Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Lack of financial management skills to perform their roles
For effective running of schools, financial management is vital and it should be the duty of a person in a position of authority to carry out those management actions (regulated tasks) connected with the financial aspects of schools and having the sole purpose of achieving effective education (Mercy & Kubaison, 2014). Similarly, Joubert and Bray (2007) describe a school‘s financial management as the performance of management actions connected with the financial aspects of a school for the achievement of improved school performance. What is common in these definitions of financial management is that a connection is made between the management tasks and the financial issues in a school. The phenomenon is that the management of school finances involves the task of budgeting, coordinating, communicating and motivating, as well as controlling (Clarke, 2007). It is the obligation of the school head to ensure accountability and efficient utilisation of school funds, yet many lack the knowledge and skills necessary for managing school funds (MoES, 2012). Good financial management in schools is vital for a better functioning school (Goetz, Durband, Halley & Davis, 2011). It is, therefore, the financial management in schools that determines the competence of school governing boards (Yau & Cheng, 2014).
Bennell and Akyeampong (2006) found that the transfer of the power to manage schools to SMCs has met heavy resistance in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia from the teachers. This is because the teachers believe that handing over power to SMCs means surrendering their right to make decisions affecting their schools, a situation that has led to lack of cooperation between school administrators and the school committees. This challenge is compounded by failure by SMC members to effect their mandate due to lack of the capacity to work as a team in the context of diverse interests and lack of the capacity for decision-making and decision implementation that could be caused by low levels of education among most committee members (Mulyasa, 2004; Gamage & Sooksomchitra, 2004, Grauwe, 2005). A better functioning school is determined by the way in which its resources are effectively and efficiently managed in a transparent and accountable way (Antonowicz, 2010). One of the great challenges facing SMCs is the difficulty of managing school finances due to lack of financial expertise (Antonowicz, 2010). Govender (2004) observes that it is not insufficient financial resources that are a problem in providing education services but rather the lack of the capacity to plan, budget and control the available finances that has proved to be a serious challenge faced by SMCs in effecting their mandate. Kiprono, Nganga and Kanyiri (2015) observe that SMCs have failed to deliver to the expectations of other education stakeholders owing to lack of the capacity to plan, budget, control and account for the use of school resources. Involving the communities in the management and administration of an education system is a sure way of achieving education outcomes (Kamba, 2010). Azeem (2010) observes that owing to poor community participation in financial management and in major decisions affecting schools, governments have wasted substantial resources that are sent to manage schools because in many schools the resources are misallocated and, as such, there is no value for money. Kawala (2014) reveals that, much as the power and authority to manage schools were transferred to the local community through the local governments and at school level to the SMCs, the central government retained the overall power of managing the whole education system in policy-making, implementation and supervision as well as decision-making, and yet the local governments are empowered with the authority to take actions aimed at ensuring that schools perform to their expectations. According to Kawala (2014), therefore, there is no clear demarcation in the roles and responsibilities of the different education players, which has affected the performance of SMCs. Naidoo (2005) and Abebe (2012) also observe that different stakeholders at school level have created role conflict among themselves because school administrators view SMCs as not minding about educational issues and, thus, as an impediment to the running of schools.
Cook (2007) found that under SBM the local communities have different roles and responsibilities that are not generally uniform in different countries. In developed countries, the essence of SBM is that those who undertake the daily activities of the school are in a position to take full management control of what goes on in a school but in line with government guidelines (Barrera-Osorio, Fasih & Patrinos, 2009). In developing countries, the notion behind SBM basically is that community members should be involved in the decision-making process rather than taking over full control of the management of schools (Barrera-Osorio, Fasih & Patrinos, 2009). This state of affairs has brought about tension between school committees and school administrators, where the administrators have disempowered school committees, and this has negatively affected the provision of education services (Barrera-Osorio, Fasih & Patrinos, 2009).
Bashaasha, Najjingo and Nkonya (2009) found that what affects SMCs‘ perception was lack of accountability and transparency in the management of funds in schools brought about by power imbalances between school administrations and committee members. The situation is worsened by SMCs‘ failure to access information that is relevant for their monitoring work as a result of lack of cooperation between SMCs and school administrations. In such a situation the school administrations regard most of the committee members as illiterate and, therefore, unable to know how school activities are run, especially in rural areas, which has made the monitoring role of SMCs insignificant (Bashaasha, Najjingo & Nkonya, 2009). School governing boards lack effective capacity to manage schools and this has affected education service delivery in most of schools in South Africa (Khuwayo, 2007). This is because many school governing boards are faced with organisational problems, which has resulted in neglect of duty by some members as well as lack of accountability and transparency in their work, leaving many schools poorly managed (Herskovitz & Laventure, 2012). Sithole (2004) also observes that the poor governance of schools has culminated in tension between school administrations and SMC members. Mkhize (2007) and Mestry (2004) observe that there is conflict between the teaching staff and SMC members because SMC members participate in the recruitment and transfer of teachers in some schools yet teachers take themselves to be superior to committee members and, therefore, take them to be messing up the management of schools since many of the committee members are illiterate. Mkhize also observes that some SMCs lack community support and that this has greatly hindered their activities in schools (Mkhize, 2007).
In most of the countries, the members of the governing bodies are unpaid volunteers (James et al., 2011). In some cases, the lack of reimbursement for the cost of taking part in the activities of SMCs has been a disincentive. In his study of South African governing bodies, Xaba (2011) found that the inability to attract the right people to be members, especially in the rural communities, led to the lack of SMCs‘ capacity to govern schools (Mncube, 2009). The situation is exacerbated in some schools in disadvantaged areas, where ‗between one-quarter and one-half of the members of governing bodies live outside the schools‘ immediate locality‘ (Xaba, 2011). In this case, SMC members find it difficult to monitor school activities. Potential members of SMCs or school governing bodies also want to be associated with schools whose governance capital is likely to be relatively high, i.e. schools that are successful in terms of the pupils‘ performance at primary leaving examinations (Xaba, 2011). This makes it difficult to attract the right members, especially in rural areas where school performance is always low (Xaba, 2011).
Training of SMC members
As a result of constant training in management, governance and administrative roles by the government, SMC members are now said to be able to participate in the design of school development plans, in budget formulation and in expenditure management as well as the general management of the school (USAID, 2010; Alabi & Kareen, 2012). In schools where teamwork is promoted through training and experience, committees are becoming effective and efficient in their work of monitoring the school activities (Alabi1 & Abdul, 2012). It is strongly believed that training contributes to improved individual and organisational performance (McCrone et al., 2011; James et al., 2010). Training gives one the assurance, knowledge, skills and qualities needed to perform various tasks or functions. It also improves one‘s understanding, knowledge, willpower, capacity and the competencies needed to perform various tasks (Kindiki, 2009).
Antonowicz et al. (2010) found that the ability of SMCs to manage schools resources can be achieved through financial management training which has a positive effect regardless of the initial education level of SMC members. Balwanz et al. (2006) observe that SMCs require skills in financial budgeting, financial record keeping and reporting as well as financial controls, which can be acquired through continuous training, which is the responsibility of the MoES. It is through training that SMCs build the capacity and teamwork that are relevant for them to take on the assigned roles and responsibilities (EQUIP 2009). Kiprono, Nganga and Kanyiri (2015) reveal that it is through building the financial management capacity of the SMCs that financial fraud can be minimised in schools since financial management training acquaints the SMCs with the techniques that are used to detect any financial misuse. In emphasising the importance of financial training, Bennell and Akyeampong (2006) reveal that SMCs in Ghana are more effective in urban schools than in rural schools because of the regular financial training they get as compared to those in rural schools that rarely get the training. In Bangladesh, the roles of SMCs have been taken over by the head teachers because of the expertise head teachers have in financial management, thus rendering SMCs less effective in schools (Adeolu & Williams, 2013). The current study looks at training as the key factor that improves the management of schools. This is because training is likely to improve on stakeholders‘ knowledge and skills that are relevant for the efficient management of school resources as well as ensuring the improvement of schools.
- CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION
1.1 Background to the study
1.2 Problem statement
1.3 Rationale for the study
1.4 Purpose of the study
1.5 Research questions
1.6 Research hypothesis
1.7 Significance of the study
1.8 Organisation of the thesis
1.9 Summary of the chapter
2. CHAPTER TWO: THE ROLE OF SMCs IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF UPE IN UGANDA AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL STUDIES OF SCHOOL GOVERNANCE
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Overview of the education system and structure in Uganda
2.3 The concept and composition of SMC
2.4 The ascribed roles and responsibilities of SMCs in implementing UPE
2.5 SMCS‘ responsibilitiy in monitoring the implementation of UPE
2.6 SMCs‘ Experience in implementing the monitoring framework for UPE
2.7 Challenges smcs experience in monitoring the implementation of UPE
2.8 How SMCs address the challenges faced in monitoring the implementation of UPE
2.9 Theoretical framework
2.10 Summary of the chapter
3. CHAPTER THREE : RESEARCH APPROACH, DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Philosophy of research
3.3 Research approach
3.4 Research design
3.5 Research site and sample
3.6 Data collection methods
3.7 Pilot study for quantitative research
3.8 Reliability and validity
3.9 Trustworthiness of qualitative data
3.10 Ethical considerations
3.11 Data analysis procedure
3.12 Summary of the chapter
4. CHAPTER FOUR : PROCEDURES FOR QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSISFINDINGS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Procedures for quantitative data analysis
4.3 Demographics of the sample
4.4 Data cleaning exercise
4.5 Statistical approaches used in quantitative data analysis
4.6 Procedure for qualitative analysis
4.7 Summary of the chapter
5. CHAPTER FIVE : QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Analysis based on the research questions of the study
5.3 Summary of the chapter
6. CHAPTER SIX : QUALITATIVE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Data collection and participants
6.3 Research questions,themes and interview questions
6.4 Summary of the chapter
7. CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSION OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS AND TRIANGULATION WITH LITERATURE
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Ascribed roles of smcs
7.3 SMCs perceptions of their role in the implementation of UPE
7.4 Experience gained by SMCs from implementing the monitoring framework for UPE
7.5 Challenges experienced by SMCs in implementing UPE
7.6 How SMCs manage the challenges of monitoring the implementation of UPE
7.7 Contibution of the main findings to literature and the body of knowledge
7.8 Implications for practice
7.9 Summary of the chapter
8. CHAPTER EIGHT: SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Purpose of the study
8.3 Summary of the methodology
8.4 Summary of the main findings
8.5 Limitation of the study
8.6 Delimitation of the study
8.7 Suggestions for future research
8.8 Conclusions
8.9 Recommendations
References
