CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
Teacher
education programme is saddled with the responsibility of nation building for
the Nigerian as development society. The quality of the products from teacher
training institutions determines the pace of the nation’s development.
Quality in
the educational sector is considered in terms of exceptionally high standards,
consistency, fitness for purpose, value for money (accountability) and
transformative effects (Atanda 2007). Onuh (2006) claims that quality in
education is a multidimensional concept which should embrace all
functions and activities, teaching and academic programmes, research and scholarship,
staffing, students, buildings, facilities, equipment, services to the community
and academic environment (UNESCO 1998).
This is why
the major concerns of Nigerian educational system is how to ensure quality and
high delivery.
According to
Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary of current English, among other meanings,
defines quality as “grade of goodness, excellence or degrees (especially high
degrees) of goodness or worth”. The educational service delivery system needs
substantial human and material resources with adequate and sustained quality
assurance measures in order to live up to expectations. The expansion and
upgrading of facilities and equipment to enhance capacity utilization of
information communication technology (ICT) need not to be over emphasized.
There are
five indicators of quality measures in an organization or the school system.
They include
Highly trained staff ; Adequate funding; Visionary leadership ;
Service to the community/academic environment and Research and academic activities
There are also some elements or indicators of good service delivery in schools
or organizations. They are adequate staffing, population (enrolment of
students), management of funds, adequate management of infrastructure,
accommodation and equipment, provision of adequate information communication
technology (ICT) in the library, provision of adequate instructional materials,
co-curricular activities, uniform input and output evaluation procedures and
provision of scholarship facilities.
In schools
that are extremely good, we inevitably found an aggressive, professionally
alert, dynamic principles determined to provide the kind of educational
programmes deemed necessary no matter what (Gold Hammer, 1986).
In another
development, (Hechinger 1989) has this to say “I have never seen a good school
with a poor principal or a poor school with a good principal. I have seen
unsuccessful schools turned around into successful ones and, regrettably outstanding
schools slide rapidly into decline. In each case the rise and fall could
readily be traced to the quality of the principal.
The above
statements show that it is the leadership of the school that makes the
difference between mediocrity and excellence.
A capsule
description of the qualities and behaviours that characterize principals in
successful schools; qualities that have surfaced again and again in the
research literature, runs as follows:
(a) Effective
principals have a strong vision of what their schools can be, and they
encourage all staff to work towards realizing that vision (Gunge 1990).
(b) They
hold high expectations for both students achievement and teacher staff
performance.
(c) The
observe teachers in classrooms and provide positive constructive feedback aimed
at solving problems and improvising instruction.
(d) They
encourage excellent and efficient instruction time and design procedures to
minimize disruptions.
(e) They
use material and personal resources creatively.
(f) They
monitor the individual and collective achievement of students and use the
information to guide instructional planning (Adamson 1989).
Unfortunately,
many less effective principals define
their role as managers of the
building and budget, keepers of the records, chief disciplinarians and
communicators with everyone (Davis 1989). According to Willower (1982); many
less quality or effective principals leave teaching
to teachers. Research on
the activities and behaviours of principals indicate that most school
principals spend very little time on curriculum and instructional matters;
while few of them have been trained and prepared
for instructional leadership.
As Goodhead (1983) puts it, most
teachers, parents and interested others are not aware of the pivotal role an
instructionally active principal can play in creating an effective school, a
school where everyone is concerned with learning and achievement, where
expectations are high and educational improvement is a daily
concern.
The daily
routine of every school principal, although routine is hardly the correct word
includes activities which are described as “varied, brief and
disjointed”
Lee (1987),
and “varied brief and fragmented” by Martin and
Willower (1981); While Greenfield concluded that the activities of effective
school principals involve “an endless series
of brief interpersonal encounters and exchanges with students, teachers,
parents, supervisors and
others”.
Principals
must deal with competing values and expectations along with shortages in space,
staff, funds, equipment and materials and miss communications are common
(Barnett et al, (1984) The work of the
principal is largely
verbal.
Principals
dispense information about procedures and politics to veteran teachers,
new teachers, substitute teachers, special education teachers,
reading specialties, counsellors, school psychologists, maintenance staff,
students, parents and others in the community. Well-trained and experienced
school principals answer questions about the availability of
aids, space, materials and other resources and details about forth
coming events in the schools where they are found (Bloomberg 1987).
According to
Morris et al (1992), the principals’
activities are classified into
monitoring school activities, serving as school spokesperson, disseminating
information to school staff, handling resources.
Statement of
the Problem
The school
principal is the arrow head of the school system. This means that the school
principal determines the pace at which things or events move in the school. In
this regard therefore, the quality of the school principal to a large extent,
determines the services he/she renders to the school.
According to
Goodhead (1983), many less effective principals view the role they play in
the school as managers of the school building and budget keepers of the school
records and communicators with every one. They unfortunately, leave the
teaching of the classroomteachers. Most principals spend little time on
curriculum and instructional matters. Most principals in the school system
today are poor school leaders, inefficient administrators, who lack the
required capacity and academic process to keep the school moving ahead. They
lack experience and qualification with which high and qualitative services are
rendered in the administration of the school. (Ola, 2004)
This study
examined linking quality to service delivery, a focus on administrators of
senior secondary schools in Lagos State.
PURPOSE OF
THE STUDY
The main
purpose of this study is to examine the linkage between quality and service
delivery among school principals in Lagos State, senior secondary schools.
The specific
objectives of this study include:
To examine the
effects of leadership quality on service delivery of principals in Lagos State
secondary school administration.
To link
efficiency with quality service delivery among principals.
To identify
the factors militating against service delivery in schools administration.
To profer
solutions to the problems of poor service delivery among principals in our
secondary schools.
Differentiate
between the service delivery of trained/experienced principals and the
untrained/ inexperienced ones.
TOPIC: LINKING QUALITY TO SERVICE DELIVERY, A FOCUS ON ADMINISTRATORS OF SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Format: MS Word
Chapters: 1 - 5
Delivery: Email
Delivery: Email
Number of Pages: 65
Price: 3000 NGN
In Stock
No comments:
Post a Comment
Add Comment