.39 in Wellisch et al, 1978 in SOE, 1978, Vol.51). Thus it was relevant to investigate the same coordination practices of the SMC in UPE Schools within Uganda.

Leadership in Class Instruction

The provision of leadership in class instruction has as well received attention among the education sectors in different states since 1970(Wellisch op.cit.). Despite this attention, Kiesling, 1971 asserted that education officials could not clearly spell out or label the qualities of effective or non-effective leadership in Schools(Kiesling, 1971 in Wellisch et al, 1978 in SOE, 1978, Vol.51). Nonetheless there have emerged studies reflecting a relationship between quality leadership and student exam outcomes. One such study was by Weber, 1971 and it concluded that the quality performance gained by 4 Schools in New York was dependent on the effective leadership in designing instruction programs for the students in each respective inner city School. More importantly is that this leadership was characterized by creativity and explicitness (Weber, 1971 in Wellisch et al, 1978 in SOE, 1978, Vol.51). Another study conducted by the Education Office at New York state on 2 city Schools revealed that the differences in pupil performance was majorly influenced by the different structure of policies, methods of implementing policies and programs designed by the School-administration(Wellisch et al,

op.cit.). Beyond these two studies, emerged emphasis on the necessity of an effective leadership

or administration where in proper leadership in class instructional programs was viewed as the primary factor distinguishing achieving Schools from non-achieving Schools(Michigan State Department of Education, 1976; Ellis, 1975; Trismen et al, 1975; Wellisch et al, 1976; California Department of Education, 1977). It must be appreciated that these different studies combined both case studies and surveys. Nonetheless case studies were more suitable in handling the

117

"process variables" because of the complexity of these variables where as the survey research suited the data gathering on "status variables" that would enhance correlation analyses. My study as will be pointed out in Chapter 3 relied on the Case study design

Monitoring of the School staff members is a mechanism of demonstrating leadership over class instruction. Supervision ensures that acts of teacher absenteeism are identified and addressed through Board Meetings. This role is performed by the SMC. Once an ongoing problem like teacher absenteeism has been identified, communication is carried out between the SMC and Head teachers from the affected primary schools. This in turn forms the basis for decision making to be carried out to address the identified problem. The extent to which barriers monitoring and decision making is fulfilled by the SMC will bear consequences for tackling to performance in Primary Schools. These provided an understanding of the communities’ responsibilities which is the objective of the fourth and fifth research questions. This in particular to the School committees that unlike PTAs assumes a management role in Schools.

The Mobilization of Resources

Resource mobilization programs are geared towards acquiring funds that can target learning infrastructure. This would enable classroom construction and provision of adequate scholastic materials such as text books. Resource mobilization is a means of empowering schools and communities. This provides answers to the second research question regarding the determinants to school performance wherein schools that are empowered with adequate education facilities perform well as compared to their counterparts that are lacking in school facilities. As already indicated the parents to a large extent do contribute these resources as opposed to the SMC personnel. However it is the SMC Chairperson alongside the SMC Budget Officer who do the mobilization and collection of funds. Thus if this role is undermined by an ineffective SMC then there will be no manpower, foodstuffs, funds and construction materials to support the School construction projects.

118

Figure 5.Summary on School Management Variable

SCHOOL MANAGEMENT ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

In short, it needs to be argued that each of the variables under School management bear influence on the attainment of quality learning in the classroom. If undermined, then the type of classroom learning will be detrimental to pupil achievement.