ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT

The Practices and Challenges of School Development planning

and Implementation: The Case of Diga Woreda Secondary
Schools

By: Dessalegn Tolesa Ejeta

June, 2019
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

i
THE PRACTICES AND CHALLENGES OF SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION:
THE CASE OF DIGA WOREDA SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

By: Dessalegn Tolesa Ejeta

Advisor: Abdulaziz Hussien (PhD)

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Educational Planning and

Management in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements of Master of
Arts in School Leadership

June 2019
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
ii
 Declaration
The researcher here by declares that the thesis on the title; “The Practices and challenges of
school Development planning and Implementation: The case of Diga Woreda secondary
schools.’’, is his original work and that all sources that have been referred to and quote have
been dully indicated and acknowledged with complete references.
Name; Dessalegn Tolesa Ejeta

Sign-___________

Date- _________

This thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval as the university advisor.
Advisor- Name - Abdulaziz Hussien (PhD)

Sign _________

Date _______

iii
 ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

The thesis on The Practices and challenges of school Development planning and
Implementation: The case of Diga Woreda secondary schools is approved for the
degree of “Master of Arts” in school leadership.

APPROVED BY BOARD OF EXAMINERS:

Name Signature Date

Chair Man ______________________ _______________ _______________

Advisor __________________________ _______________ _______________

Internal Examiner____________________ __________________ _______________

External Examiner_____________________ ________________ _______________

iv
 Acknowledgements
First of all, I would like to thank my aunt for helping me to successfully complete this work. I
would like to extend my heartfelt thanks and grateful to my major advisor Abdulaziz Hussien
(PhD)as without his encouragement, close guidance, support and help, and professional expertise
from proposal preparation till the end, the completion of this work would not have been possible.

My special thanks extend to my beloved family who have been taking care of me in all aspects
especially, my beloved wife Kasech Tamene and strong moral support and the pray of my father
Tolesa Ejeta, all my family, sisters and brothers throughout my study time.

Many thanks also go Diga Woreda education office for their invaluable support in all direction
for successfulness of my research.

i
 Table of Contents
Contents Pages

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................ i
List of Table .................................................................................................................................................. v
List of figure ................................................................................................................................................ vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER ONE ......................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Objectives of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 4

1.3.1 General Objective ........................................................................................................................ 4

1.4 Significances of the Study .................................................................................................................. 4

1.5 Delimitation of the Study .................................................................................................................... 4

1.6. Limitation of the Study. ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.8. Organizations of the Study................................................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................................ 6

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................................................................................................ 6
2.1. The Concept of School Development Planning and implementation ................................................ 6

2.2 The purpose of school development planning .................................................................................... 8

2.3 Reason for school development planning ........................................................................................... 8

2.4 Framework of School Development Planning .................................................................................... 8

2.5. The Rationale for School Development Planning .............................................................................. 9

2.6. The School Development Planning and implementation Process.................................................... 11

2.7. Steps in school development planning and implementation ............................................................ 12

2.8 Participants in School development planning ................................................................................... 13

2.9. Plan implementation, monitoring and review .................................................................................. 13

2.10. Challenges in the school development planning process ............................................................... 15

ii
 2.10.1 Conceptual Skills ..................................................................................................................... 15
2.10.2 Human Skills ............................................................................................................................ 15
2.10.3 Technical Skills ........................................................................................................................ 15
2.10.4 Stakeholder participation ......................................................................................................... 16
2.11. Practices of School Development Planning ................................................................................... 16

2.12. School Development Planning in Ethiopia .................................................................................... 19

CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................................. 22

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 22
3.1. Research Design............................................................................................................................... 22

3.2. Source of Data.................................................................................................................................. 22

3.3. Population, Sample and Sampling Techniques ................................................................................ 22

3.4. Data Gathering Tools ....................................................................................................................... 23

3.4.1. A Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................ 23

3.4.2. An Interview ............................................................................................................................. 24

3.4.3. Documents analysis................................................................................................................... 24
3.5. Methods of Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 24

CHAPTER FOUR..................................................................................................................................... 25
ANALYSIS OF DATA, AND INTERPRETATION ............................................................................. 25
4.1 Characteristics and Background of Respondents. ............................................................................. 26

4.2 The Priority Areas in Practices of Sdp and Implementation in Secondary School ........................... 29

4.3 The Priority Areas in challenges of Sdp and Implementation in Secondary School. ..................... 31

4.4 The extent stakeholders are involved in the practice of sdp and implementation in secondary schools. ...... 33

4.5 The extent stakeholders are involved in the Challenges of sdp and implementation in secondary schools. ... 35

4.6 The major problems that face secondary schools in practice of sdp and implementation. ............ 37

4.7 The major problems that face secondary schools in Challenges of sdp and implementation. ........ 39

4.8 Measures to solve the problems of sdp and implementation in secondary schools ........................ 41

iii
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................................ 42
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 42
5.1. Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 42

5.2. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 44

5.2. Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 45

References ................................................................................................................................................... 47
Appendix .................................................................................................................................................... 50

iv
 List of Table

Table 1 Sax and Age of respondents……………………………………………………………27

Table 2 priority areas in practices sdp and implementation in secondary school………………30

Table 3 priority areas in challenges sdp and implementation in secondary school…………….32

Table 4 the extent stakeholders are involved in the practices sdp and implementation .............34

Table 5 the extent stakeholders are involved in the challenges sdp and implementation ..........36

Table 6 the major problems that face secondary schools in practice and implementation…….38

Table 7 the major problems that face secondary schools in challenges and implementation….40

v
 List of figure

Figure 1. School development planning cycle…………………………………………………10

vi
 Acronyms and Abbreviations
ESDP: Education Sector Development Program

MoE: Ministry of Education

NGO: Non-Governmental Organization

PTA: Parent Teacher Association

SASA: South Africa School Act

SDP: School Development Planning

vii
 Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the practices and challenges of school development plan
implementation in Diga woreda Secondary Schools. The researcher used descriptive survey
design using mixed methods research approach of both quantitative and qualitative data. The
data sources were both primary and secondary sources. The primary sources were Diga woreda
secondary schools principals, teachers, students, school board management committees and
department heads from four secondary schools of the woreda. The researcher took Ifa, Fododo,
Diga, and ArjoGudetu secondary schools were for this study. Participants’ were147teachers, 40
department heads and 51 school board management committees who were selected by purposive
sampling techniques and 162 students were selected using systematic random sampling while the
four school principals were included with the availability sampling technique. The main data
gathering tools used in the study were questionnaire, interview and document analysis.
Questionnaire were prepared to collect data from teachers, students, department heads and
school board management committees while interview question was prepared to gather
information from school principals. Quantitative data that were gathered through questionnaire
were analyzed with the Percentage, mean and standard deviations. Data obtained from interview
responses and documents review was analyzed and discussed using narration. The results of the
study revealed that the priority in school development planning and implementation of secondary
school were not similarly emphasized among teachers, students, department heads, school board
management and principals. The level of stakeholders’ participation in the school development
planning and implementation identified as to be low. The major problems that face secondary
schools in practice and challenges of school development planning and implementation were
identified inadequate technical support from the higher officials, shortage of training and
awareness for stakeholders to participate in sdp, inadequate materials and resource. Based on
findings of the study the researcher recommended that secondary schools have better to build
common understanding, strong communication and making collaboration among stakeholders.

viii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with background of the study, statement of the problems, objectives of the
study, significance of the study, delimitations and limitations of the study.

1.1 Background to the Study

Internationally, there is widespread acceptance among educationalists school development

planning and is a powerful means of promoting school effectiveness. It enables the school
community to develop a clear vision of what the school is about and where it is going, a shared
sense of purpose, a common set of goals and consensus on the means of attaining them(SDPI,
1999). Moreover, a school development planning is a long-term planning aimed at improving
teaching and learning at the school. The plan shows the main things that the school wants to
improve and how those improvements were to be achieved. It should be developed by parents,
teachers, and leaders.

The school development plan usually covers a period of three years. Ben-Avie and GebreYesus,
(1996) stated that school development planning as the frame work of the school affects every
thing happening in a school. Accordingly, school development plan is primarily a working
document for use by the school and it is an operational planning that helps to identify the
procedures required for implementation. This is based on the analysis of current schools’
performance, its assessment of how current trends and future factors may impact on the school
and set out priorities and targets for improvement for the period. Therefore, practice and,
challenges of school development planning and implementation need the participation of
stakeholders as it is difficult to plan and implement without them. However, participatory
planning and, implementation in secondary schools in most countries have been challenged by
lack of organizational capacity and barriers of communication and coordination mechanisms at
the grass roots levels.

Schrader (2002) argued that planning can help an organization to clarify future direction, to
establish priorities, to diversify its products or services and to deal effectively with rapidly

1
changing circumstances. In short, a school development plan helps to manage change rather than
merely react, communicate to all interested parties, agreed ways in which the school plans move
forward during the coming years (Davis, 1992).This shows, school development planning and its
implementation should get attention at every level as it is essential for success. During the
implementation process, the tasks specified in the action plan are carried out. These means lack
of adequate personnel, finance, materials, and method and information system has been
identified as further implementation barriers, which school activities planning and implementing
organizations need to tackle (Davis, 1980). Ethiopia has a good international commitment with
regard to millennium development goals and education for all. Therefore, in order to achieve
these desired goals, it requires implementing sdp that can coordinate and combine the school
community to provide quality education.

Education is a tool to create useful citizens in the development of a country to change the attitude
of a society towards the desired path. This can be through introducing the latest technological
discoveries and scientific inventions whereby accelerating the economic, social and cultural
growth (MoE, 2011). Supporting this idea, Hopkins et al. (1994) asserts that school development
planning is a strategy for educational change that enhances student’s outcomes as well as
strengthening the school capacity for changes. Based on this fact Ethiopia has given due
attention to the educational sector. Diga is one of the Woreda in east Wollega zone and four
government secondary schools. The fundamental purpose of school development planning is to
enable the school to achieve and maintain the highest possible level of effectiveness in meeting
the educational needs of its pupils. It also helps the schools in order to manage their development
while continuing with the general operations of the school plan.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

In similar manner, this research focused on the practice and challenges of school development
planning and implementation that can be seen in Diga woreda secondary schools which are
found in east Wollega zone of Oromia regional state. In Secondary schools of this woreda,
several stakeholders are complaining that the schools are not planning their activities by
participating the concerning bodies. Rather, only small number of personnel are deciding
everything themselves so that the school development planning and implementation lack

2
effectiveness. Besides, most routine activities of these schools are going wrong because of the
ineffective plan and implementation seen in secondary schools of this woreda. Therefore, the
researcher was motivated to conduct this research to assess the practice and major challenges
seen while practicing and implementing the school development plans.

The current education and training policy (ETP) of Ethiopia encourages the decentralization of
educational management in which the schools produce their own development plan in their level
to bring realistic development. Stakeholder are also highly encouraged in the process of school
development planning with the intention to improve the quality of education after the current
education training policy was publicized in 1994 (MoE, 2007). However, the practices of school
development planning and implementation in Diga Woreda have encountered many challenges.
As a school principal, the researcher has observed that school development planning and
implementation have not got attention, informal observations that schools were spending much
of their time on routine activities rather than with clearly prioritized activities. Low participation
of stakeholders was observed and most school principals were observed lonely in planning and
implementing the task.

In line with this the researcher had not got the opportunity of getting research done on the
practice and challenges of school development planning and implementation in Diga Woreda
secondary schools. On top of these from the informal discussions and observations the
researcher noticed that school leaders are not pro-active as they are mainly attracted by the daily
routines. The main objective of the research was therefore to assess the challenges and
implementation at school level plans of secondary school. From the informal observation, the
researcher realized that the schools were not planning their routine works as they were expected
to do. Thus, this research was conducted to find out the major challenges that the school leaders
and other concerning bodies are facing. Therefore, to fill this gap the researcher was initiated to
conduct this study and also to address the following basic research questions.

1. To what extent secondary school of Diga Woreda set priority areas in the development
planning process?

2. To what extent are stakeholders involved in the practice school development planning and
implementation in secondary schools?

3
3. What are the major problems that face secondary schools in school development planning and
implementation?
4. What measures should be taken to solve the problems of school development planning and
implementation in secondary schools?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 General Objective

The overall objective of this study was to assess the actual practices of school development
planning and implementation in secondary schools of Diga Woreda. Specifically, this study was
conducted to attain the following specific objectives:-

1. To examine whether there were proper identification of priority areas in school development
planning and implementation.
2. To assess the extent to which stakeholders were participating in school development
planning and implementation.
3. To find out the of the major challenges in school development planning and implementation.
4. To forward direction to solve the problems in school development planning process and
implementation.

1.4 Significances of the Study

The central purpose of this study was to assess the practice and challenges of the school
development planning and implementation in secondary schools of Diga Woreda. The finding of
this study may contribute something important in solving the problems by providing relevant
information to all the stakeholders. It can also play its role in motivating the school leaders to
plan school development planning and implementation by participating the concerning bodies.
Further, it may help the other researchers who may conduct by providing furthers research on
this issue necessary information. Finally, it may contribute in curriculum preparation and
improvement on school development planning and implementation by providing relevant
information so that the quality of education might be improved.

1.5 Delimitation of the Study

Due to time and financial constraints, the scope of this study was delimited to four secondary
schools of Diga Woreda. Although all members of the society in this Woreda benefit from the
4
finding of this research, the researcher had no capacity to address all the total population. Thus,
this study was delimited to four secondary schools.

1.6. Limitation of the Study.

The study was not free of limitations. Some of the limitations to the study were the following.
Getting secondary school principal in their office for interview was difficult due to meeting, and
getting school board management is also another difficulty, because they live for away from
schools .However, the researcher overcomed the encountered problems by visiting repeatedly.
Most participants were not willing to be recorded that resulted the researcher only took notes on
their interviews and questionnaires responses. Thus, there might be loss of some significant
information
1.7 Operational Definition for key Terms
Implementation: is putting the designed school activities in order to attain school objectives.
Practice: All activities that schools perform in order to prepare and implement their sdp.
Principal: a leader of the school.
School development planning: is school plan covering all the steps from analysis of the situation to
monitoring and evaluation.
School development program: is a distinct approach to educational change that intends to enhance
student learning and strengthen the school’s capacity to manage change (Hopkins, 1994).
Secondary school: it is the level of education begins from grade (9-10)
Stakeholders: are all those who are interested in the school and its development. It includes the
school’s managers, teachers, and parents as well as community members.

1.8. Organizations of the Study

The study was organized in to five chapters. The first chapter incorporated introductory part of
the study including back ground of the study, statement of the problem, objectives of the study,
significance of the study, delimitations of the study, limitations of the study and operational
definitions of terms. The second chapter presented review of related literature. The third chapter
deals with research design and methodology. The fourth chapter covered presentation, analysis
and interpretation of data. The last chapter contained summary of major finding, conclusions and
recommendations

5
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter deals with the concept of school development plan, the purpose of school
development planning, framework of school development planning process, objectives of school
development planning, the participation of stakeholders in school development planning, and
implementation and challenges in the school development planning process

2.1. The Concept of School Development Planning and implementation

Internationally, there is widespread acceptance among educationalists that collaborative school
development planning is a powerful means of promoting school effectiveness. It enables the
school community to develop a clear vision of what the school is about and where it is going, a
shared sense of purpose, a common set of goals, consensus on the means of attaining them
(SDPI,1999). Moreover, a school development planning is a long-term planning aimed at
improving teaching and learning at the school. The plan shows the main things that the school
wants to improve and how those improvements are to be achieved. It is developed by the
school’s parents, teachers, and leaders. The school development plan usually covers a period of
three years. Ben-Avie and GebreYesus, (1996) stated that school development planning as the
frame work of the school as a system in which change of any part affects all other part.
Accordingly, school development plan is primarily a working document for use by the school
and it is an operational planning that helps to identify the procedures required for
implementation. This is based on the analysis of current schools’ performance, its assessment of
how current trends and future factors may impact on the school and set out priorities and targets
for improvement for the period ahead. Therefore, school development planning practices and
implementation need the participation of stakeholders. It is difficult to plan and implement
without them.

Moreover school development planning is an ongoing process that helps schools as complex
communities to meet the dual challenge of enhancing quality and managing change.sdp has
different names and defined differently by different authors. Tuohy (1997) pointed that school
development planning is a series of steps that help a school to achieve its preferred future
(Tuohy, 1997).Wallace and Mc Mahon (1994) stated that development planning has recently

6
become an increasingly popular strategy for school improvement. This shows that sdp is a
strategic plan for improvement.

School development planning is a process undertaken by the school community to give direction
to the work of the school in order to ensure that all pupils receive a quality education in terms of
both holistic development and academic achievement. In essence, sdp entails the school’s
analysis of its development needs, prioritization planning for address those identified
development needs. For this purpose effective planning process is an essential feature for every
successful organization. In the case of schools, DENI (2005) has elaborated that, the process will
involve, the confirmation of the school ethos, culture and aims, an assessment of the school’s
current position, its strength areas for improving the quality of learning and teaching and the
various factors which will influence the management and development of the school, the
anticipated level of resources and its management , what the school wants to achieve within
defined number of years, in most cases expressed in terms of qualified targets for future
performance, how it intends to bring about these achievement, and when, and how it will
measure progress. Accordingly, for school to be continuing to provide effective educational
programs and to be accountable for efficient use of resources, planning should be given a place
of prominence in the administrative structure of the schools and be an integral part of the entire
cooperation.

David (1997) states that, school development planning is essentially a collaborative process that
draws the whole school community together in shaping the school feature. School development
planning is a process whereby a school review; the quality of provision; identifies strength and
areas for improvement; plan and implement actions to address priorities and monitors and
evaluates the outcomes. What we can draw from this conclusion is that, school developmental
planning is a collaborative and consultative issues in which all key stakeholders play a great role
in it. Therefore, sdp is a systematic, collaborative and inclusive, ongoing and progressive process
under taken by the school to promote whole school effectiveness, school improvement, quality
enhancement, staff development, partnership, effective resource development, change
management and the furtherance of aims and priorities of the national education system
(SDPI,1999). According to Hopkins etal(1995), development planning is commonly called
“School Growth Plan” that provides a generic and paradigmatic illustration of school

7
improvement strategy, combining as it does selected curriculum change with modifications to the
school management arrangement or organization. Thus, an effective planning process is an
essential feature of every successful organization.

2.2 The purpose of school development planning

The key purpose of school development planning is to contribute to the continuous improvement
of the quality of learning and teaching through a process of regular and ongoing planning,
evaluation and review. As Saitoti (2003) states, school development planning can help an
organization to clarify future direction, to establish priorities, to diversify its products or services,
and to deal effectively with rapidly changing circumstances. School development planning
promotes school effectiveness and improvement in which the provision of quality education
enhanced and the needs of all its pupils are achieved. DENI (2005) has explained that,
particularly school development planning promote school effectiveness and help to ensure that
all those involved in the planning process and delivery have a shared understanding of policies,
procedures and practices within the school. So that, school development planning provides an
exemplary illustration of school improvement strategy, combining as it does curriculum change
with modifications to the school’s management.

2.3 Reason for school development planning

School development planning promotes school effectiveness and improvement in which the
provision of quality education enhanced and the needs of all its pupils are achieved. DENI
(2005) has explained that, particularly school development planning promote school
effectiveness and help to ensure that all those involved in the planning process and delivery have
a shared understanding of policies, procedures and practices within the school. So that, School
development planning provides an exemplary illustration of school improvement strategy,
combining as it does curriculum change with modifications to the school’s management.

2.4 Framework of School Development Planning

The basic framework is a planning cycle that revolves around a central core. The core consists of
the school’s mission, vision and fundamental aims. The planning cycle comprises four key
operations: review, design, implementation and evaluation. The school development planning
process often begins with the core: the formulation of mission, vision and aims. Some schools,

8
however, find it more helpful to begin with the review and to allow their understanding of their
mission, vision and aims to become enriched and clarified through participation in the planning
process, and in particular through reflection on the local, national and international contextual
factors that will influence the shaping of the school’s future (SDPI,1999).

The following diagram me shows school development planning cycle

REVIEW

MISSION
EVALUATE DESIGN
VISION

AIMS

IMPLEMENT

Source ;( SDPI, 1999).

2.5. The Rationale for School Development Planning

The fundamental purpose of sdp is to enable school to achieve and maintain the highest possible
level of effectiveness in meeting the educational needs of its pupils in a culture that is
characterized by change. Moreover, school sdp also promotes school effectiveness and
improvement in which the provision of quality education enhanced and the needs of all its pupils
achieved. Regarding to this idea, Davies (1992) has stated that, sdp enables those who govern to
concentrate on policies and those who manage to manage effectively, it efficiency and
community satisfaction. DENI(2005) has also explained that, in particular school development
planning promote school effectiveness and help ensure that all those involved in the planning

9
process and delivery have a shared understanding of policies, procedures and practices within the
school. School development planning promotes:

School Effectiveness; Internationally, there is widespread acceptance among educationalists that

collaborative school development planning is a powerful means of promoting school
effectiveness. It enables the school community to develop a clear vision of what the school is
about and where it is going, a shared sense of purpose, a common set of goals, and consensus on
the means of attaining them. It constitutes the school as a learning organization that focuses on
meeting the professional needs of teachers in order to meet the educational needs of pupils.

School Improvement; School development planning is a continuous improvement strategy. It

provides a mechanism for systematic self-evaluation that enables the school community to
review its progress, identify priorities, and prepare plans for further improvement.

Quality Enhancement; School development planning directs the attention and energy of the
school community in a systematic way on the central task of the school: the provision of a
quality education that is appropriate to the abilities and needs of all its pupils. It focuses on
enhancing the quality of teaching and learning through collaborative action.

Staff Development; School development planning enhances the professional role of teachers
and promotes their professional development.

Partnership; School development planning promotes partnership in the school’s development

by engaging the major parties in the school community, principal, teachers, parents, pupils, board
of management, and trustees in a collaborative dialogue focused on identifying and responding to
emerging educational needs. Participation in this dialogue fosters the partners’ commitment to
and ownership of school policy.

Effective Deployment of Available Resources

Formalized school development planning enables the school to specify resource requirements
and to target available resources towards meeting priority needs.

10
Management of Change; School development planning helps the school community to manage
change effectively by enabling it to control the pace and direction of internal change and to build
a capacity to respond rapidly to new challenges.

2.6. The School Development Planning and implementation Process

School development planning is a process undertaken by the school community to give direction
to the work of the school in order to ensure that all pupils receive a quality education in terms of
both holistic development and academic achievement (SDPI, 1999).It is:

Systematic; It involves a systematic approach to the planning work that is already being done in
schools: it co-ordinates and integrates piecemeal planning activities into the coherent structure of
an overall plan.

Collaborative; It is essentially a collaborative process that draws the whole school community
together in shaping the school’s future. While it depends largely on the collaboration of the
principal and the teaching staff, it should also include appropriate consultation with all key
stakeholders in the school community: board of management, support staff, parents, pupils, local
community, and the department of education and science.

Ongoing; It is an ongoing process, rooted in a school culture of systematic self-review, in which

policies and plans are continuously developed, implemented, evaluated and revised in the light of
the school’s fundamental aims and the changing needs of its community.

Progressive; It is a cyclical process that yields cumulative and progressive results. Each
planning cycle builds on the outcomes of the previous cycle.

Enhancing; school development planning is a means, not an end a means of enhancing the
quality of educational experience in the school through the successful management of innovation
and change. Accordingly, the process is sharply focused on the educational needs and
achievements of the pupils and concomitantly on the professional development and
empowerment of the teachers.

Finally, as every school is unique, the operation of the planning process will vary considerably
from school to school. The school development planning process is flexible. It is not a set of

11
rules to be followed blindly but a framework for collaborative creativity. Each school must adapt
the framework to suit its own particular circumstances.

2.7. Steps in school development planning and implementation

Step 1:- Define the Objective

Objectives should be SMART: Specific, Measurable Monitor, Achievable, Realistic, and Timed.

Step 2:-Identify possible courses of action

It is important to explore the available options in order to identify the one that will best achieve
the objectives.

Step 3:-Choose and specify a course of action

At this stage, the focus is on identifying exactly what is to be done. Tasks within it are clearly
defined and the order in which they are to be addressed is specified.

Step 4:-Identify resource requirements

The resource implications of the chosen course of action are identified with a view to specifying
precisely the human, organizational and physical resources required to implement the plan.

Step 5:-Review the plan

It can be helpful at this interim point to consider whether the chosen course of action is capable
of being implemented in the school, especially in the light of the resource requirements, and
whether it is likely to bring about the attainment of the objectives.

Step 6:-Assign remits and responsibilities

Each task within the specified course of action is assigned to an individual or group within the
school so that it is clear who is responsible for what.

Step 7:-Establish a time-scale

Schedules and deadlines are established to give momentum to the work of implementation, thus
facilitating progress

12
Step 8:-Identify criteria for success, Specify monitoring and evaluation process

It is important to identify the criteria by which progress will be judged. These criteria will
facilitate monitoring during the implementation period and evaluation at the end of it.

2.8 Participants in School development planning

The basic idea in introducing institutional planning is to ensure involvement of all agencies
concerned with education especially the class room, teacher, pupil and parents in the planning
process. Every person who had been involved in the planning process at the beginning will be
responsible for monitoring and evaluating the plan. In this way the whole process becomes free
and self-sufficing (Nair, 2004). SDPI (1999) explains, school development planning is
essentially a collaborative process that draws the whole school community together in shaping
the school’s future. Accordingly, it requires the appropriate involvement of all the key
stakeholders: board of management, principal, teaching staff, support staff, parents, students, and
local community. Generally, for successful and effective school improvement process the
involvement of stockholders needs to be meaningful. The school leadership and management
will have ensured the meaningful involvement of the school community.

2.9. Plan implementation, monitoring and review

Planning serves to gain control of the future through current acts and its purpose is to provide a
bridge between useful knowledge and purposeful coordinated action (Cunningham, 1982). In this
regard, administers look ahead, predict events, prepare for contingences, formulate directions,
map out activities, and provide an orderly sequence for achieving goals through planning. During
the implementation process, the tasks specified in the action plan are carried out. It is important
to establish structures and procedures whereby teachers involved can be supported in their work.
According to Davies Brent (1999), the most important implementation of school development
planning is greatly assisted by the establishment of appropriate structure for collaboration and
consultation. Structures within the staff may include a steering group, chaired perhaps by school
plan coordinator, to oversee the process as a whole, ad-hock team or task groups to address
particular needs. It is important to establish procedure for communication between the team or
groups and the full staff, in order to maintain staff commitment to the process of consulting with
stake holders should also established. Implementation of school development plans is also
affected by stakeholder participation. The success of any development plan lies in the level of
13
participation of all those who will be charged with the responsibility of implementing it.
Therefore, active involvement of stakeholders at all school levels is emphasized.

Swiderska (2001) argued that stakeholder participation in formulation of sdp plays a critical role
in ensuring that strategic planning efforts are successful and in preventing potential problems at
the implementation stage. Stakeholder participation brings considerable benefits in terms of
building the conditions necessary to facilitate smooth implementation of strategic plans.
Participation generates awareness and capacity amongst stakeholders, helps to build consensus
and support for implementation of the plan, improved trust and collaboration and generates
motivation to put policy into practice.

In many respects the monitoring and the review of the implementation of the action plan is the
most important stage. Swiderska (2001) argued that many organizations prepare good plans but
fail to implement them effectively. It is vital that once the action plan is agreed, arrangements
are put in place to track progress. These arrangements will differ from school to school. In
deciding on the frequency of reporting progress, the board of governors must take account of the
relative priority of the activity. The generally accepted approach would be to agree monthly,
quarterly or annual reports, with the provisos that the principal alerts the governors if there is
substantial slippage on any activity, or if performance changes dramatically for better or worse.
These procedures help to emphasize that the school’s development plan belongs to the board of
governors and the staff and that it has a real and important purpose in driving continued
improvement in the quality of teaching and learning. The school development plan is the central
document that underpins the work of the school and drives it forward. The principal will need to
have internal arrangements in place to monitor progress so that he or she is in a position to report
to the board of governors. As a minimum all goals, objectives, strategies and measures outlined
in the school development plan should be understood by teachers and, where appropriate, other
staff; all staff should be aware of their responsibilities as specified in the school development
plan; the senior management team should prepare and regularly review progress reports against
actions; and in larger schools, Heads of department and other managers should supervise
completion of tasks assigned to named individuals.

14
2.10. Challenges in the school development planning process
There are many challenges facing implementation of development plans in schools, one of which
is lack of training for leaders (Sedisa, 2008). Robbins (2003) and Sedisa (2008) have shown that
effective administrators are those who have acquired certain basic skills to cope with the
demands of their management tasks. Robbins (2003) grouped these skills into three broad
categories, namely technical skills, human skills and conceptual skills. Such skills are necessary
for school managers to effectively implement the development plan.

2.10.1 Conceptual Skills

Gary Yukl (2008) explains in general terms, conceptual skills involve good judgment, fore-
sight, intuition, creativity, and the ability to find meaning and order in ambiguous, uncertain
events. Specific conceptual skills that can be measured with aptitude tests include analytical
ability, logical thinking, concept formation, inductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning.
Cognitive complexity involves a combination of these specific skills and is defined as the ability
to utilize cues to make distinctions and develop categories for classifying things, as well as the
ability to identify complex relationships and develop creative solutions to problems. The study
described, weak conceptual skills were one reason for managers who derailed (McCall &
Lombardo, 1983b).

2.10.2 Human Skills

Gary Yukl (2008) states human (or social) skills include knowledge about human behavior and
group processes, ability to understand the feelings, attitudes, and motives of others, and ability to
communicate clearly and persuasively. Specific types of human skills such as empathy, social
insight, charm, tact and diplomacy, persuasiveness, and oral communication ability are essential
to develop and maintain cooperative relationships with subordinates, superiors, peers, and
outsiders. Human skills are essential for influencing people and understanding what people want
and how they perceive things. Human skills also enhance the effectiveness of relationship
oriented behaviors. In the study, deficiencies in interpersonal skills were a major reason for
managers who eventually derailed in their management careers (McCall and Lombardo (1983b).

2.10.3 Technical Skills

Gary Yukl (2008) stated technical skills include knowledge about methods, processes, and
equipment for conducting the specialized activities of the manager’s organizational unit.

15
Technical skills also include factual knowledge about the organization (rules, structure,
management systems, employee characteristics), and knowledge about the organization’s
products and services (technical specifications, strengths, and limitations).The study described
earlier found that technical knowledge about products and work processes is related to
effectiveness and advancement at lower levels of management, but it becomes relatively less
important at higher levels of management (McCall & Lombardo, 1983a). This type of knowledge
is acquired by a combination of formal education, training, and job experience. Acquisition of
technical knowledge is facilitated by a good memory for details and the ability to learn technical
material quickly. Effective managers are able to obtain information and ideas from many
sources and store it away in their memory for use when they need it.

2.10.4 Stakeholder participation

Every person who had been involved in the planning process at the beginning will be responsible
for monitoring and evaluating the plan. In this way the whole process becomes free and self-
sufficing (Nair, 2004). SDPI (1999) explains, School development planning is essentially a
collaborative process that draws the whole school community together in shaping the school’s
future. Accordingly, it requires the appropriate involvement of all the key stakeholders: Board of
management, principal, teaching staff, support staff, parents, students, and local community.
Generally, for successful and effective school improvement process the involvement of
stockholders needs to be meaningful. The school leadership and management will have ensured
the meaningful involvement of the school community

2.11. Practices of School Development Planning

SDPI (1999) Ethiopia is one of the countries with an old age and rich education tradition.
However, Introduction of western type of modern education did not last more than a century.
Since education system in Ethiopia was more of foreign countries orientation, it failed to meet
citizens need for social, economic, political and cultural transformation. This could be attributed
to deterioration of quality education for long period of time. Accordingly, it is clear that school
development planning is a powerful instrument and ensures a coherent action planning process
for school renewal, innovation and change, in other word it is a school improvement strategy.
The school development planning has been practiced in many countries to improve quality of

16
education and learning standards. Thus, the experiences of s in sdp some countries are as
follows:

In United Kingdom the sdp project that has been shown to have a positive effect up on the whole
school issues and learning outcomes it found improving the quality of education for all project
(IQEA). As Hopkins (2000) has stated since 1990 this model is operating in over number of
schools across the world both in Western Asia and some African countries. Harris (2005), has
also indicated that in United Kingdom, the questions of how to develop/ improve school has
resulted in the adoption of an ambitious reform program aimed at raising standards at schools.
All school is participated in the preparation for implement sdp which is a long time process.
Schools are taken as a center of change; school development is guided by clear philosophy.
School development planning process is strengthened by regular follow up and through staff
development. There is no external pressure but stakeholders are often made motivated and
improvement is carried out through monitoring the process.
Similarly, the development planning has starred in England since 1985. According to Goddard
(1992) the London Borough of Enfield has required each school to produce an annual Institution
Development Plan since 1985. There is, therefore, a long history of their use. Each school has
adapted to its own approach to development planning adapted to its own needs and culture. This
Also shows that wide variation in the styles of plan produced and the process of production.
SDPI (1999) has stated that this booklet offers an introduction to school development planning
process and product.
It will be complemented by more detail and specific guidelines on the structure and
implementation of the planning process. In similar to SASA of 1996 the education Act of 1998
of Ireland specify that it is the responsibility of the board management to arrange for Preparation
of the school plan and to ensure that it is regularly reviewed and updated. SDPI (1999) has also
explained that they allow flexibility in the operation in the school development planning process
and they encourage school community to customize the process to suit their own particular
circumstances. On the other hand, attempt has been made to assess the model of sdp that used in
some African Countries. In this regard, South Africa has some experience in the school
development process and in introducing the planning by providing training for school actors.
Xaba (2006) has explained that South African School Act (SASA) No. 84 of 1996 requires that
school governing bodies develop school mission statements and, by implication, school

17
development plan. And he also emphasized that the training in development planning has been
provided to school Management teams and educators by strict officials using training manual
prepared by NGOs (MSTP). However, the training varied from district, with most districts taking
two days to conduct the training. This implies that even if the training was taken as the initial
stages of the Process, it would be cascaded to the other staff members and stake holders.
Accordingly, in spite of slight difference in emphases, the above definitions describe in the
process of sdp, planners Need to recognize the educational problems that need to be solved
through planning and should Involve all the concerned parties so as to enhance the effective
implementation of plans.
Challenges in the SDP Process
Although school development planning has been introduced in many countries it cannot be seen
As a quick fix, an easy way out of the quality problems that schools is facing. In some countries
or schools within countries it is working rather well, while in many others it is just an empty
shell. In support of this, Mbua (2002) explained that, many African countries now have
educational plans. The main difficult with most of these plans is that they too rarely get off paper
and into action. Moreover, one of the major problems in the planning process is the plan
preparation which can be caused by lack of skill and knowledge of planners, attitudinal problems
and lack of resources.
In this regard, Forojalla (1993) has identified the major problems in educational planning as
highly centralized (not participative), lack of healthy communication, command oriented, lack of
knowledge and understanding of planning by most of officials, limited and short time given to
Prepare plans, lack of educate experiences, and inadequate arrangement for coordination.
Similarly, he has also pointed out the political, economic and administrative constraints are the
Three main factors which are affecting educational planning in Africa today. Lack of proper
comprehension of the respective roles of the political and educational administrators and the
planner in the systematic development of education have tended to affect educational planning in
many countries. There are also many other problems that affect the process of development
planning; schools in general tend to be static. They only take action where there is a problem.
Planning should take place not only to address problems, but as part of forward planning to
improve the schools performance and anticipate change. In most schools the vision and mission

18
Statements are mostly still very general and need to be elaborated in more detail and
accompanied by programs of action matched to the schools capacity and needs. Many schools do
not have a program relevant to their vision and mission. On top of this, poor coordination of
educational programs and projects and shortage of recurrent funds to meet running costs, and
again lack of well trained planner and implementer have been tested as practical problems of sdp
process and its implementation particularly at school levels. Thus, the implementation is that
enhancing commitment and crating common understanding have vital importance for effective
implementation of the intended change.

2.12. School Development Planning in Ethiopia

The development of any policy and educational development plan should be based on
systematic, comprehensive and in depth knowledge of the reality. In Ethiopian context, in
general, education sector analysis is one of the important aspects for educational planning.
The preparation and comprehensive overview of the present situation of the education sector is
the first step in the planning process. Situational analysis reveals strength, weakness and helps to
identify their causes, there by pointing to possible solutions for which targets and action
programs should be included in the plan. According to MoE (2006), education sector diagnosis is
a critical examination of the status, functioning and results of the education system, designed to
identify its strength, weakness and opportunities for improvement.
The improvement of education quality is the current and crucial issue in the today education
system of Ethiopia. Hence, to improve the quality of education much effort has been exerted in
the education system of the country, specially, after 1994 promulgation of ETP by organizing
(steering) the internal and external stake holders. MoE (2002) has stated that, after the current
education and training policy is promulgated in the 1994, the education system is decentralized
to the localities. Different guide lines, roles and responsibilities of different stake holders were
developed to ensure successful implementation of the policy. Moreover, the country has adopted
different educational programs and an innovative strategy Such as GEQIP project and SIP in
order to achieve the educational objectives and meets the needs of the country. The school
improvement program was introduced to the education system of the country since the last three
year, in order to overcome the education quality problem of the country.
According to MoE (1999), different studies conducted at different times indicated that poor
student’s performance at all level of education due to the school simply engaged in performing
19
routine practice rather than systematic. Therefore, to change this condition and the quality of
education MOE and regional experts were organized the schools best practices with the best
practices gained from abroad and later introduce the school improvement program to be
practiced in each school since 2006. School improvement is essential and periodical issue that
focuses to improve the educational goals and process in order to the learning achievement of the
students by assessing the schools domains and conducting self-evaluation (MoE, 1999).
This implies that the fundamental aims of the introduced school development program are to
improve students’ learning achievement and the outcomes of the school in general. Furthermore,
since the main focus of the improvement is student learning and learning outcome. Therefore to
this effect, first the schools have identified their weakness and strength and setting objectives and
priorities by involving schools communities and other stake holders in the improvement of
students learning and learning outcomes.
MoE (2005) has also stated that, decentralization and the creation of PTAs is expressed in
different forms which include; planning the future growth of the school together with the school
community. In this regard, the school development / improvement planning was introduced in
the 2006 as strategic device to ensure the quality of education that improving the school
effectiveness and efficiency. The current education and training policy (ETP) of Ethiopia
encourages the decentralization educational management in which the schools produces its own
development plan in its level to bring realistic improvement in the school and enhances the sense
of ownership. The school community and other stake holders are highly encouraged in the
process of development plan of the school.
The School Improvement Planning Process
Education is all rounded instrument and fundamental for the production of ethical citizens and
Changes the behavior of the society to the desired direction of change, adapting the society with
the new technology and scientific innovation, initiates socio-economic cultural development, the
new policy and training was promulgated and implemented since 1994 E.C. The implementation
of the new policy played a crucial role in all levels of education in terms of access and equity
parallel with the access and equity, to improve the quality of education several activities have
been done. Among those activities developing the skill and knowledge of teachers through
different training mechanisms, inspection and improvement of curriculum, educational training
for the leaders of education, creation of awareness in community to develop the sense of owner

20
ship and to increase participation in the issues of education, increasing the supply of educational
materials, supporting the class room by technology and the others
(MoE, 1999). Moreover, the three year strategic planning of the school was started in the country
from the beginning of 2000 E.C and lasted the first cycle of planning process at the end of 2002
E.C. This process was started by school self evaluation and determining priorities for
implementation and believed to be a continuous school development planning. According to
MoE (1999), the schools follow the process of formulation of a plan that includes the school
priorities, objectives, strategies, outcomes, time frame, responsible body and evaluation
mechanism, ensuring that the plan should be continuous school improvement plan and ensure
school improvement, ensuring that school improvement plan based on the feedback of school
self evaluation and its implementation will ends with the achievement of the goals, filling and
returning questionnaires that comes from each level of educational offices in order to support the
improvement more effective, and formulating action plan that can respond to the key questions
putted by the government and school improvement plan.

21
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Introduction
In this chapter, the research design, sources of data, the sample size and sampling technique, the
data gathering tools, and the method of data analysis were brought in details.

3.1. Research Design

In order to conduct this study, the researcher used descriptive survey design to describe the data
collected about the current practices and challenges of school development planning and
implementation in secondary schools of Diga Woreda. Descriptive survey design was used since
it helps to gather large variety of data regarding and the problem under the study. Kothari (2004)
stated that the major purpose of descriptive survey is describing the state of affairs as it exists at
a present. Furthermore, he explained that the main characteristic of this method is that the
researcher reports what is being happening. The study was carried out using mixed research
approach and analyzed the data based on the research questions. Both quantitative and qualitative
data were used to information (relevant data) gather using questionnaires, and interviews and
document review. Actually, qualitative data was used with the supplement use of quantitative
approach for this study.

3.2. Source of Data

Both primary and secondary sources were used to collect from all Diga woreda secondary
schools, teachers, students, principals, board management members and department heads which
were the population of the study. All these were taken as the primary source of data. Teachers,
students, board management members and department head were addressed through
questionnaire and principals were interviewed. The secondary data were collected from
documents such as school records, relevant technical documents prepared by schools and yearly
reports, schools plan documents. Observation was used to assess the availability of materials and
school facilities needed for planning.

3.3. Population, Sample and Sampling Techniques

The population of this study includes all the students, the teachers, the school principals,
department heads and school board management committees of the four secondary schools. In

22
these four schools, there were 1332 students, 147 teachers, 51 school board management
members and 40 department heads. Based on Gay and Airasian (2003) views that states the
sample size of 10%_20% from the total population is enough for descriptive research, the
researcher used systematic random sampling and purposive sampling techniques and selected
162 students, 147 teachers, 40 department heads, 51 school board management committee
members and the four school principals which were 404 total sample size selected as
respondents.

3.4. Data Gathering Tools

Data was gathered by the questionnaire, interview, document review, and pilot study at Arjo
Gudatu Secondary School. To get relevant and reliable data for the study and to add scope and
breadth, both quantitative and qualitative data gathering tools were used for primary and
secondary data at different levels.

3.4.1. A Questionnaire
The questionnaire was important data collecting tool because it was collected data in a planned
and manageable way from large population. In this study it was used to gathered data from
school board management, students, department heads and teachers. The questionnaire was
developed based on the basic research questions and available related literature. The
questionnaires were designed as both open ended and close ended items. The open-ended items
were formulated in a way that the respondents freely express their ideas. The questionnaires were
on two categories of respondents’ personal characteristics and about the practice and challenges
of school development planning by all the stakeholders under the study area. The questionnaire
was prepared in English and translated into the local language (Afan Oromo) for more
availability and clarity of the concept for respondents’ information from students, teachers,
department head, and school board management on the issues of plan formulation, stakeholders’
participation, plan implementations, monitoring and evaluation Based on the review of related
literature, a close ended questionnaire was prepared using Likert scale (from strongly disagree-
strongly agree and very high-very low) and collected data from students, teachers, school board
managements and department head. The developed questionnaire was categorized under 4 basic
research questions.

23
3.4.2. An Interview
According to Best and Kahan (2003), the reason for using interview was that they could permit
the exploration of issues, which might be too complex to investigate through questionnaires and
also justified as it allows better chance to explain more explicitly what he/she knows on the issue
principals were interviewed.

3.4.3. Documents analysis

This tool was used to investigate the involvement of stakeholders in practice and challenges of
school development planning in secondary schools of the Diga woreda annual plan, monthly
plan, monthly report and yearly report for getting additional data.

3.5. Methods of Data Analysis

The data analysis was used on the basis of the research questions stated and on the nature of data
collected both quantitative and qualitative techniques used to analyze and interpret the obtained
data. To assess the practice and challenges of school development planning and implementation
in secondary schools in Diga woreda, both quantitative and qualitative data analysis were used.
These data was tabulated, edited, categorized and expressed in simple statistical descriptions like
Percentage, mean and standard deviations to describe data that was obtained through the level of
agreement. In addition, data obtained from interview responses and documents was analyzed and
discussed using narration. At the end the major findings of the study was summarized,
concluded, reported, and valuable recommendation for warded.

24
 CHAPTER FOUR

ANALYSIS OF DATA, AND INTERPRETATION

This chapter presented the analysis of data and interpreting at Diga Woreda secondary schools
education system and it was divided in to five parts where the first part deals with demographic
characteristics of the respondent. The second part introduced the priority areas in the practice and
challenges of school development planning and implementation in secondary schools of Diga
woreda, the third section described to what extent the stakeholders are involved in the practice
and challenges of school development planning and implementation in the case of secondary
schools, while fourth one described the major problems that face secondary schools in the
practice and challenges of school development planning and implementation, in the secondary
schools of Diga Woreda. The last section illustrated the measures necessary to solve the
problems of the practice and challenges of school development planning and implementation in
secondary schools of Diga Woreda. The questionnaires were distributed to 400 respondents and
collected interview to four schools principals and analyzed in line with the research questions,
aims and objectives of the research study. It were designed and distributed to the participants in
the study area and were properly filled with participants. The interpreting and analysis of data
were both quantitative and qualitative. The qualitative data results were used to help explain the
quantitative data results. To analyse the data of the questionnaire descriptive statistical analysis
like, percentage, mean, and standard deviation were used to analyses the result.

25
4.1 Characteristics and Background of Respondents. Table 1.
N Item Teachers Students School School Department Total
o principals Board head
No % No % No % No
Managemen
% No % No %
1 Sex Male 88 59.9 81 50 4 100 44
ts 86.3 25 62.5 242 59.9

Female 59 40.1 81 50 - - 7 13.7 15 37.5 162 40.1

total 147 100 162 100 4 100 51 100 40 100 404 100
2 Age 15-25 32 21.8 123 75. - - 16 31.4 13 32.5 184 45.6
26-30 40 27.2 30 18.
9 4 100 23 45.1 21 52.5 118 29.3
31-40 56 38.5 9 5.6 - - 12 23.5 6 15 83 20.6
5
41 and above 19 12.5 - - - - - - - - 19 4.7
total 147 100 162 100 4 100 51 100 40 100 404 100
3 Educati 12and above - - 162 100 - - 22 43.1 - - 184 45.5
on below
Diploma - - - - - - 16 31.4 - - 16 4.0
Qualific BA/BED/BSc 123 82.7 - - 2 50 11 21.6 32 80 168 41.6
ation MA/MED/Msc 22 14.9 - - 2 50 2 3.9 8 20 34 8.4
Sc
Other 2 2.4 - - - - - - - - 2 0.5
Total 147 100 162 100 4 100 51 100 40 100 404 100

4 Language 42 28.6 - - 1 25 7 13.7 13 32.5 63 26.0

Maths 32 21.8 - - 1 25 3 5.9 11 27.5 47 19.4
Field of Natural 18 12.2 - - 1 25 5 9.8 7 17.5 31 12.8
speciali Social
ScienceScience 26 17.7 - - 1 25 4 7.8 9 22.5 40 16.5
Educational 20 13.7 - - - - 6 11.8 - - 26 10.7
zation
Other
Leadership 9 6 - - - - 26 51 - - 35 15.0
Total 147 100 - - 4 100 51 100 40 100 242 100
5 service 5&below 14 9.5 - - - - - - - - 14 7.5
year in 6-10 28 19.1 - - - - - - 16 40 44 23.5
11-15 63 42.9 - - - - - - 17 42.5 80 42.8
teaching
16-20 24 16.3 - - - - - - 7 17.5 31 16.6
21&above 18 12.2 - - - - - - - - 18 9.7
Total 147 100 - - - - - - 40 100 187 100

6 service 5&below - - - - 2 50 - - - - 2 50
year in 6-10 - - - - 2 50 - - - - 2 50
11-15 - - - - - - - - - - - -
principa
16-20 - - - - - - - - - - - -
l 21&above - - - - - - - - - - - -
position Total - - - - 4 100 - - - - 4 100

26
As shown from item one of Table one. the gender characteristics of respondents indicated that all
school principals,44 school board managements, 88 teachers, 81 students and 25 department
head were males while, seven school board managements,15 department heads,59 teachers and
81students were female participants. Totally 242 of the participants were males while 162 of the
participants were females. Also none of principals were females in every secondary schools of
Diga woreda of east wollega zone. From the finding the females were absent in school leadership
positions and also it were found that females shared lower percentage in school board
management committees, department head and teaching position indicate females were not
equally participated males.
Concerning ages of respondents about 13 of department heads,16 school board management, 123
students and 32 teachers were aged between 15-25 years old, about 21 of department heads, 23
school board managements, four school principals,30 students, and 40 teachers were aged
between 26-30 years old while about 56, nine, and 12 and six teachers ,students, school board
managements and department heads were aged between 31-40 years old respectively only 19
teachers were aged 41 and above. On the other hand about 11 and 12 of school board
managements, and department heads were aged 41 and above years old. From the finding
majority of school principals were aged between 26-30 years old indicated that school leaders
were enough experiences in practices and challenges school development planning and
implementation in secondary schools.

Related to education qualification about162 students and 22 of school board managements were
12 grades and below. About 16 of school board managements were diploma holders. Two of
school principals, 11 of school board managements, 123 teachers and 32 of department heads
were BA/BED/BSC. About two of school principals and eight department head and 22 teachers
were MA/MED/MSc holders. and only two others or levels.

With respect to field of specialization of participants one of school principals, about seven of
school board managements, 13 of department heads and 42 of teachers were specialized by
language, the other group about one of school principals and three of school board managements,
11 of department heads and 32 of teachers were specialized by mathematics.

27
Regarding to service year in teaching about 14 of teachers were 5 and below years’ experience,
28 of teachers and 16 of department heads were between 6-10 years’ experience, 63 of teachers
and 17 of department heads were between 11-15 years’ experience, 24 teachers, seven
department heads between 16-20 years’ experience and 18 of teachers experience 21 and above.
Service in year in principal position were identified about two of them were 5 & below years’
experience in principal position and about two of them were between 6-10 years’ stayed in
principal position. Majority of school principals’ experience were between 6-10 years’ indicating
better experiences in practices and challenges of school development planning and
implementation in secondary schools.

28
4.2 The Priority Areas in Practices of Sdp and Implementation in Secondary School.
Table 2

Item 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Me

Respondent
an
N % N % N % N % N %
s
DH 12 30 9 22.5 8 20 7 17.5 4 10 2.6
School improvement program

SB 13 29.4 11 21.6 10 19.6 9 17.6 6 11.8 2.6

Tea 45 30.6 30 20.4 32 21.8 19 12.9 21 14.3 2.6

St 47 29.0 33 20.4 34 21.0 22 13.6 26 16.0 2.7

T 119 29.8 82 20.5 84 21 57 14.3 57 14.8 2.6

DH 14 35 13 32.5 8 20 2 5 3 7.5 2.2

Civic and Ethical Education

SB 8 15.9 6 11.8 28 55 5 9.8 4 7.8 2.9

Tea 32 21.8 19 12.9 41 27.9 28 19.0 27 18.4 3.0

St 30 18.5 39 24.0 24. 63 39 14 8.6 9.9 2.7

T 84 21 88 77 19. 140 35 49 12 12.5 2.8

DH 9 22.5 5 12.5 12 30 11 27.5 3 7.5 2.9

Leadership and Management

SB 11 21.6 13 25.5 10 19.6 9 17.6 8 15.7 2.8

Tea 22 15.0 30 20.4 40 27.2 31 21.0 24 16.3 3.0

St 24 14.8 45 27.8 33 20.4 32 19.8 28 17.3 3.0

T 66 16.5 93 23.3 95 23.8 83 20.8 63 15.8 3.0

Key; DH=department head, SB=school board mgt, Tea=teachers, St=student, T=total

29
As indicated from the Table two, the orders of priority areas of sdp and implementation were
indicated by department heads as follows. Civic and ethical educations was the 1st priority area
with about 14 of responses, School improvement program was the 2nd with about 12 of
respondents, the 3rd was leadership and management by nine of respondents.
On the other hand school board management members were arranged their areas of focus in sdp
and implementations as the 1st priority area civic and ethical educations with about 28 of
respondents, next they gave high priority for school improvement program with about15 of the
respondents finally about 13 of school board management committees were agreed as leadership
and management.
On the other hand Teachers were arranged their areas of focus in sdp and implementations as the
1st priority area with about school improvement program with about 47 of respondents, secondly
about civic and ethical educations about 41 of respondents, lastly leadership and management 40
of the respondents were order of priority. Lastly students were arranged their areas of focus in
school development planning and implementation as the 1st priority area civic and ethical
educations about 63 of respondents, then secondly school improvement program and finally
leadership and management 45 of the respondents were order of priority.

30
4.3 The Priority Areas in challenges of Sdp and Implementation in Secondary
School. Table 3
Item 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Me

Respondent
an
N % N % N % N % N %

s
DH 13 32.5 8 20 9 22.5 5 5 13 13 2.5
Information Communication

SB 7 13.7 5 9.8 27 52.9 6 11.7 6 11.7 3.0

Tea 22 15 24 16.3 25 17 49 33.3 27 18.4 3.2

Technologies

St 25 15.4 27 16.8 22 13.6 65 40.1 23 14.2 3.2

T 67 16.8 64 16 83 20.8 125 31.2 61 15.3 3.1

DH 11 27.5 12 30 5 12.5 7 17.5 5 12.5 2.6

Teachers Development Program

SB 12 23.5 10 19.6 12 23.5 9 17.6 8 15.7 2.8

Tea 50 34.0 31 21.0 34 23.1 25 17 7 4.8 2.4

St 36 22.2 35 21.6 47 29.0 28 17.3 16 9.9 2.7

T 109 27.3 88 22 98 24.5 69 17.3 36 9 2.6

Table three illustrates the priority areas in challenges school development planning and
implementation in secondary school of Diga woreda east wollega.
As indicated from the tables, the orders of priority areas of school development planning and
implementation were indicated by department heads as follows. Information communication
technologies were the 1st priority area with about 13 of respondents, finally teachers’
development program with about 12 of respondents’ agreement. On the other hand school board
management members were arranged their areas of focus in school development planning and
implementations as the 1st priority area information communication technologies with about 27,
secondly about 15 of respondents agreed as they give high priority for school improvement
program.

31
On the other hand Teachers were arranged their areas of focus in school development planning
and implementations as the 1st priority area teachers development program with about 50 of
respondents, next they give high priority information communication technologies with about 49
of respondents.
Lastly students were arranged their areas of focus in school development planning and
implementation as the 1st priority area information communication technologies with about 65 of
respondents, secondly teachers development program with about 47 of respondents. From this
one can conclude the priorities areas were similarly emphasized by department heads and school
board managements. Department heads and school board management have were given the
similar response in practice and challenges of school development planning and implementations
on civic and ethical educations at highest priority areas; teachers were the highest priority areas
to Teacher development program and students were give the highest priority areas for
information communication technologies.
As the interviewed school principals were the priorities areas identified in the plan should
prioritized and focus on the most important developments areas. The format of the plan was help
to understand the objectives to be achieved.

The plan format included the overviews of the development plan priorities and objectives, as
well as detailed summaries of activities. It was best to present the information in a table format,
with explanations as necessary. as the schools documents were reviewed most schools the
practices and challenges of school development planning and implementation, all schools have
prepared one year and three years school development plan document, and report document, as
the school documents were revised clearly organized reports were not found about school
development planning and implementation minutes of different meetings of stakeholder. But
majority of the schools were minutes of different meetings of stakeholders

As the in, SDPI (1999) revealed that, the principal has a responsibility, under the direction of the
board, with the collaboration of the in-school management team and the teaching staff, for:, the
initiation of the planning process, the creation of conducive environment to collaborate, the
motivation of the staff, the establishment of the planning infrastructure, the organization of
activities and resources, the arrangement of consultation, communication and approval
procedures and the management of the plan’s implementation and evaluation.

32
4.4 The extent stakeholders are involved in the practice of sdp and implementation
in secondary schools. Table 4
No Items Teachers Students DH SBM W
(N=147) (N=162) M
(N=40) (N=51)

M M M M

1. The extent to which the whole school 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.7
review is made by all stakeholders

2. The extent to which priorities are agreed 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.2 2.9
on the relation to SDP

3. The extent to which key stakeholder are 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 3.0
involved in the school development plan
preparation

4. The extent to which monitoring and 3.4 3.1 2.9 3.0 3.1
evaluation of success achieved in SDP
preparation based on set criteria

5. The extent to which corrective actions 3.5 3.2 2.8 3.2 3.1
are taken by stakeholders

6. The extent to which activities carried 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.0 3.2
out in SDP implementation are evaluated
by stakeholders

7. The extent to which stakeholders are 2.8 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.1
held discussion on the future SDP plan
cycle

Key; DH=department head, SB=school board mgt, Tea=teachers, St=student, T=total

Key: Mean value ≥4.5= very high, 3.5-4.5= high, 2.5-3.5= moderate, 1.5-2.5= low and ≤1.5=
very low

As shown from table four of item one, the mean value 2.6, 2.7, 2.6 and 2.8 was obtained from
teachers, students, department heads and school board managements with 2.7 weighted mean

33
values. The weighted mean scored 2.7 shows the extent to which stakeholders were involved in
the school development planning and implementation in secondary schools at a moderate level.

Concerning item no two, the extent to which priorities are agreed on the relation sdp, the
response from teachers, students, department heads and school board managements was shown
the mean values of 2.7, 2.7, 3.0 and 3.2 with the weighted mean value of 2.9. This indicates that
the stakeholders were moderately involved in prioritizing, determining and agreed on the school
development planning and implementation in secondary schools.

Similarly, in the item three, the extent to which a stakeholder are participated in school
development planning implementation the mean value, 3.2,3.3,3.6 and 3.0 from teachers,
students, department head and school board managements with 3.3 weighted mean values
confirms that ,the participation of stakeholders was moderate.

Furthermore, in the item four, the extent to which monitoring and evaluation of success achieved
in sdp preparation based on set criteria with the concerned bodies the four groups of respondents
mean values was 3.4, 3.1, 3.0 and 3.0 from teachers, students, department heads and school
board managements including 3.1 weighted mean values was rated moderate in preparing
success criteria for school development planning and implementation with the concerned bodies
in secondary schools.

As it indicated in item five, the extent to which corrective actions are taken by stakeholders
during the implementation was rated moderate with a mean value of 3.5,3.2,2.8 and 3.2 from
teachers, students, department head and school board management’s response sand 3.1 weighted
mean values..

In the same way in the item six, the extent to which activities carried out are evaluated by
stakeholders, with the mean value of 3.1, 3.2, 3.5 and 3.0 including a 3.2 weighted mean value.
The results obtained shows that the evaluation of school activities carried out by stakeholders
were rated at moderate level.

With the same fashion in the item seven, the extent to which stakeholders are held discussion on
the future sdp plan cycle 2.8 teachers, 3.3 students, 3 school board managements and 3.3
department heads respondents mean values with a 3.1 weighted mean value is rated stakeholders

34
involvement was at moderate extent in discussing about the future sdp plan cycle in school
development planning and implementation in secondary schools.

4.5 The extent stakeholders are involved in the Challenges of sdp and
implementation in secondary schools. Table 5
No Items Teachers Students DH SBM WM

(N=147) (N=162) (N=40) (N=51)

M M M M

1 The extent to which appropriate people 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.7
are consulted about sdp plan and
implementation

2 The extent to which key stakeholder are 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.9 2.7
involved in the school development plan
preparation

3 Level of community is materials resource 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.2 2.9

contribution

4 The extent to which financial contribution 3.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 3.0
by the community sdp implementation

As shown from Table five of item one, the extent to which the appropriate people are consulted
about sdp plan and implementation in secondary school was rated in the weighted mean value of
2.7 from the average means of 3.0, 2.6, 2.5 and 2.7 from teachers, students, department heads
and school board managements respectively.

With respect to item two, the extent to which key stakeholder are involved in the school
development plan preparation; the mean value of teachers, students, department heads and school
board managements was rated 3.0,3.1,2.7 and 3.0 with a weighted mean of 3.0 This indicated
that the key actors were moderately involved in school development plan preparation in
secondary schools.

35
On the other hand item three, level of community is materials resource contribution to school
development planning and implementation, the mean value was 3.1, 3.4, 3.1 and 3.2from
teachers, students, department heads and school board managements respectively with 3.2
weighted mean values. This shows that local community was moderately contributed materials
resource for school development planning and implementation in secondary schools.

Where as in the item four, the extent to which financial contribution by community are
contributed sdp implementation, the teachers, the students, the department head and the school
board managements responses show that they were moderately agreed on the idea with mean
result of 3.0, 4.4, 3.1 and 3.0 respectively and with 3.3 weighted mean value.

As interview with school principals’ stakeholders’ participations was low in school development
planning and implementation. There was a gap in the involvement of stakeholders in the school
development planning and implementation but in this finding, high participation of the
stakeholders contribute for the school development planning and implementation were better to
support the schools by their knowledge, skill and resources to take responsibility in day to day
routine work in school level. From this study one can conclude that involving stockholder in the
practices and challenges school development planning and implementation has huge importance
for the school improvement the participation of them.

36
 4.6 The major problems that face secondary schools in practice of sdp and
implementation. Table 6
No Items Teachers Students DH SBM W
M
(N=147) (N=162) (N=40) (N=51)

M M M M

1. There is inadequate technical support 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.3

from the higher officials

2. Leaders are not making school situational 3 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.2
practice

3. There are inadequate controlling and 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.2
evaluation mechanisms

4. Responsibilities are not delegated to 3 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.2

relevant sub-committees

5. There are weak working relationships 3.4 3.4 2.9 3.2 3.2
with stakeholders.

Key: Mean value ≥4.5= strongly agree, 3.5-4.5= agree, 2.5-3.5=undecided, 1.5-2.5= disagree and
≤1.5= strongly disagree.

The table six above represents the major problems that face secondary schools in school
development planning and implementation.

Response from table six of item one above, there is inadequate technical support from the higher
officials as the major problems in school development planning and implementation, the
response from teachers, students department heads and school board managements with mean
value of 3.3, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.2 with the weighted mean of 3.3 is rated as agree on lack of
inadequate technical support from the higher officials in school development planning and
implementation in secondary schools..

37
Regarding item two, leaders are not making school situational practice the major problems in
school development planning and implementation, the weighted mean value 3.2 of the four
groups with mean value of 3.0, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.3 rated as agree on the issue that it was the problem
in school development planning and implementation in secondary schools.
Relating to item three, there are inadequate controlling and evaluation mechanisms is as the
major problem in school development planning and implementation, the response from teachers,
students, department head and school board managements with mean of 3.3, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.1 with
the weighted mean of 3.2 was rated .The result shows it is the major problem in school
development planning and implementation in secondary schools.

Similarly, in the item four, responsibilities are not delegated to relevant sub-committees the
weighted mean value 3.1 of the four groups mean value 3.0, 3.3, 3.0 and 3.2 is rated as it highly
challenge the involvement of stakeholders in school development planning and implementation
in secondary schools.

Concerning item five, there are weak working relationships with stakeholders hindering the
involvement of stakeholders in school development planning and implementation in secondary
schools as the major problems was computed with the mean value from teachers, students,
department head and from school board managements was 3.4, 3.4, 2.9 and 3.2 with a weighted
mean of 3.2.

38
4.7 The major problems that face secondary schools in Challenges of sdp and
implementation. Table 7
No Items Teachers Students DH SBM W
(N=147) (N=162) (N=40) (N=51) M

M M M M

1 There is shortage of training and 3 3.1 3.4 3.3 3.2

awareness for stakeholders to participate
in sdp

2 There is inadequate materials resource 3 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.2

3 There is untimely decision making in sdp 3 3.1 3 3.6 3.2

and implementation

4 There is poor communication system of 3.1 3.3 3.4 2.6 3.1

the school community

5 There is low integration of school 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3

community in the school activities

Key: Mean value ≥4.5= strongly agree, 3.5-4.5= agree, 2.5-3.5=undecided, 1.5-2.5= disagree and
≤1.5= strongly disagree.

The table seven above represents the major problems that face secondary schools in school
development planning and implementation.

Concerning item one, there is shortage of training and awareness for stakeholders to participate
in sdp the response from the teachers with the mean of 3, students with the mean of 3.1,
department heads with mean value of 3.4 and 3.3 from school board management respectively
with 3.2 weighted mean values are rated agree as it was the major problem school development
planning and implementation in secondary schools
With respect to item two, there is an inadequate material resource the major problem in school
development planning and implementation in secondary schools is computed the mean value of

39
teachers, students, department head and school board managements were 3, 3.1, 3.3 and 3.3
respectively with the weighted mean of 3.2.
On the other hand item three, there is untimely decision making in sdp and implementation is
agreed as the major problem in school development planning and implementation in secondary
schools Diga Woreda. The response from teachers, students, department head and response from
school board managements with mean values of 3, 3.1, 3 and 3.6 respectively and weighted
mean value of 3.2 shows as an evidence.
With respect to item four, there is poor communication system of the school community is
agreed as the major problems in school development planning and implementation in secondary
schools was rated with mean values of 3.1, 3.3, 3.4 and 2.6 and weighted mean value 3.1 shows
as an evidence from department heads and school board managements.

Regarding item five, there is low integration of school community in the school activities the
response from teachers, students, department head and school board managements with mean of
3.4, 3.3, 3.3 and 3.3 with the weighted mean of 3.3 was rated .This implies, it was agreed that
low integration of school community in the school activities was the major problem in school
development planning and implementation in secondary schools of Diga Woreda.

As interview was made with school principals on the major problems in school development
planning and its implementation in secondary schools , they have responded that the availability
of resources, materials and equipment, staffing levels, the training, interests, attitudes and
specialism’s of the teachers, the support of the school board of management, the availability of
parental, and poor communication systems in the schools were the major problems that face in
school development planning and implementation in the secondary schools. From triangulation
of data’s obtained from teachers, students, department heads, school board managements and
interviews with a school principals the study identify that the major problems that face secondary
schools in school development planning and implementation were inadequate technical support
from the higher officials, shortage of training and awareness for stakeholders to participate in sdp
inadequate materials, resource responsibilities are not delegated to relevant sub-committees,
weak working relationships with stakeholders, there was poor communication system of the
school community, and there was low integration of school community in the school activities.

40
4.8 Measures to solve the problems of sdp and implementation in secondary
schools
According to principals interview regarding to possible solutions on problem in school
development planning process and implementation it was confirmed that general awareness
among the teachers were a positive or negative influence on the teaching and learning process.
Thus school plan, in order to promote effective learning and teaching, to maximize positive
attitude and, where possible, to remove or minimize the negative attitude.

Similarly some of the principals agreed as to how improve the learning and achievement of all
students and enhance the school’s capacity to manage continuous improvement. It was focus
upon school level factors (e.g. leadership, planning, professional development) and classroom
level factors (teaching, learning and student feedback). These two areas are united through a
process of investigated. One of the principals specifically revealed that “currently the school
development planning and implementation were up dated policies, procedures, systems and
strategies to implement the development planning going on in the secondary schools. school
principal has to work in close relationship with the district education office and other
stakeholders starting from preparation to implementation stage and the involvement stakeholders
was getting from time to time at all stages and document analysis were used valuable for important
information in research. document analysis were used to get important information investigating
the activities like school development planning for five years, school development planning for
three years, school development planning for one years, teachers weekly lesson plan, teachers
daily lesson plan and schools monthly and yearly reports in order to get very useful data.

41
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Summary
The study was conducted in four purposively selected secondary schools by using descriptive
survey. The data was gathered from primary and secondary sources. The primary data source
includes teachers, students, department heads, school board management committees and the
secondary source was document review made and the data were analyzed by using percentages,
mean and weight mean. According to students, the priority areas information communication
technologies, civic and ethical education, school improvement program, teacher development
program, and leadership and management were arranged with the same way teachers priority
areas in school development planning and implementation were arranged in order to teacher
development, information communication technologies, school improvement program, civic and
ethical education and finally leadership and management. As the same way department heads the
priority areas in school development planning and implementation were arranged in order of
civic and ethical education, information communication technologies, leadership and
management, Teacher development and school improvement program, with total agreement were
rated the last.

School board management committees were arranged areas of school development planning and
implementation as giving high priority for civics and ethical education, information
communication technology, school development program, leadership and management and
finally school board managements agreed that teacher development program, were final priority
areas. Based on the analysis of basic questions, interpreting of data and the major findings of the
study were summarized as follows.

With respect to the characteristics of respondents, they were selected from different categories of
the education system at school level (school principals, department heads, students, teachers and
school board managements). The distribution of data by sex, the gender characteristics of
respondents indicated about 88 of the participants were males while 59 of the participants were
females. Also none of principals were females in every secondary school. From the finding the
females were absent in school leadership positions and also females were shared lower

42
percentage in prinicipals, teachers, board managements, and in department head this indicated
that females were not equally shared position with that in secondary school. This implies that
there was male domination under the study area. Regarding education qualification 22 of school
board managements were 12 grade and below, 16 of school board managements were diploma
holders and two of school principals, 32 of department heads, 11 school board management and
123 teachers were BA/BED/BSC, and two of school principals and 8 department head, 22
teachers and two school board management were MA/MED/MSc holders.

With respect to field of specialization of participants one of school principals, seven of school
board managements, 42 of teachers and 13 of department heads were specialized by language,
one of school principals, 32 of teachers, 3 of school board managements and 11 department
heads were specialized by mathematics. Concerning the work experience, majority of school
principals’ experience was between 6-10 years’ and department heads were between 11-15
years’ experience, Priority areas were differently emphasized by teachers, students, school
principals, department heads and school board managements. Concerning stakeholder’s
participation, they were participated in lower extent in reviewing school activities, consultancy
of school development plan and implementation, sharing responsibilities in school development
planning, monitoring, evaluating the success based on the criteria, caring out activities of
evaluation and discussing on the future plan cycle.

As the school documents were reviewed most the practices of school development planning and
implementation, all schools were prepared one year and three years school development plan
document, and report document, as the school documents were revised clearly organized reports
were not found about school development planning and implementation minutes of different
meetings of stakeholder. But majority of the schools did not have time of different meetings of
stakeholders. Regarding to the major problems that face secondary schools in school
development planning and implementation data’s obtained from students, teachers and
department heads, school board managements and interviews of school principals the study
identified that the major problems that face secondary schools in school development planning
and implementation were inadequate technical support from the higher officials, shortage of
training and awareness for stakeholders to participate in sdp inadequate materials, resource,
responsibilities were not delegated to relevant sub-committees, weak working relationships with

43
stakeholders, poor communication system of the school community, and there was low
integration of school community in the school activities. The interview undertaken with school
principals also share this idea

Regarding measures to solve the problems of school development planning and implementation
in secondary schools the respondents were moderately agreed that it was best options to solve the
problems by prioritizing stakeholders to determine and agreeing on the school development
planning and implementation, providing trainings, support, taking corrective actions during the
implementation, involving the stakeholders in discussing on the planning cycle, and getting
funds adequately resources from concerning bodies.

5.2. Conclusions
Based on summary of main findings on the practices and challenges of school development plans
and implementation in secondary schools of the study have drawn the following conclusions.
From the findings of the study, the priority areas identified in school development planning and
implementation were not similarly emphasized by students, teachers, department heads, school
boards managements and school principals due to the result of less awareness at school level by
concerned bodies in secondary school. Concerning stakeholder’s participation in the school
development planning and implementation in secondary schools, they were revealed lower extent
in consultancy of school development plan and implementation, sharing responsibilities in school
development planning, monitoring and evaluating the success based on the criteria, caring out
activities of evaluation by stakeholders, and discussing on the future sdp plan cycle.
Regarding to the major problems that face secondary schools in school development planning
and implementation data’s were obtained from students, teachers, department heads, school
board managements and interviews of school principals were identified that the major problems
that face secondary schools were inadequate technical support from the higher officials, shortage
of training and awareness for stakeholders to participate in sdp inadequate materials, resource,
responsibilities are not delegated to relevant sub-committees, weak working relationships with
stakeholders, poor communication system of the school community, and there was low
integration of school community in the school activities in the secondary school. It was best
options to solve the problems by prioritizing stakeholders activity to determine and agreeing on
the sdp and implementation, providing trainings, taking corrective actions during the

44
implementation, involving the stakeholders in discussing on the planning cycle, and getting
adequate funds from concerning bodies.

5.2. Recommendations
Based on findings of the study and conclusions drawn the following recommendations were
stated as follows. It was recommended higher officials like woreda education office, zonal
education office, and regional and federal education experts to address the shortage of school
resources and to give adequate technical support for secondary schools of the woreda. The
studies were identified as weak working relationships with stakeholders, and there was poor
communication system among school community. It was better for school communities toward
school development planning and implementation through taking corrective actions during the
implementation, and involving the stakeholders in discussing on the planning cycle.

Firstly, the study indicated the priorities in school development planning and implementation of
secondary school were not similarly emphasized among students, teachers, department heads,
school boards managements and principals. It was recommended that secondary schools better to
build a common understanding, strong communications and making collaborations among
students, teachers, parents, department heads, school boards managements and school leaders on
school development planning and implementation.

Secondly, the level of stakeholder’s participation in the school development planning and
implementation identified to be in the lower extent by reviewing school activities, sharing
responsibilities in school development planning, monitoring and evaluating the success based on
the criteria, and discussing on the future school development planning cycle. The principals of
the secondary schools in the woreda recommended to open door for higher level participation of
stakeholders in the school development planning and implementation by creating awareness,
delegating responsibilities, and motivate their participations.

45
Thirdly, the major problems that face secondary schools in school development planning and
implementation were identified inadequate technical support from the higher officials, shortage
of training and awareness for stakeholders to participate in sdp inadequate materials and
resource.

Fourthly, it was recommended that the possible solution on problem in school development
planning process and implementation through awareness creation among the stakeholders were a
positive or negative influence on the teaching and learning process, to improve the learning,
achievement of students and enhance the school’s capacity to manage continuous improvement.
Therefore, it was recommended that, concerned government bodies particularly, the education
sectors and administrative council bodies at different levels of the government structures in the
woreda and schools should give due attention in realizing and giving solutions to the problems
identified in the study.
Finally, to better address the problems it can be suggested that further studies need to be
conducted in this area with regard to; the practice and challenges of school development
planning and implementation. The case of Diga Woreda secondary schools and conduct similar
study on way females participate on school development planning.

46
 References
Ben-Avie and GebreYesus, (1996) An assessment of school development planning. (On line)
Available Url://info.med.yale.educ/comer/ downloads ralling-chapter6 pdf.

Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (1993).Research in education. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall.

Best, J.W., and Khan, J.V. (2003). Research in Education. New Delhi: prentice-Hall PL

Creswell, J.W. (2005), Educational Research: planning, Conducting and Evaluating

Quantitative and Qualitative Research. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill prentice Hall

Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative
and Qualitative Research. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River RJ: Pearson Education.

Cunningham, W.G. (1982).Systematic planning for Educational Change. CA: MayfieldPublishing

company.Webster’s 20th century dictionary UNABRIDGED (2nd ed.), USA: William
Collins publishers.

Davied Tuohy (1997). School Leadership and Strategic Planning. Dublin: ASIT.

Davies, B. (1992). School Development Planning. Harlow: Longman group Ltd.

Davies, R. G. (1998). Planning Education for Development: Models and methods for Systematic
planning of Education. Vol. II Combridge: Horardvminerity Printing office

Davis, R. et.al. (1980). Planning Education for Development. Cambridge: Mossa Chusetts,Novak
Printing.

DENI (2005). School Development Planning. Northern Ireland. Retrieved On November, 25/2010
from http://www.denni.gov.vk/sdp.guidance.pdf.

Forojalla, S.B. (1993). Educational Planning for Development. New York: St. Materials press.
Gay, L.R.; Mills, G.E.; & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational Research: Competencies for
Analysis and Applications (9th Ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

Gary Yukl (2008). Leadership in Organizations, Seventh Edition, University at Albany State
University of New York.

47
Gay, R. and Airsian, P. (2003).Educational Research. Competency for Analysis and Application.
(7thedn.). NewJersy: Merrill Printice Hall.

Goddard, D. and Marilyn, L. (1992). Planning for Improvement and Managing Change. London:
Paul Chapman publishing Ltd.

Harris, A. and Daniel Muijes (2005). Improving teacher leader ship; London: Open University
press.

Hopkins, D, et al. (1994). School Improvement in the Area of Change. London: Cassell.

Hopkins, D. (2007). Every School a Great School: Realizing the potential of system leadership.
England: Open University Press

Kothari, C. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques, 2nd ed, Universi Rajasthan,
New Age International, LTD, Indi

Krejcie, R.V and Morgan, D.W. (1970) Determining sample size for research activities,
Educational and Psychological Measurement 30, 609, copyright Sage Publications Inc,
reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc

Mbua, F. (2002). Educational Planning Issues and Perspectives. Linbe: UNECA

McCall, M. W. Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983b) what makes a top executive? Psychology Today,
February. 26–31.

MoE (1994). Federal Democratic Republic Government of Ethiopia Education and Training
Policy. Addis Ababa: St. George Printing press.

MoE (1999). Teachers Education Hand book. Addis Ababa, MOE: UN published.MCL Aughlin
M.W. and Vogt, 1998 port folio assessment for in-service Teachers: Collaborative
Model, in professional port folio models Application Education (pp.176).Norwood, MA:
Christopher Gordon publisher.

MoE (2002). The Education and Training Policy and its Implementation: Addis Ababa.

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

48
MoE (2006). Ethiopian Education Development Plan II 1995 E.C -1997E.C. Joint Review

MoE (2007).General Education Improvement Program. Addis Ababa. EMPDA.

Nair, (2004). Methodology of Educational Research. New Delhi: Vikos pub House pvtLtd.

Robbins, P.S. (2003).Organizational Theory. New Jersey: Prentice Hall International.

Saitoti, G. (2003). Education Sector Review: How Far Have We Come Since Independence and
What Still Needs to be done to meet the Education Needs of all Kenyans, report of the
National Conference on Education and Training held at Kenyatta International
Conference Centre, Nairobi, 27-29 November, pp 50-64.

Schraeder, M. (2002).A Simplified Approach to Development Planning: Practical Considerations

and an Illustrated Example. Business Process Management, 8 (1), 8-18.

SDPI (2003). The process of School Development planning. (Online) Available URL: Retrieved

SDPI. (1999). School Development Planning. An introduction for Second Level Schools.
Government of Ireland: Education and Science.

Sedisa, K.N. (2008). Public Private Partnership in the Provision of Secondary Education in the
Gaborone Area of Botswana. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of South Africa. G.
Muthaa& F. Kinanulgweta.

Swiderska, K. (2001).Stakeholder participation in policy on access to genetic resources,

Traditional knowledge and benefit-sharing: Case studies and recommendations,
Biodiversity and live lihoods Issues No.4, International Institute for Environment and
Development

Tuohy, D. (1997).School Leadership and Strategic Planning. Dublin: ASTI.

Wallace. (1994). Contradictory Interests in Policy Implementation: The Case of Lea Development
Plans for Schools, Journal of Education Policy, 6 (4), 385-99.

Xaba, M. (2006). The Development Planning South African Journal and Education.

49
 APPENDIX - A
Addis Ababa University
College of Education and Behavioral studies
Department of Educational planning and Management
Master Program in School leadership

Questionnaire to be filled by students, teachers, department heads and school board

managements

The Questionnaire has two parts.

Part I is Background Information of the respondents.
Part II is Questionnaires fills by respondents
The objective of these questions will be to get information from the respondents about the actual
practices and challenges of school development planning and implementation: The case of Diga
woreda secondary schools and point out the possible solution by this study. So try to fill
carefully and correctly your answers and suggestion.
Note 1. It is not necessary to write your name on question paper.
2. when you give your answer, in a given box use”√” symbol and write your
suggestion in the blank space

Thank you for your cooperation

50
 Part I
Background Information
Name of the school ____________

1. Sex: Male Female

2. Age (in years):

21 – 25 31 – 35

26 – 30 36 – 40 41 and above

3. Qualification 12 and below Diploma BA/BED/BSc

MA /MED/MSc any other

4. Area of specialization
Language Maths Natural Science

Social Science Educational Leadership Other

5. Teaching experience in years (only for department head and teachers)

Below 5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years

16-20 years 21-25 years 26 and above

6. Work Experience as principal of the school (only for principal _________Years)

Below 5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years

16-20 years 21-25 years 26 and above

51
 Part II

2.1. Please to what extent secondary schools of Diga Woreda set prioritize areas in development
planning process in your school by giving ranks from 1- 5. The highest priority should be given 1

No. . Priority Areas Rank

1 School improvement program

2 Teachers Development Program

3 Leadership and Management

4 Information Communication Technology

5 Civic and Ethical Education

Please add any priority areas identified in your school development planning other than
mentioned under instruction number 1.

2.2. The following questions are about the stakeholders’ participation in school development
planning and implementation in the secondary schools. Please indicate to what extent
stakeholders are involved in the school development planning and implementation in your school
by putting “√” marks in the box given against selecting very low=VL, low=L, medium=M , high
=H, very high=VH

52
 No Items

Scale of participation

VL L M H V
H

1 The extent to which the whole school review is made by all stakeholders

2 The extent to which the appropriate people are consulted about sdp plan and
implementation

3 The extent to which priorities are, agreed on the relation to sdp

4 The extent to which the key stakeholders are involved in the school
development plan preparation

5 Level of community’s material, resource contribution.

6 The extent to which the stakeholders participated in school development

planning implementation

7 The extent to which monitoring and evaluation of success achieved in sdp

preparation based on set criteria

8 The extent to which corrective actions are taken by stakeholders during the
implementation

9 The extent to which activities carried out in sdp implementation evaluated by

stakeholders

10 The extent to which Stakeholders held discussion on the future sdp plan cycle

11 The extent of financial contribution by the community for sdp implementation

12 If you have any more options for the participation of school development planning and
implementation please list three of them.

53
2.3. The following questions are about the major challenges that face in school development
planning and implementation in the secondary school.
Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement for each item under the scales that
represents your opinion.
Strongly agree=5 Agree=4, undecided=3, Disagree=2 strongly disagree=1
No Items Scale of the problem

1 2 3 4 5

1 There is inadequate technical support from the higher officials

2 Leaders are not making school situational practice

3 There is Shortage of training and awareness for stakeholders to

participate in sdp

4 There is inadequate materials resource

5 There is untimely decision making in sdp and implementation

6 There is inadequate Controlling and evaluation mechanisms

7 Responsibilities are not delegated to relevant sub-committees

8 There are weak working relationships with stakeholders

9 There is poor communication system of the school community

10 There is low integration of school community in the school activities

11 What are the major challenges that you encountered while you were planning and
implementing the sdp in your school?

54
 APPENDIX - B
Addis Ababa University
College of Education and Behavioral studies
Department of Educational planning and Management
Master Program in School leadership

Interview Questions for secondary school principals

Date of interview ________
Starting time ___________
Ending time ___________
Objectives
The objective of this interview is to gather necessary information about the problem related to the practice
and challenges of school developing planning and implementation: The case of Diga Woreda secondary
schools. Therefore, you are kindly requested to give your responses for the following questions.
1. What are your school priority areas? Can you tell me them?
a. How do you prioritize your school development plan activities?
2. To what extent stakeholders participate in school development planning implementation?
a. To what extent the availability of resource for the proper implementation of the plan?
b. How do you evaluate the support given from stakeholders?
3. What are the problems that face your school in school development planning and implementation
efficiently?
4. What do you suggest to overcome challenges in relation to?
a. SDP preparation…………………………………………………………..
b. SDP implementation……………………………………………………………………………
Document Review
The following are some of the most documents in the practices and challenges of school development
planning and implementation; the case of Diga woreda secondary schools. Then the researcher will revise
to show the most appropriate areas that require improvement in the practices.

1. School Development plan (1 year and 3years)

2. Report Document
3 Minutes of different meetings of stakeholders

55
 APPENDIX - C
Yuunivarsiitii Finfinneetti
Kolleejjii Barnootaa fi Qo’annoo Amala
Muummee Hooggansaa fi Karoora Barnootaa
Gaaffilee barattoota, barsiisota, barsiisota itti-gaafatamtoota muummeewwanii fi koree boordii
barnootaatiin guttamuuf dhihaatan. Kabajamtoota qaamolee waraqaa kana guuttaniif Kaayyoon
gaaffannoo kanaa akkaataa hojiiirra oolmaa karoora guddina manneen barnootaa Sadarkaa Lammaaffaa
Aanaa Diga GodinaWallaggaa bahaa keessatti raawwachaa jiru odeeffannoo sassaabuudhaan rakkoo isaaf
furmaata barbaaduu dha. Fiixaan bahiinsi qorannoo kanaa odeeffannoo dhugaa isin laattan irratti
hundaa’a. Kanaafuu amanamummaa fi ittigaafatamummaa cimaa dhaan waraqaa gaaffii isinitti kenname
akka nuuf guuttan isin gaafanna. Gaaffilee dhiyaatan kana akkaataa gaafatamtan itti guutuun keessan
qorannoo kana dhugaa qabeessa taasisuu keessatti gahee guddaa taasisa.

Hubachiisa

• Maqaa barreessuu hin barbaachisu

• Deebii /yaada kessaan bakka duwwaa kenname irratti mallattoo”√” guutaa.

56
 Kutaa-I
Odeeffannoo dhuunfaa
Maqaa M/B___________________________
Qajeelfama; Saanduqa kenname keessatti deebii keessan mallattoo “X” agarsiisaa.
1.1. Koorniyaa dhi dha

1.2. Umurii

21 – 25 31 – 35

26 – 30 36 – 40 41fi isaa ol

1.3 .Sadarkaa barnootaa

9ffaa 10 ffaa Diploma BA/BED/BSC MA /MED/MSc

Kan biroon yoo jiraate haa ibsamu ______________________________________

1.4. Gosa barnootaa itti lenji’e

Afaan Herrega Saayinsii Uumamaa

Saayinsii Hawaasaa Hoggansa Barnootaa Kan biroo

1.5. Muuxannoo barsiisumma (barsiistaafi Hoggantoota muummee qofaaf)

Waggaa 5 gadi Waggaa 6-10 Waggaa 11-15

Waggaa 16-20 Waggaa 21-25 Waggaa 26 fi isaa ol

1.6. Tajaajila qindeessummaa (hogganaa mana barumsaa qofaaf) Waggaa

Waggaa 5 gadi Waggaa 6-10 Waggaa 11-15

Waggaa 16-20 Waggaa 21-25 Waggaa 26 fi isaa ol

Galatoomaa

57
Kutaa II

2.1 Kanneen armaan gadii Toraa xiyeefanoo karoora Guddinaa mana barumsaa keessanii
keessatti Kan xiyyeeffannoo argachuu qaba jettan sadarkeessuun kaa’a. Kan jalqabaaf lakkoofsa
1, kennuun hanga xumuraatti sadarkeessi.

Lakk Torraxiyeefanoo Sadarkaa

1 Sagantaa Fooyya’insa Mana Barumsaa / SIP/

2 Dagaagina Ogummaa Barsiisotaa/ TDP/

3 Hogansa fi Bulchiinsa Barnootaa

4 Qunnamtii Teeknoolojii fi Odeefannoo barnootaa

5 Barnoota Lamummaa fi Amala gaarii

Tooraa xiyeefanoo karoori Guddina mana barumsa irratti xiyeefatu saddettan

Ajjaja lakkoofsa II jalatti ibsmaniin ala yoo jirate ibsa.

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2. Hirmaannaa Qophii karoora Guddina Manneen Barnootaa
Akkaataa hojii irra oolmaa hirmaannaa fi qophii karoora guddina mana barumsaa keessanii
ilaalchisee gaaffilee gabatee armaan gadii irraitti dhiyaataniif hangana Kan jettan deebii keessan
mallattoo “√” gargaaramuudhaan kenna.
1= baay’ee gadi aanaa 2= gadi aanaa 3=giddu galeessa 4= olaanaa 5= daran olaanaa

58
 La Gochoota raawwataman Hanga qabxii
kk
1 2 3 4 5

1 Hamam sakkatta’iinsi karoora mana barumsaa dhimmamtoota hundaan taasifama.

2 Hamam namoota ilaallatu hundaan raawwii fi karoorri Guddina mana barumsaa

mari’atama

3 Hamam dhimmamtoonni karoora guddina mana barumsaa wantoota karoorcha keessati

hammataman sadarkeessun, murteessu fi akkasumas itti waliigalu.

4 Hamam dhimmamtoonni ijoon qophii karoora Guddina mana barumsaa keessatti ni

hirmaatu

5 Sadarka hawaasni naannoo dhiheessii meshaalee karoorichaaf barbaachisanii ni taasisa.

6 Hamam dhimmamtoonni ijoon karooricha raawwachuu keessatti ga’ee isaanii ni ba’u

7 Hamam ulagaaleen raawwii fi madaallii karoorichaa qaama dhimmi ilaallatuun qophaa’a.

8 Qopheessittonni karoorichaa ulaagaalee qophaa’an irraatti hundaa’uun karooricha ni

hordofuu ni madaalu

9 Hamam Karooricha keessatti tarkaanfiin sirreeffamaa hirmaattotaan ni fudhatamu

10 Hamam Bu’awwan karoorichaa dhimmamtoota ijoon ni madaalamu.

11 Hamam Dhimmamtoonni waa’ee karoora gara fuula duraa marii ni taasisu.

12. Mala biro ittiin karooroora Guddina mana barumsaa karoorsuuf raawwachuu yoo jiraate
tarreessaa.
1. _____________________________________________
2______________________________________________
2.3. Kan armaan gadii gaafannoo waa’ee karoora guddina mana barumsaa karoorsuuf
raawwachuu keessatti rakkowwan mana barumsaa sadarkaa 2ffaa mudachuu danda’anii dha.
Kanaaf yaada kana akka mana barumsaa keetti
Sadarkaa itti waliigaluu fi waliigaluu dhabuu keetii agarsiisi.

59
Baayyee itti walii hin galu=1, Waliin galu=2, hin murteessu =3, Waliin gala=4, Baayyee itti
walii hin galu=5
T/ Rakkowwan tarreeffaman Iskeelii rakkichaa
L
1 2 3 4 5

1 Deggersa tekinikaa gahaa dhabuu

2 Hoggantoonni mana barumsaa haala yeroon gaafatuun rakkoo furuu dhabuu

3 Haqina leenjii fi hubannoo dhimmamtoota karoorsuu keessatti hirmaachisuu dhabuu

4 Hanqinni meshaalee jiraachuu

5 Karoorsuu fi raawwachuu kessatti murtoo yeroo isaa eegatee laachuu dhabuu

6 Sirni hordoffii fi madaallii laafaa ta’uu

7 Korewwan xixiqqaa dhimmii laaallatu aangessuu dhabuu

8 Hariiroon dhimmamtootaa laafaa ta’uu.

9 Sirni wal-quunnamtii hawwaasa mana barumsaa laafaa ta’uu

10 Hawaasa mana barumsaa guutummaa hojii mana barumsaa iiratti hirmaachisuu

dhabuu

11. Rakkoo biroo yeroo karoora Guddina mana barumsaa karoorfamuu fi raawwiiisaa keessatti si
mudatan yoo jiraate tarreessi.

60