A Comparative Study Of The Implementation Of School Improvement Program In Rural And Urban Secondary Schools Of Buno Bedele Zone

Abstract

This paper compares the Implementation of School Improvement Program between rural and urban Secondary Schools of Buno Bedele Zone. Out of 32 secondary schools, 12 secondary schools were selected by purposive sampling from randomly selected five Woredas. The population for the study consists of 129 teachers, 6 principals, 4 supervisors, 6 students, 6 parents and 4 woreda education heads in rural secondary schools. At the same time, the population of urban secondary schools consists of 252 teachers, 6 principals, 4 supervisors, 6 students, 6 parents and one woreda education heads. By simple random sampling techniques, 97 and 152 teachers were selected from rural and urban secondary schools respectively. A total of 12 principals, 8 supervisors, 12 PTA chair persons and 12 students’ councils and 5 woreda education heads were sampled by purposive sampling techniques from both rural and urban secondary schools. Semi structured interview was conducted to collect data from PTA chair persons, students’ councils and woreda education Heads. Buno Bedele Zone education head was also selected by purposive sampling technique for interview purpose. The collected data was analyzed using statistical Programme for social science software (SPSS) version 20. To analyze the data from questionnaires, descriptive statistical analysis like frequencies, percentile, mean values, and standard deviation and independent sample t-test were used. While, qualitative data generated from interviews and document analysis were transcribed, coded and interpreted thematically. Although further efforts are needed to bring significant improvement in both rural and urban, the study indicates that urban secondary schools implement the four SIP domains more frequently than rural secondary schools. However, in Urban secondary schools’ achievements in Creating Favorable Learning Environment ( =2.52, SD=.417) and Community Involvement ( =2.57, SD=.294) Domains were found low. Furthermore, in rural achievements in all four domains of SIP with mean values less than 2.50 were found very low. The findings of the study also indicated that factors that impede the implementation of SIP in rural secondary schools were many and stronger than factors that impede the implementation of SIP in urban secondary schools. From the rural secondary schools, the results of the t-tests showed that the most dominant challenges that have been influencing proper implementation of SIP in the study schools were absence of self-evaluation at the end of each academic year ( 3.96; SD= 1.04); Absence of collaboration among stakeholders ( 3.90); lack of finance and materials ( 3.87) and High turnover of principals ( 3.58). The most dominant challenges that impede the implementation of SIP in highly performing school were Absence of collaboration among stakeholders ( 3.83, SD=.729); Lack of finance and material ( 3.65, SD=.721); and Teachers resistance to the programme ( 3.24, SD=.552). The greatest difference that occurred, in reference to factors that impede the implementation of SIP, in the two areas of secondary schools were absence of self-evaluation at the end of each academic year, High turnover of principals and lack of awareness about the school improvement program. It may be possible to conclude that Schools which give focus for effective implementation of SIP are expected in performing better realization of its objectives than those schools that do not. In order to overcome the challenges and to realize the objectives of the Programme, the study has recommended integrated efforts of all stakeholders of the Programme mainly, the school community, the external community including parents and the Government.