How School Management Committees Exercise and Account for the Management of UPE Uganda

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Introduction

Are our children learning? (Uwezo, 2012). When the researcher read the title of this report, little did it occur to him that this question would ignite a study on who is accountable for the delivery of Universal Primary Education (UPE) in Uganda. Upon close analysis of the report, the researcher realised that there were challenges in the implementation of UPE based on the measures of access, quality and equity. The next question was: And if children are, or are not learning, who is accountable for the governance of public primary schools in Uganda? Reviewing vast literature on public primary education accountability revealed that American schools were failing to attain equity, especially along racial lines (107th Congress, 2001; McGuinn & Manna, 2013; Maricle, 2014). Ljunggren (2014) and Honingh and Hooge (2013) echo the Netherlands, Swedish and English reports of the low competitiveness on the international education standards scales. In Uganda, India and Indonesia, as noted by Nishimura, Yamano and Sasaoka (2008) as well as Sumintono (2009), while considerable gain in access to education, especially by the poor following the enactment of universal basic primary education, is acknowledged, poor quality education was the norm.

Background of the Study

Like in most of the African countries, civilization through formal education in Uganda was introduced by the Christian missionaries in 1880s. The introduction of formal education occurred at a time when Uganda was under British colonial rule. During this period, and even after the attainment of political independence until 1974, the British syllabus and national testing system was used to measure and screen learners who would progress to higher academic levels or join vocational institutions. The form of education aimed at providing basic knowledge in writing, literacy and arithmetic and targeted a small population, mainly the chiefs and their children, who would provide skilled labor for the government (Ssewamala, Wang, Karimli & Nabunya, 2011).

Context of the Study

This study involved four SMCs selected from four regions of Uganda, i.e. Northern, West Nile, Western and Eastern, to provide a more robust picture of how SMCs account for UPE in Uganda. The researcher has concealed the identities of the four SMCs by referring to them as SMC A, SMC B, SMC C and SMC D. The SMCs were purposively selected from a list of SMCs that participated in the NICHE training in leadership and management. The list of possible participants was obtained from the Uganda Management Institute (UMI) project coordination office.

Statement of the Research Problem

The accountability of School Governing Boards (SGBs), School Councils (SCs), BOGs or SMCs in the case of Uganda for educational achievements have been widely acknowledged in both developed and developing countries (Tatlah & Iqbal, 2011). In India, for example, the Guidelines for School Management Committees for the Implementation of the Right of Children to Free Education and Compulsory Education Act (2009) underscore the crucial role of SMCs in the achievement of primary education goals (Dayaram, 2009). Such accountabilities in the case of UPE include the attainment of access, equity and quality of education (MoES, 2007; Dayaram, 2009). In essence, the SMCs are accountable for the performance (Argon, 2015) of public primary schools in the delivery of UPE in Uganda (Education Act, 2008).

READ Comprehension-based and production-based instruction

Declaration
Dedication
Acknowledgements
Abstract
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Background of the Study
1.3 Rationale
1.4 Context of the Study
1.5 Statement of the Research Problem
1.6 Research Purpose and Questions
1.6.1 Purpose of the study
1.6.2 Research questions
1.7 Research Assumptions
1.8 Scope of the Study
1.9 Structure of the Thesis
1.10 Summary of the Chapter
CHAPTER TWO: THE ROLE OF SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES IN THE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR UNIVERSAL PRIMARY EDUCATION IN UGANDA
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Conceptualising School Governance
2.3 The Emergence of Neoliberalism and Education Reforms
2.4 Contours of Educational Governance
2.4.1 Centralised education governance
2.4.2 Decentralised (school-based) governance
2.5 Self-Management and Central Government Control
2.6 Implementing School-Based Management in Uganda
2.7 Education Accountability
2.7.1 The concept of accountability
2.7.2 Educational accountability contexts
2.7.3 Forms of accountability
2.8 Roles and Responsibilities of School Management Bodies in the Accountability for Universal Primary Education
2.8.1 Visioning and focus on future direction
2.8.2 Head teacher supervision and performance monitoring
2.8.3 Overseeing financial management function
2.9 How School Management Committees Exercise and Account for the Management of UPE Uganda
2.9.1 Meetings
2.9.2 Role of sub-committees
2.9.3 Supervision and monitoring visits
2.9.4 Stakeholder participation
2.10 The Challenges Experienced by School Management Committees in the Accountability for Management of UPE in Uganda
2.11 The Nature of Relationships within the SMCs and with Other Stakeholders in the Implementation of UPE
2.12 Theoretical Framework
2.13 Summary of the Chapter
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH APPROACH, DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Philosophical Assumptions
3.3 Theoretical Perspectives
3.4 Research Approach
3.5 Research Design
3.6 Research Methodology
3.6.1 Sampling
3.6.2 Research site
3.6.3 Selecting the participants
3.6.4 Data gathering process
3.7 Data Analysis
3.8 Quality of the Research
3.8.1 Credibility
3.8.2 Consistency
3.8.3 Relevance
3.9 Ethical Consideration
3.10 Summary of the Chapter
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Data Collection Site and Participants
4.3 Research Questions and Themes
4.4 Narratives of Themes and Sub-themes
4.4.1. Theme 1: SMC roles and responsibilities in the accountability of UPE
4.4.2 Theme 2: How SMCs implement and account for their roles and responsibilities in the implementation of UPE
4.4.3 Theme 3: The challenges experienced by the SMCs in ensuring the accountability of the implementation of UPE
4.4.4 Theme 4: Relationships within the SMCs and other stakeholders in the implementation UPE
4.5 Summary of the Chapter
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Summary of Propositions and Questions
5.3 Discussion of Research Findings
5.3.1 Theme 1: SMC roles and responsibilities in the accountability of UPE
5.3.2 Theme 2: How SMCs implement and account for their roles and responsibilities in the implementation of UPE
5.3.3 Theme 3: The challenges experienced by the SMCs in ensuring accountability for the implementation of UPE
5.3.4 Theme 4: The relationships within the SMCs and other stakeholders in the implementat of UPE
5.4 Contribution of the Study
5.5 Limitations of the Study
5.6 Delimitations of the Study
5.7 Avenues for Future Research
5.8 Conclusion
5.9 Recommendations
5.10 Summative Conclusion