Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS AND ITS INFLUENCE ON STUDENT
DISCIPLINE IN THARAKA-NITHI AND NAIROBI COUNTIES,
KENYA
KAGENDO DINAH ALEXANDER
E83/CE/14251/2009
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for
the Award of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational
Management in the School of Education, Kenyatta University
October 2018
ii
DECLARATION
I confirm that this thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a
degree in any other university. The thesis has been complemented by referenced
works duly acknowledged. Where text, data, graphics, pictures or tables have been
borrowed from other works including internet, the sources are specifically
accredited through referencing in accordance with anti- plagiarism regulations.
Kagendo Dinah Alexander - E83/CE/14251/2009
Department of Educational Management,
Policy and Curriculum Studies
SUPERVISORS
We confirm that the work reported in this thesis was carried out by the candidate
under our supervision as university supervisors.
Dr. George A. Onyango
Department of Educational Management,
Policy and Curriculum Studies
Kenyatta University
Dr. Dorothy Kyalo
School of Continuing and External Studies
University of Nairobi
iii
DEDICATION
This Thesis is dedicated to my husband, Dr. Evans Changamu and our children
Shemaiah, Praise and Zechariah for their unfailing support, patience and
encouragement as I pursued this degree.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my profound gratitude to my supervisors Dr. George Onyango
and Dr. Dorothy Kyalo, for their immense guidance throughout this study. They
have played a great role from the time of conceptualization of the study to
completion of the work. I acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Mukirae Njihia and
Dr. Florence Itegi whose invaluable comments at the proposal level helped
improve this study. My appreciation also goes to my research assistants, Judy
Gitau and Gitonga Njagi who helped me in the data collection process, and my
peers who really encouraged me throughout this study. Special thanks to the
Chairman and the staff of the Department of Educational Management, Policy and
Curriculum Studies for their support and guidance throughout this study. To the
head teachers, teachers, students, parents and Sub- County Directors of Education
(SCDE) who participated in this study, I am forever grateful. I am grateful to the
members of our prayer fellowship, Prof. & Mrs. Njoroge, Prof. & Mrs. Thuku, Dr.
& Mrs. Ndiritu, Mr. & Mrs. Mbuthia, and Mr & Mrs. Gitonga, for their prayers and
for keeping vigil of the progress of this work. Your encouragement kept me going.
To all the members of my family, parents, sisters and brothers, I am indebted for
their inspiration, support and encouragement. My heart felt gratitude goes to my
husband and our children for giving me great support along this journey.
Above all, I thank God Almighty for giving me the strength, grace, wisdom,
knowledge and understanding to pursue this degree.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION .................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ....................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. xii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................ xiii
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Background to the Study .............................................................................. 1
1.3 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................... 10
1.4 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................... 11
1.5 Objectives of the study ............................................................................... 11
1.6 Research Questions .................................................................................... 12
1.7 Hypothesis .................................................................................................. 13
1.8 Assumptions of the Study ........................................................................... 13
1.9 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................. 13
1.10 Delimitation of the Study ........................................................................... 14
1.11 Significance of the Study ............................................................................ 14
1.12 Theoretical Framework .............................................................................. 15
1.13 Conceptual Framework .............................................................................. 18
1.14 Operational Definitions of Terms ............................................................... 23
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........................ 25
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 25
2.2 The Concept of Student Participation ......................................................... 25
2.3 The Concept of Student Discipline ............................................................. 26
2.4 Student Participation in Decision-making in Management of Schools ...... 27
vi
2.5 Student Participation in Management of the School Finances and Physical
Resources .................................................................................................... 33
2.6 Student Participation in Management of the Staff Personnel ..................... 35
2.7 Student Participation in Management of School Curriculum ..................... 39
2.8 Student Participation in Management of Students and Welfare Issues ...... 43
2.9 State of Student Discipline in Secondary Schools ..................................... 50
2.10 Student Participation in Decision-making and student Discipline ............. 53
2.11 Summary ..................................................................................................... 58
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ......... 60
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 60
3.2 Research Design ......................................................................................... 60
3.3 Variables of the Study ................................................................................ 61
3.4 Location of the Study ................................................................................. 61
3.5 Target Population ....................................................................................... 62
3.5.1 Secondary Schools .......................................................................... 62
3.5.2 Respondents .................................................................................... 63
3.6 Sampling Procedures and Sample Size Determination .............................. 65
3.6.1 Secondary Schools .......................................................................... 65
3.6.2 Respondents .................................................................................... 67
3.7 Research Instruments .................................................................................. 71
3.7.1 Validity ........................................................................................... 74
3.7.2 Reliability ....................................................................................... 74
3.7.3 Pilot Study ...................................................................................... 76
3.8 Data Collection ........................................................................................... 77
3.9 Data Analysis .............................................................................................. 78
3.10 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................ 81
vii
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS, INTERPRETATION
AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 83
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 83
4.2 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents ...................................... 83
4.2.1 Number of secondary schools and student respondents per type of
School ............................................................................................. 84
4.2.2 Distribution of Student respondents per Class Level ..................... 85
4.2.3 Gender of Students Respondents .................................................... 86
4.2.4 Demographic Characteristics of the Head teachers and Teachers .. 86
4.2.5 Form of Student Leadership in Secondary Schools ....................... 88
4.3 The Extent of Student Participation in Decision Making ........................... 92
4.3.1 Student Representation in Boards of Management, Parents‟
Association and Staff meetings in Secondary Schools ................... 93
4.3.2 Student Participation in Management of School Finances and
Physical Resources ........................................................................ 98
4.3.3 Student Participation in Management of Staff Personnel ............. 105
4.3.4 Student Participation in Management School Curriculum ........... 114
4.3.5 Student Participation in Management of Students and Welfare
issues ............................................................................................. 130
4.4 The Influence of Type of school, Class level, and Gender of the students
on Student Participation in Decision making ........................................... 146
4.4.1 ANOVA on type of school, class level and gender of the students
and student participation in decision making .............................. 148
4.4.2 Type of Schools and Student Participation in Decision making .. 150
4.4.3 Class levels and Student participation in decision making .......... 153
4.5 The Status of Student Discipline in Secondary Schools .......................... 156
4.5.1 Types of Indiscipline Cases Experienced in Secondary Schools . 157
4.5.2 The Status of the Student Discipline in Secondary Schools ......... 161
4.5.3 The Frequency of Student Unrests/strikes in Secondary Schools 163
4.6 The Influence of Student Participation in management of school
curriculum on Student Discipline ............................................................. 166
4.6.1 Head Teachers‟ Views on the Influence of Student Participation in
Management of School Curriculum on Students‟ Discipline ....... 167
viii
4.6.2 Teachers‟ Views on the Influence of Student Participation in
Management of School Curriculum on Students‟ Discipline ....... 169
4.6.3 Students‟ Views on the Influence of Student Participation in
Management of School Curriculum on Students‟ Discipline ....... 171
4.7 The Influence of Student Participation in management of Students and
welfare issues on Students‟ Discipline ..................................................... 176
4.7.1 Head Teachers‟ Views on the Influence of Student Participation in
Management of Students and Welfare issues on Students‟
Discipline ...................................................................................... 176
4.7.2 Teachers‟ Views on the Influence of Student Participation in
management of students and welfare issues on Students‟
Discipline ...................................................................................... 178
4.7.3 Students‟ Views on the Influence of Student Participation in
Management of Students and Welfare issues on Student
Discipline ...................................................................................... 180
4.8 Changes in Student Discipline after the Establishment of Student
Councils .................................................................................................... 188
4.8.1 Students‟ Views on the Changes in their Discipline after the
Establishment of Student Councils ............................................... 188
4.8.2 Head teachers and Teachers‟ Views on the Changes in Student
Discipline after the Establishment of the Student Councils ......... 191
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 195
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 195
5.2 Summary ................................................................................................... 195
5.2.1 The Extent of Student Participation in Decision making in
Secondary Schools ....................................................................... 196
5.2.2 The Influence of Type of Schools, Class Levels, and Gender of the
Students on Student Participation in Decision-making ................ 198
5.2.3 The Status of Student Discipline in Secondary Schools .............. 199
5.2.4 Influence of Student Participation in management of School
curriculum on Student Discipline ................................................. 199
ix
5.2.5 Influence of Student Participation in Management of Students and
Welfare Issues on Student Discipline ........................................... 200
5.3 Conclusions .............................................................................................. 200
5.4 Recommendations .................................................................................... 201
5.4.1 Policy Recommendations ............................................................. 201
5.4.2 Recommendations Related to Practice ......................................... 202
5.4.3 Suggestion for Further Research .................................................. 203
REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 205
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 215
APPENDIX I: Decision-making Questionnaire for Head Teachers and
Teachers .................................................................................. 215
APPENDIX II: Decision-making Questionnaire for the Students ................... 221
APPENDIX III: Decision-making Interview Guides for the SCDE ................. 227
APPENDIX IV: Decision-making Interview Guides for the Parents ................ 229
APPENDIX V: Decision-making Focus Group Discussion Guides for the
Student Leaders ...................................................................... 230
APPENDIX VI: Consent Form for Participation in a Research Study ............. 232
APPENDIX VII: Introduction Letter .................................................................. 233
APPENDIX VIII: Research Authorization from Kenyatta University ................ 234
APPENDIX IX: Research Authorization from NACOSTI ............................... 235
APPENDIX X: Research Permit ...................................................................... 236
APPENDIX XI: Work Plan ............................................................................... 237
APPENDIX XII: Operational Budget ................................................................. 238
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Number of secondary schools in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi
Counties ............................................................................................. 63
Table 3.2: Sample distribution of the types of schools ....................................... 67
Table 3.3: Reliability Statistics ........................................................................... 75
Table 4.1: Number of secondary schools and student respondents per type of
School ................................................................................................ 84
Table 4.2: Distribution of Student respondents per Class Level ........................ 85
Table 4.3: Age of the head teachers and teachers respondents ........................... 87
Table 4.4: Head teachers and teachers‟ education qualifications ....................... 87
Table 4.5: Head teachers and teachers‟ years of teaching experience ................ 88
Table 4.6: Student representation in BOM, PA and staff meetings .................... 93
Table 4.7: Head teachers‟ views on student participation in management of
finances and physical resources ......................................................... 99
Table 4.8: Teachers‟ views on student participation in management of finances
and physical resources ..................................................................... 100
Table 4.9: Students‟ views on their participation in management of finances and
physical resources ............................................................................ 101
Table 4.10: Head teachers‟ views on student participation in management of
staff .................................................................................................. 106
Table 4.11: Teachers‟ views on student participation in management of staff .. 107
Table 4.12: Students‟ views on student participation in management staff ....... 108
Table 4.13: Head teachers‟ views on student participation in curriculum
management ..................................................................................... 116
Table 4.14: Teachers‟ views on student participation in curriculum
management ..................................................................................... 118
Table 4.15: Students‟ views on student participation in curriculum
management ..................................................................................... 120
Table 4.16: Head teachers‟ views on student participation in management of
students and welfare issues .............................................................. 132
Table 4.17: Teachers‟ views on student participation in management of the
students and welfare issues .............................................................. 134
xi
Table 4.18: Students‟ views on student participation in management of students
and welfare issues ............................................................................ 136
Table 4.19: Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances.................................. 147
Table 4.20: ANOVA on type of school, class level and gender of the students and
student participation in decision making ......................................... 149
Table 4.21: Type of Schools and Student Participation in Decision making ..... 151
Table 4.22: Post hoc analysis of school types and student participation in
decision making ............................................................................... 152
Table 4.23: Post hoc analysis of Class levels and Student participation ............ 154
Table 4.24: Multiple Comparison of class levels on participation in decision
making ............................................................................................. 155
Table 4.25: Types of indiscipline Cases experienced in secondary schools ...... 157
Table 4.26: The status of the student discipline in secondary schools ............... 161
Table 4.27: Frequency of student unrests/strikes in secondary schools ............. 163
Table 4.28: Head teachers‟ views on the influence of student participation in
management of curriculum on students‟ discipline ......................... 168
Table 4.29: Teachers‟ views on the influence of student participation in
management of school curriculum on students‟ discipline ............. 170
Table 4.30: Students‟ views on influence of student participation in management
curriculum on discipline .................................................................. 172
Table 4.31: Head teachers‟ views on influence of student participation in
management of students and welfare issues on discipline .............. 177
Table 4.32: Teachers‟ views on influence of student participation in management
of students and welfare issues on discipline .................................... 179
Table 4.33: Students‟ views on influence of student participation in management
of students and welfare issues on discipline .................................... 181
Table 4.34: Teachers‟ Views on Changes in Student Discipline after the
Establishment of the Student Councils ............................................ 192
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Continuum of leadership. Source: (Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1973). 16
Figure 1.2: Conceptual framework showing the areas of student participation in
decision-making in secondary school. ............................................... 19
Figure 4.1: The Gender of Students Respondents ................................................ 86
Figure 4.2: Form of student leadership in secondary schools .............................. 89
Figure 4.3: Student views‟ on changes in discipline after the establishment of the
student councils ............................................................................... 189
xiii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
BOG Board of Governors
BOM Board of Management
CEB County Education Board
DEO District Education Officer
KNEC Kenya National Examination Council
KSSHA Kenya Secondary Schools Heads Association
KSSSC Kenya Secondary School Student Council
MOE Ministry of Education
NCST National Council for Science and Technology
NEB National Education Board
NSPCC National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
PA Parents‟ Association
ROK Republic of Kenya
SCDE Sub-County Director of Education
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
TSC Teachers‟ Service Commission
UNCRC United Nations Convention on the Right of the Child
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organizations
UNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund
xiv
ABSTRACT
The recurrent student indiscipline in form of unrests in secondary schools and their
incessant desire to destroy school property probably reflects the feeling of
alienation rather than of ownership of the schools they attend. By striking and
destroying property, the students may be expressing their demands for involvement
in the running of the schools. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent
of student participation in decision making in secondary school management as
well as determining its influence on student discipline in Tharaka-Nithi and
Nairobi counties, with a view of informing educational practices in Kenya. The
objectives of the study were to determine the extent of student participation in
decision-making, examine the influence of type of school, class level and the
gender of the students on student participation in decision-making; establish the
status of student discipline, analyse the extent to which student participation in
management of curriculum, and management of students and welfare issues
influenced student discipline. The study employed mixed method design,
specifically triangulation method. Stratified random sampling, simple random
sampling, purposive and convenience sampling were used in drawing the samples.
The Krejcie and Morgan‟s table for determining large sample size was used to
determine the sample size of students. The sample consisted of 38 secondary
schools, 38 head teachers, 293 teachers, 753 students, 72 student leaders, 24
parents and 3 SCDE. Data collection instruments included questionnaires,
interview guides and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) guide. Content validity was
determined by seeking expert judgement from educational management.
Cronbach's alpha was used to establish the reliability of the instruments.
Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics while
qualitative data were organized into themes and presented using descriptions and
quotations. The findings showed that majority of the schools had established
Student Council form of student leadership, although the councils were not
represented in BOM, PA and staff meetings. The study found that there were low
levels of student participation in management of school finances, physical
resources and staff personnel. The extent of student participation in management of
school curriculum, and management of students and welfare issues was found to be
moderate. The interaction between type of schools, class levels, and gender of the
students did not influence student participation in decision making. However, the
interaction between class levels and type of schools significantly influenced
student participation in decision making. Student discipline was found to be good
during the three years prior to the study. The serious expression of indiscipline in
form of strikes had significantly reduced. The influence of student participation in
management of the school curriculum, management of students and welfare issues
were found to be of moderate levels. The study concluded that student participation
in management of school curriculum, and management of students and welfare
issues influenced student discipline moderately. The study therefore recommends
that secondary school managements should actively involve students in all areas of
decision-making in school with particular emphasis on decisions relating to the
foregoing decision-making areas.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
This chapter describes the background to the study, statement of the problem,
purpose of the study, objectives of the study, research questions, hypothesis,
limitations of the study, delimitation of the study, significance of the study,
theoretical frame work, conceptual framework and definition of operational terms.
1.2 Background to the Study
Education is now universally accepted as a basic human right and as the primary
vehicle by which economically and socially marginalized adults and children can
lift themselves out of poverty and obtain the means to participate fully in their
communities (United Nations, 1999). Numerous global human rights treaties and
forums including the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, Convention against Discrimination in Education, the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, World Conference on
Education For All, and World Education Forum have affirmed this (Torres, 2000;
UNICEF, 2007).
Like all agreements and treaties, the main task is usually in the implementation. In
order to implement the right to education properly, one must clearly and broadly
understand the concept of the right to education. According to the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), four core principles should guide the
implementation of the right to education. These include non-discrimination, the
2
best interests of the child, the right to life, survival and development of the child to
the maximum extent possible, and the right of children to express their views in all
matters affecting them and for their views to be given due weight in accordance
with their age and maturity (United Nations, 1989). Accordingly then, children
need to be effectively involved in their own learning. It is also important that
education is designed to promote and respect their rights and needs. They should
participate actively in shaping their own lives and learning in schools they attend.
The right to education ought to be understood in terms of universality,
participation, respect and inclusion. The aspect of participation involves children
having greater influence on what happens to their lives. They should be given
opportunities to participate fully in decisions affecting them in all spheres of life.
This study argues that in Kenya and perhaps many other countries, the aspects of
participation, respect and inclusion have not been fully established in secondary
schools hence the prevailing indiscipline among students in many schools. It is rife
with suspicion and mistrust between the teachers and head teachers on the one
hand and students on the other.
A commendable progress has been made at all levels in the development of
policies and regulation that promote the implementation of Article 12 of the United
Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child (Lansdown, 2001; United Nations,
2009). Most countries that are signatories to the UNCRC have made statutory
provisions for children to participate in decision-making and some have developed
structures that represent the views of students at various levels (United Nations,
2009). These include countries in Europe (Hannam, 1998) such as Norway, France
(Carr, 2005), Sweden, United Kingdom and Northern Ireland (Alderson, 2000),
3
Finland (Shatilova, 2014) where schools establish Student Councils through which
they voice their views on matters that affect them. Closer home in South Africa, it
is a requirement of the law that every public school should establish a governing
body which should include learners‟ representatives from the eighth grade or
higher. It makes provision for a representative Council of learners in each ordinary
public school that offers instruction in the eighth grade or higher (Carr, 2005;
Mabovula, 2009). This arrangement, however, presumes that the children of lower
grades do not need to be heard or even be represented in the student governments.
In Namibia, the role of students in management of school is outlined in the User‟s
Guide to the Education Code of Conduct (Government of Namibia, 1993).
Students are represented through democratically elected school boards that include
teachers and parents. The school boards deal with discipline, finances, budgets,
school fees, staff appointments, and use of school facilities. It is noted that
Tanzania was one of the first African countries to provide for student participation
in decision-making in the schools through representation in decision-making
committees. The schools have Councils whose membership and functions are
specified in the National Policy on School Councils (Carr, 2005). Student Council
is therefore viewed as a vehicle through which students participate in decision-
making at school.
Prior to the new constitution 2010, all Kenyan public secondary schools were
managed by Boards of governors (BOGs) appointed by the minister for Education
(Mutuku, 2011). The BOGs had members drawn from various stakeholders but
none from among the students. The Parent Teachers Association (PTA) is another
4
body that participated in the management of the secondary schools but which had
no student representative either. Thus students remained unrepresented in the main
decision-making bodies in schools. The student leadership was through the prefect
system which was widely used in many schools as a control tool for teachers and
administrations rather than a student representative body.
Recognising the gaps that existed in the governance and coordination of education,
the Task Force on Totally Integrated Quality Education and Training (TIQET)
recommended that structures for the democratic management of all educational
institutions involving all stakeholders, students included, be designed and
legislated (Republic of Kenya, 1999). In response to that the government enacted
the children‟s Act Cap 586 of the laws of Kenya which came into effect in the year
2002. This domesticated the UNCRC which, among other things, requires children
to have the right to express their views on all matters that affect them (Republic of
Kenya, 2001a; United Nations, 1989). This was meant to promote student
participation in the decision-making process in all spheres of life, including the
school. Many researchers have advanced arguments in favour of student
participation in decision-making on matters affecting them in the schools they
attend (Fletcher, 2005; Griebler & Nowak, 2012; Manefield, et al., 2007).
A study done in the Eastern Region of Kenya found that the necessary structures
that allow students to participate in decision making process had not been
established in secondary schools (Mulwa, Kimosop, & Kasivu, 2015). The
governance of schools without structures that provide for student participation in
decision making has seen secondary school educators in Kenya contend with
5
student indiscipline for a long period of time (Charles, 1996; Njoroge & Nyabuto,
2014). It is manifested in different forms such as boycotting of classes, sneaking
from school, failing to do cleaning duties and assignments, absenteeism, fighting,
theft, drug and substance abuse, violent unrests, riots, strikes among others
(Gikungu & Karanja, 2014; Ndaita, 2016; Republic of Kenya, 2001b).
Unrests are the most noticeable form of indiscipline because in most cases they
culminate in the destruction of property, disruption of school curricula, tension
amongst students, anxiety and panic among different stakeholders, rape and
injuries, and sometimes loss of life. Student unrest in Kenya is an old problem that
has refused to go away since the beginning of 20th
century when the first case was
reported in Maseno high school (Republic of Kenya, 2001b). It has been increasing
in frequency and intensity with time.
At the start of the 21st century, student unrest in secondary schools affected all the
provinces (now counties) in Kenya. The then Eastern province (where Tharaka-
Nithi County is found), had the second highest number of secondary schools going
on strike during that period. It was also the only province that had loss of human
life during the unrests. In contrast, Nairobi province (now Nairobi County) had the
lowest number of schools going on strike during that time (Republic of Kenya,
2001b). Student unrests are not unique to secondary schools in Kenya, but they are
also commonly experienced in other jurisdictions. For example, a study done in
Cameroon found that vandalizing of school properties and mass protest was
common in secondary schools (Ngwokabuenui, 2015).
6
In the year 2008, there were student unrests in over 300 secondary schools in
Kenya (KSSHA, 2014; Muindi & Mwai, 2008; Ngare, 2008; Wetangula &
Ngirachu, 2008). The problem then, was lack of involvement of the students in
making decisions on matters that affected them (KSSHA, 2014). The students
blamed each strike on school administrators‟ insensitivity or highhandedness
among other things.
In a bid to end these unrests, many education stakeholders have been advocating
for students involvement in the decision-making process in schools they attend. In
the year, 2008, the Ministry of Education (MOE) requested the United Nations
International Children‟s Fund (UNICEF) to help in developing a programme
linking participation and peace to prevent violence in schools. A national
programme was then developed in partnership with the MOE and the National
Association of Head Teachers that led to the establishment of the Kenya Secondary
School Student Council (KSSSC) in the year 2009. This was to steer the
implementation of Student Councils in secondary schools in Kenya. The Student
Councils were to help in promoting student participation in decision-making as
well as prevent unrests in schools.
The Ministry of Education further made student participation in the management of
the schools they attend a legal requirement. Chapter 8 of Sessional Paper No.14 of
2012 lists several challenges that were facing the governance of the education
sector and provides three policies to address the same. In section 8.11 the paper
outlines several strategies that the government was to employ in order to
implement the three policies listed in sub-section 8.10. Of relevance to this study is
7
number (xiii) of subsection 8.11 which required the government to establish and
strengthen Student Councils for educational and training institutions with effective
representation (Republic of Kenya, 2012a). Additionally, the Basic Education Act
of 2013 now provides for student participation in management of school through
their Student Council representatives in the Boards of Management (BOM)
(Republic of Kenya, 2013).
A study involving 15 secondary schools in the former Rift valley province of
Kenya showed that the level of student participation in decision-making was at
best tokenistic (Tikoko & Kiprop, 2011). It is worth noting, however, that by the
time the said study was conducted there was no law providing for the
establishment of the Student Councils. The implementation of the Constitution of
Kenya (2010) had just begun and the Basic Education Act of 2013 was enacted
much later. It was, therefore, of interest for this study to determine the situation in
as far as student participation in decision-making in secondary schools is
concerned after the creation of the legal provisions and how it was influencing
student discipline in secondary schools.
Students resent tokenistic involvement in decision-making in schools. They always
like to understand the reason things are done the way they are done. They would
like to give their views about change and to have those views heard (Fielding &
Rudduck, 2002). Fielding, (2001) points out that there is a cost of ignoring
students‟ views. Though he talks of the cost as having consequences in an
inspection report or public perception of the school, this study argues that the
8
consequences could be in form of student indiscipline especially those that are
experienced in secondary schools in Kenya.
Students always protest when they feel that their views are not sought while
decisions are being made in schools. A case in point is where students of Rwathia
Secondary school in Murang‟a County went on strike demanding shorter skirts and
more appealing school uniforms and complaining of high handedness of the
Deputy Principal (Karanja, 2012). Gitweku Girls‟ secondary students in Murang‟a
County walked out of the school demanding the reinstatement of their Principal
who had been transferred without their involvement. They too accused the Deputy
Principal of high handedness (Karanja, 2012). High handedness is reported as one
of the factors that impact negatively on students‟ discipline (Gikungu & Karanja,
2014). The reasons for striking cited in these cases were replicated in almost all
other cases reported earlier (Republic of Kenya, 2001b).
Certainly, there are other reasons that could be responsible for student unrests
which include but not limited to mismanagement of school, mishandling discipline
issues, giving a deaf ear to the student cries, frustration from being excluded,
autocratic school administration, prefect system deemed autocratic, drug and
substance abuse, harsh school rules, poor living conditions in schools, lack of an
effective school guidance and counselling services, pressure for excellent academic
performance, breakdown of communication and abdication of parental
responsibility (Juma, 2008; Malenya, 2014; Mukula, 2005).
9
There have also been reports of students committing suicide simply because they
have not been involved in making decisions on issues affecting them. According to
(Owida, 2012) Owida (2012) a form three student and a standard seven pupil
committed suicide in Rachuonyo South district after their fathers forced them to
repeat classes (Owida, 2012). These students would not have died if they were
involved in making the decision whether to repeat or not. However, because the
adults excluded them from the process or didn‟t take their views into consideration
when making the decision, they took their own lives.
Research in other jurisdictions has shown that the implementation of the
approaches which acknowledge the right of students to have a voice in the schools
they attend is relatively slow (Manefield et al., 2007). It is noted that most high
schools in America rarely participate as true partners in determining how schools
are governed (Brasof, 2011). It is not any different in the Kenyan situation given
that as late as the year 2014, the Cabinet Secretary for Education was quoted
directing all the secondary schools that had not embraced the democratically
elected Student Councils to do so with immediate effect (KSSHA, 2014). It is
against this backdrop that this study was mooted.
A study done in Eastern Region of Kenya found that the most commonly used
structure for student involvement in decision-making was the prefect system
(Mulwa et al., 2015). This shows that despite the effort of the government in
providing for the establishment of democratic student councils, schools are still
using the prefect system of leadership. Yet, prefects are seen as control tools for
the teachers and administration and therefore the students do not trust them in
10
airing their views. Due to this lack of trust, the students concerns are not addressed
and at time these culminate to full blown unrests in schools. Student indiscipline in
secondary schools in Kenya has continued to pose a great challenge to the
education sector. It has been observed that student strikes in secondary schools
seem to be on the rise (Malenya, 2014; Mulwa et al., 2015). This may point to lack
of involvement of the students in decision making in the secondary schools they
attend.
Whereas there have been many studies on student indiscipline in secondary schools
in Kenya, majority have tended to focus on causes, effects and management
(Kagendo, 2009; Kiprop, 2012; Malenya; 2014; Mukula, 2005; Mwangi, 1985;
Samoei, 2012; Simatwa, 2012; Simatwa, Odhong‟, Juma, & Choka, 2014). Those
that have focused on student participation in decision-making or lack of it in
secondary school management have not considered it in relation to student
discipline. Student participation in decision making in secondary schools has come
under sharp focus after the enactment of the Basic Education Act of 2013 which
ushered in a new dispensation in as far as children‟s right to express their views are
concerned. In view of the foregoing it was of interest to carry out a systematic
study to determine the extent of student participation in decision-making in
secondary schools and the influence of this participation on student discipline.
1.3 Statement of the Problem
Student participation in decision-making involves creating opportunities for
children and young people to increase their influence over what happens to them
and around them. It was, for many years, touted as one of the most important ways
11
of minimising or even eliminating student indiscipline and discontent in schools. It
has since been implemented in most schools through the formation of Student
Councils and enactment of laws to support the same but even with that, the mass
indiscipline of students in Kenyan secondary schools has continued unabated. Even
with the creation of Student Councils in secondary schools, it is not clear the extent
to which the student council members, and by extension the students‟ body, are
involved in the decision making process in the schools. There is scanty information
on the influence of student participation in decision making on student discipline.
This study, therefore, sought to determine the extent of student participation in
decision-making in selected Kenyan secondary schools and the influence this may
have had on student discipline in the schools in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi
counties. The study was done with a view of making recommendations to
strengthen the management of secondary schools and enhancing discipline of
students in schools.
1.4 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to establish the extent of student participation in
decision-making in secondary school management as well as determining its
influence on student discipline in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi counties, with a view
of informing educational practices in Kenya.
1.5 Objectives of the study
The main objectives of this study were:
1. To determine the extent to which students participate in decision making in
secondary school management.
12
2. To examine the extent to which type of school, class level and gender of the
students influence student participation in decision-making in secondary
schools.
3. To establish the current status of discipline in secondary schools in Tharaka-
Nithi and Nairobi counties.
4. To analyse the extent to which student participation in management of school
curriculum influence student discipline.
5. To analyse the extent to which student participation in management of students
and welfare issues influence student discipline.
1.6 Research Questions
The following questions were formulated from the objectives to guide this study:
1. What is the extent of student participation in decision-making in secondary
school management?
2. How does the type of school, class level and gender of the students influence
student participation in decision making in secondary schools?
3. What is the current status of students‟ discipline in secondary schools in
Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi counties?
4. To what extent does student participation in management of school curriculum
in secondary school influence student discipline?
5. To what extent does student participation in management of students and
welfare issues in secondary school influence student discipline?
13
1.7 Hypothesis
The following null hypothesis was formulated and tested to interrogate further the
extent of student participation in decision-making in secondary schools:
There is no significant difference between the types of school, class levels and
gender of the students on student participation in decision-making in secondary
schools.
1.8 Assumptions of the Study
The basic assumptions of this study were:
1. The students were involved in the decision-making process in secondary school
management in Kenya.
2. Secondary school head teachers, teachers, students, parents and Sub-county
Directors of Education held certain views regarding the extent of student
participation in decision-making in secondary schools, status of student
discipline in secondary schools and the influence of student participation in
decision-making on discipline.
3. The main purpose of student participation in decision-making was to provide
for their views to be heard and for their views to influence decisions made in
school.
4. That the respondents of the study provided truthful responses.
1.9 Limitations of the Study
The study was conducted in only two counties in Kenya due to time and financial
constraints. The researcher was not allowed to administer questionnaires to the
student respondents in some schools because the head teachers in such schools
14
insisted that the student questionnaires be administered by the teachers. In such
situations the teachers were briefed on the expectations by the researcher and
allowed to administer the questionnaires on their own. Some respondents did not
respond to all the items in the questionnaires. Such incomplete responses were
excluded during data analysis and consequently in the final report which affected
the sample size for those particular response.
1.10 Delimitation of the Study
The study was restricted to respondents from public secondary schools in Tharaka-
Nithi County (representing rural set up) and Nairobi City County (representing
urban set up). Respondents from without the public secondary schools were limited
to the Sub-county Directors of Education and parents. The study only focused on
the extent of student participation in decision-making and its influence on student
discipline.
1.11 Significance of the Study
The findings of this study may benefit the society considering that secondary
school education plays an important role in the education system in Kenya.
Improvement of school environment arising from better understanding of the role
of student participation in school management and its influence on student
discipline will help learners take more responsibility in their own learning. This
will in turn greatly enhance transition from secondary education to tertiary
education. The findings of this study may help promote the rolling out and
strengthening of Student Councils in all secondary schools in Kenya which in turn
will enhance student discipline and reduce conflicts in schools.
15
The findings of this study will also provide baseline data that may be used by
education policy makers such as the Ministry of Education (MOE) in formulating
policies that will improve the management of secondary schools. It may also
provide data for policy implementers such as Sub-county Directors of Education
(SCDE) and head teachers to redefine, the interaction of various partners in
secondary school management. The findings may help the head teachers to re-
evaluate their leadership styles and make adjustments where necessary. The data
could also be used for instructional purposes in teacher-training institutions. In
terms of extended research, the findings form a basis for further research in student
participation in the management of secondary schools and its role in improving
student discipline in the ever-changing education landscape.
1.12 Theoretical Framework
This study was guided by participative decision-making theory and in particular
Tannenbaum and Schmidt model of participation in decision-making. Participative
decision-making requires the power and influence of the administrator and the
power and influence of others in an organization. In school organization, the head
teacher is the administrator while the others include the Boards of Management
(BOM), teachers, students, parents, community members as well as government
agencies. In participatory theory, all members of the organization have the right to
express their views, feelings and to offer knowledge and information and to be
heard.
According to the Tannenbaum & Schmidt, (1973), the administrator has a range of
options by which the role of subordinates in the decision-making process may be
16
expanded and their power and influence in decision-making increased. The
continuum presented in Figure 1.1 shows clearly that there is a broad range of
styles in which the input from various stakeholders may be sought and used in the
process of decision-making depending on the prevailing situation in a school
setting.
Figure 1.1: Continuum of leadership. Source: (Tannenbaum & Schmidt,
1973).
On the extreme left the power and influence of the manager (in this case the head
teacher) dominates the decision-making process while on to the extreme right the
manager allows maximum input from the subordinates in the decision-making
process. Between the extremes is a continuum of five options that may apply in an
ideal school organization. This theory is applicable to school settings where an
administrator determines to develop a management team and has to initially take a
bigger role in decision-making and reduce as the team develops and members of
the team participate more significantly in decision-making. It is also applicable in
school settings where unfamiliar situations present themselves and require
17
decision-making to resolve. In such situations the level of participation required
may fall anywhere within the continuum based on the experience of the
administrator and the management team.
The first option on the extreme left the power and influence of the head teacher
dominates the decision-making process and the rest of the members of the school
community including students have little influence on the decisions taken. This is
the situation in which the head teacher makes the decision and communicates it to
others to be implemented. The second is where the administrator must sell
decisions before gaining acceptance. This increases the freedom of the
subordinates to influence decisions. In this case, the head teacher will seek to have
the student approve or buy into the decision before it is implemented in school.
This involves the head teacher persuading the students to accept the decisions. The
third option is where the head teacher presents the ideas and invites questions from
the students. Therefore the head teacher must respond to questions from the
students.
The forth option is where the administrator presents tentative decision subject to
change after students give their inputs. It permits the students to exert some
influence on the decision. The fifth option is where the administrator presents the
problem, gets inputs from the students, then makes the decision. The sixth option is
where the administrator defines the limit and requests the students to make the
decision. The head teacher in this case, defines the problems and the boundaries
within which the decisions will be made. Then lastly the head teacher permits the
students to make decisions within prescribed limits. The students in this case have
18
high degree of freedom in making the decisions that affect them in school.
However, it is important to note that not all decisions that students need to be
involved in because of time constraints (Owen & Valesky, 2011). In such cases,
the head teacher exerts control of the decisions made in school. However, the head
teacher need to find the most appropriate ways of involving students in decision-
making without consuming too much of their time.
1.13 Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework illustrated in Figure 1.2 shows the conceptualization of
both the independent and dependent variables in the study. It outlines the areas of
student participation in decision making in management of school curriculum and
management of students and welfare issues in secondary schools as the
independent variables. Student participation in decision-making in the listed task
areas influences student discipline which was the dependent variable for this study.
These variables are further discussed in the section that follows.
19
Independent variable
Student participation in Decision making
Figure 1.2: Conceptual framework showing the areas of student participation
in decision-making in secondary school.
Intervening Variable
Rural and Urban
setup
Dependent Variable
Student Participation in
management of School
curriculum
School programme
Setting academic target
Nature of assignments
Number of exams
Grading system
Subject Selection
Student Participation in
management of Students and
welfare issues
Formulation of school rules
Selection of student leaders
School diet
School uniform
Nature of punishment
School discipline
Setting achievement targets
Sports
Clubs
Entertainment
Student Discipline
Absence or reduction
of:-
Unrests
Absenteeism
Lateness
Theft
Fighting
Drugs & substance
abuse
20
Student Participation in Management of School Curriculum
Students‟ participation in management of school curriculum is important since this
impact on them directly. The students are always at the receiving end of the
teaching learning process, and as such, they are many areas of decision making
under school curriculum they can participate in. These include drawing the school
programme, setting of the academic targets, grading system, nature of assignments,
number of internal examinations, and selection of subject.
Participation of students in drawing the school programme is crucial since this
affects them directly. The programme is prepared to give guidance to the students
and for it to be beneficial to them; their views need to be considered especially
when drawing the after class hours‟ programme and the weekend programme for
the boarding schools. This may involve students influencing the duration of games,
sports, and clubs among other things. Their views also need to influence some
academic programmes like the preps and weekend programmes. The views of the
students should also be sought when the school time table is being drawn.
On setting the academic target, student participation in this area motivate them to
work towards achieving them and this has a positive impact on the performance of
the students and the school at large. Student participation in determining the
number of internal examination given in a school term is important in enhancing
the student discipline. In the past, some schools had gone on strike because the
students didn‟t want to sit for the District Mocks examinations (Republic of Kenya,
2001b). The teachers also need to consider involving students in decisions
regarding to the nature of assignments. At times the students are given too many
21
assignments within a short period of time that they are not able to complete and
this in turn become an indiscipline issue. For excellence performance of the
students, they need to understand the grading system that is used in school. This
may entail involving the students in decisions relating to the grading system. Most
of the curriculum issues that affect students are discussed during the staff meetings
and therefore the students need be represented in these meetings. Student
participation in curriculum decisions make them own the decisions made and this
make it easier to implement. They will not resist the decisions made and therefore
this promotes their discipline.
Student Participation in Management of Students and welfare issues
Student involvement in management of students is important as far as school
management is concerned. This involves participation in decisions concerning the
school rules, student leaders, school diet, uniform, punishment, discipline,
achievement targets, sports, clubs, and entertainment. All these decisions impact
on the students directly and therefore their involvement will lead to compliance
with the decisions arrived at. In relation to school rules, the Basic Education
regulation of 2015 requires the schools to ensure public participation in
formulation of school rules. Therefore all affected parties, including students,
should be involved when formulating schools rules. Regarding school uniform, the
BOM is mandated to consult with the Parents‟ Association (PA) to develop the
school uniform for the students (Republic of Kenya, 2015). The Basic Education
Act of 2013 provides for student representation in BOM, and they should
therefore, participate in deciding on the choices of their uniform.
22
In relation to school diet, the students value participation in decision relating to
their diet in school. This includes decisions on timing of the meals, type of meals
offered, changes of meals, quantity and quality of the food among other things.
When students‟ views are not taken into account to inform the decisions made
about theirs meals they tend to protest and at times may lead to full blown strike.
Regarding selection of the student leaders, students always value exercising their
democratic rights in selecting their leaders in school. The students‟ body accept
and support leaders of their choice and this reduces tensions and conflicts between
students and their leaders. Sports, clubs, and entertainment impact on physical
fitness and character development of the students and therefore students should be
allowed to participate in decisions concerning them. Many students tend to dislike
the co-curricular activities simply because they are not involved in planning them
and making decisions concerning them.
When students participate in decision-making in all the foregoing management
areas in secondary schools the most likely outcome is a good school environment
characterized by good students‟ discipline. The dependent variable was the student
discipline. The indicator of student discipline is positive change of behaviour of
students which will lead to reduction or absence of unrests or strikes, absenteeism,
lateness, theft, fighting, drug and substance abuse among other things. The
intervening variables of this study were rural and urban setting. The study was
conducted in Tharaka-Nithi County representing the rural setting and Nairobi
County representing the urban setting.
23
1.14 Operational Definitions of Terms
Decision-making: Refers to the process of coming up with the best
option about important issues in secondary school
management.
Influence: Refers to effect of student participation in decision-
making on discipline or effect of school type, class
levels and gender of students on student participation
in decision-making.
Indiscipline: Refers to any behaviour of learners that threatens
teaching and learning activities in a secondary
school.
Management: Refers to the process by which the school managers
run and control a school. Participation of students in
management of schools is the subject of this study.
No participation: Refers to the state where students are not involved in
decision making process in secondary school
Students These are learners in secondary school. Their
participation and discipline was the subject of the
study.
Student council: A group of students who are elected by other
students to represent them in school government.
They give the views of the student when important
decisions are being made in schools.
Student leadership: Refers to the body of students involved in
management of secondary school.
24
Student Discipline: Refers to a favourable behaviour of a learner in
school.
Student involvement Refers to the contribution of students in decision-
making process in secondary schools.
Student Participation: Refers to the process of involving students in
decision-making process in secondary schools.
Student Representation: Refers to the act of some elected/ selected students
being present in management bodies‟ on behalf of
the students‟ body.
Unrest: Refers to a situation where students protest violently
over certain unsuitable conditions in secondary
schools. In this study, it is a form of indiscipline in
secondary schools.
25
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews literature related to student participation in decision-making
in secondary school management and student discipline. The literature is organized
based on the following subthemes: the concept of student participation, the concept
of student discipline, student participation in decision-making in management of
secondary schools, student participation in management of school finances and
physical resources, student participation in management of staff personnel, student
participation in management of school curriculum, student participation in
management of student personnel; state of student discipline in secondary school,
student participation in decision-making and student discipline, and a summary
outlining the key emerging knowledge and identifying the gaps that the study
sought to bridge.
2.2 The Concept of Student Participation
Student participation in decision-making involves creating opportunities for
children and young people to increase their influence over what happens to them
and around them. It refers to the tasks of student representative bodies such as the
school councils, student councils, student governments and the prefect bodies. It
must involve participation of students in collective decision-making at school or
class level and requires a dialogue between students and other decision-makers and
not just consultation or a survey among students (Harber, 1995; Mager & Nowak,
2010). It is also referred to as pupil voice (Whitty & Wisby, 2007).
26
Genuine student participation in relevant aspects of the decision-making processes
at school addresses the issue of democracy which implies the controversial process
of challenging the current power imbalances in schools (Simovska, 2004). This
will create what Haber, (1995) refers to as democratic schools and requires that
they should shift the power and authority away from staff to students in terms of
decisions concerning the running of the school and what is learned in the
classroom. In participative decision-making, all members of the organization have
the right to be heard, to express their views; feelings and offer knowledge and
information (Owen & Valesky, 2011). Schools are organizations where students
happen to be the main clients along with their parents, sponsors and guardians. As
such, it is imperative that they participate in arriving at decisions taken in the
school.
2.3 The Concept of Student Discipline
Discipline is an important component of human behaviour. Many people take
discipline to mean punishment. However, Mbiti, (1974) takes it positively and
defines it as a system of guiding the individual to make reasonable decisions
responsibly. It refers to methods of moulding character and of teaching self-control
and acceptable behaviour (Papalia, Feldman, & Olds, 2006). Griffins (1994),
defines it as a system of training the mind and character so that one makes
reasonable decisions in a responsible manner. Student discipline entails behaviour
of students in all aspects of the school which influence the smooth running of the
school (Bakhda, 2004). Nayak, (2011) defines discipline as the submission of one‟s
impulses to self-imposed regulation, referred to as individual self-discipline. This
study argues for this type of discipline in secondary school where the students are
27
guided to formulate their own rules and regulations to guide their behaviour. They
are able to choose the right thing to be done. The rules should not be imposed by
the teachers or the administration. The students are able to control their behaviour
and be disciplined when given the opportunity to do so.
Discipline is categorized into two types, that is, corrective and preventive
discipline. Corrective discipline follows infringement of the rules and aims at
discouraging further infringement of the rules. Preventive discipline prevents
violation of school rules and is aimed at achieving self-discipline (Okumbe, 1998).
In order for the educational managers to help develop self-discipline in students,
they need to accord them the opportunity to participate in the decision-making
process in schools. Giving adequate opportunity to the students to share
responsibility and participate in planning school activities on a cooperative basis
help them develop self-discipline (Nayak, 2011). The teacher or the head teacher
helps and guides the students where necessary. The students are able to control
their own discipline and that of the students‟ body as well.
2.4 Student Participation in Decision-making in Management of Schools
Most countries that are signatories to the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child have recognized that children should have the right to express their views on
all matters that affect them. Accordingly, they have made statutory provisions for
children to participate in decision-making and some have developed structures that
represent the views of students at various levels (Flutter, 2007; Hannam, 1998,).
Most of these countries have adopted the use of students‟ elected Councils as a
way of decentralizing school management. In Portugal, the law requires that all
28
secondary schools to have a Council with curriculum, financial and disciplinary
powers. The president of the school board chairs the Council, which have teachers
from all the subjects, student class representatives, and parents as members
(Hannam, 1998). A study done in England and wales found that 95% of the
schools had Student Councils (Whitty & Wisby, 2007). Norwegian law provides
for the formation of the Student Councils in all schools (Critchley, 2003).
In Finland, the law provides for the student participation in decision-making in
schools. The constitution of Finland of 2012 provides for the children and young
people to participate in decisions affecting their lives among other things. Students
are given the right to participate in student association, student union and student
councils (Shatilova, 2014). In Denmark, it is reported that the government
underscored the importance of creating democratic schools (Bahou, 2011). In
South Africa, it is a requirement of the law that every public school should
establish a governing body which should include learners‟ representatives from the
eighth grade or higher. It makes provision for a representative council of learners
in each ordinary public school that offers instruction in the eighth grade or higher
(Carr, 2005; Mabovula, 2009). This arrangement, however, presumes that the
children of lower grades do not need to be heard or even be represented in the
student government.
In Namibia, the role of students in school management is outlined in the User‟s
Guide to the Education Code of Conduct (Government of Namibia, 1993).
Students were represented through democratically elected school boards that
include teachers and parents. The school boards deal with discipline, finances,
29
budgets, school fees, staff appointments, and use of school facilities. It is noted
that Tanzania was one of the first African countries that provided for student
participation in decision-making in the schools through representation in decision-
making committees. The schools have councils whose membership and functions
are specified in the National Policy on School Councils (Carr, 2005).
Provision for Student Councils in schools demonstrates respect for children‟s
rights since they provide opportunity for them to participate in decision-making in
schools. The council provides a formal, democratic, transparent, and accountable
whole-school policy forum (Alderson, 2000).
In Kenya, the Education Act Cap 211 (revised in 1980) gave the Minister for
Education a lot of power in the management of the education sector. The Minister
had power to appoint the members of the respective governing and advisory
boards. All public secondary schools were managed by BOGs appointed by the
Minister for Education (Republic of Kenya, 1980). The BOG had members from
various stakeholders but non from among the students. Therefore, students were
not represented in main decision-making bodies in secondary schools. Following
the rise in the number of secondary schools that were experiencing students‟ strike
1990s, the Task Force on Totally Integrated Quality Education and Training
(TIQET) of 1999 recommended that a framework for the democratic governance of
educational institutions at all levels involving the incorporation of students and
other stakeholders be designed and legislated (Republic of Kenya, 1999). It was
felt that by striking, students were demanding for involvement in decision-making
in schools. The recommendation was however, not implemented and student
30
remained unrepresented in the main decision-making body in the school. A decade
later, the Task Force on Realignments of Education Sector to the Constitution of
Kenya, 2010 also recommended that a system to include effective participation of
learners be put in place and pointed out that this could be achieved through student
councils (Republic of Kenya, 2012b).
The fact that the task forces relentlessly recommended that the government put
structures that allow student participation in decision-making in school points that
it is an important aspect in management of secondary schools. It is not clear why it
took the government too long to have the structures for student participation in
decision-making in place.
Under the current Constitution in Kenya, the Cabinet Secretary is responsible for
the overall governance and management of basic education. At institutional level,
public secondary schools in Kenya are currently managed by Boards of
Management (BOM) appointed by County Education Board (CEB) (Republic of
Kenya, 2013). The composition of the BOM has representatives from various
stakeholders, including one representative of the Student Council who should be an
ex officio member. The law therefore, recognises the importance of involving
students in decision-making in school. The constitution of Kenya (2010) also
advocates for participation of citizens in decision-making process.
The other body previously involved in management of the schools in Kenya was
the Parents Teachers Association (PTA), currently referred to as the Parents‟
Association (PA) in the Basic Education Act of 2013. According to the Sessional
31
paper No.14 of 2012, PTAs were not provided for in the legislation (Republic of
Kenya, 2012a). Currently PA is now provided for in the Basic Education Act of
2013, and it consists of every parent with a student in the school and a
representative of the teachers in the school. The executive committee of this body
has a parent representative from each class and two teachers and none from among
the students. This creates a gap where students are not considered as important in
participating in making decisions that affect them. Yet, the Task Force on
Realignments of Education Sector to the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 also
recommended for student representation in the PTA meetings (Republic of Kenya,
2012b). It is not clear why this recommendation was not considered for
implementation.
According to the National School Health Policy of 2009, the students should be
allowed to actively participate in decision-making in all appropriate fora to express
their views in matters affecting their health and education (Republic of Kenya,
2009). This policy emphasizes the importance of involving students in decision-
making, simply because they are fond of protesting against the decisions taken
without their involvement, and in most cases these protests turn out to be violent
and cause a lot of destruction and even sometimes lead to loss of human life. In the
21st century, children are much more informed of their rights and also their
participation rights. The violation of participation rights could be the causes of
indiscipline and unrest in schools. It was therefore important to determine the
extent of student participation in decision-making and whether lack of participation
in decision-making had any influence on discipline.
32
The teachers have their staff meetings where they deliberate on the issues of day to
day running of the school. This again has been solely for the teachers and the
students are not involved at all. The purpose of the meetings in schools is making
decisions, collecting views, giving briefs, discussions among others (Everard,
Morris, & Wilson, 2004). With the introduction of Student Councils in secondary
school, this study sought to find out whether students were represented in staff
meetings to give their views in day-to-day running of the school and participate in
decision-making process. Participation in decision-making and listening to briefs is
important for the students. Many important matters concerning the student are
discussed in these meetings and it is paramount that they are represented, to avoid
violation of their rights.
As far as student leadership is concerned, Prefect bodies were previously involved
in management of secondary schools in Kenya. They performed various roles
delegated by the school administration. The position of prefect is a position of
responsibility and one which provides an important connection between students
and staff. It has been established that the prefects provide a link between the
students and administration (Machogu, 2012; Njue, 2014). If they were truly a link,
then the many student strikes that secondary schools have been experiencing
should have been averted before they happened. This suggests that they do not
adequately represent the students‟ body.
Currently, the student leadership is in form of the Student Councils in Kenya. In
the year 2008, the Ministry of Education organised the first national secondary
school student conference that brought together student representatives from all
33
secondary schools in the country. In the year 2009, the Kenya Secondary School
Student Council (KSSSC) was established. The membership comprised of two
student representatives from each province. The KSSSC now meet every year but
it was not clear the extent to which Student Councils had been adopted by schools
and it was also not clear the extent to which students participated in making
decisions that affected them. Student councils has been touted as a promising way
of including students in decision-making at school and thus improving students‟
health (Griebler & Nowak, 2012).
2.5 Student Participation in Management of the School Finances and
Physical Resources
Allowing students to sit in Boards of Management (BOM) and Parents‟
Association (PA) meetings afford them the opportunity to participate in making
decisions relating to school budgets, school fees and planning and development of
physical resources among others. The literature indicates that there are countries
that provide for student participation in budget decisions through student
representation in governing bodies. For instance in South Africa, student
participate in deciding the budget allocation for the students councils, fees paid by
the parents with more than one student in the school, fund raising for council
activities and bursary fund for students for post-secondary education among other
things (Carr, 2005). This indicates that the student involvement in management of
the school finances is a valuable thing and every school should afford the students
the opportunity to participate. Walker and Logan, (2008) argue that student
governors can influence policy and also inspire other learners to take part.
34
In Kenya, the Basic Education Act of 2013 requires that students in secondary be
represented in BOM meetings. Tikoko, Kiprop & Bomett (2011) found out that
students were not represented in BOGs, PTA and major decision-making
committees in secondary schools. This means that students were therefore not
involved in school budget, school fees and planning and development of the
physical resources decisions, although by the time of Tikoko et al (2011) study; the
Basic Education Act of 2013 had not been promulgated and therefore there was no
law requiring students to be represented in school management bodies. Njue,
(2014) had similar findings that students were not involved in making decisions on
school budget and school fees. Lundy, (2007) had observed earlier that children
did not participate in decision-making and if they did the participation was
tokenistic. Pérez-Expósito, (2015) observes that student participation in school
governance includes making decisions about the effective use of resources and
school budget among other things.
Chemutai & Chumba, (2014) on their study of the Student Councils participation
in decision-making in public secondary schools in Kericho West sub-county, found
that student councils members were not involved in making decisions relating to
school budget and school fees among others things. These are decisions that are
made either in BOM, PA and staff meetings in secondary schools. It is not clear
why students were not involved in those decisions yet the Basic Education Act of
2013 now provides for their representation in BOM. However, researchers (Rudd,
Colligan, & Naik, 2007) argue that students are still seldom consulted or heard
despite the changes being witnessed in education system. With the enactment of
laws that provide structures for student participation in decision making in schools,
35
one would expect to find more involvement of students in decision making
process.
Lansdown, (2001) observes that the right of the child to be heard includes all
actions and decisions that affect the life of a child at home, in school, and other
places. This study sought to establish whether schools had students‟
representatives in Boards of management (BOM) and whether they participated in
management of school finances and physical resources.
2.6 Student Participation in Management of the Staff Personnel
Student involvement in management of staff personnel ensures that their views are
taken into account when decisions relating to the recruitment of staff, discipline of
staff and staff appraisal are being made. According to the Basic Education Act of
2013, it is the function of the BOM to advice the County Education Boards (CEBs)
on the staffing needs of the school and also to recruit, employ and remunerate non-
teaching staff of the school. Since the law provides for students‟ representation in
BOM, automatically then they should participate in recruitment of the staff through
their representative. This study therefore sought to establish whether students
participate in the management of the staff personnel and if they participate, the
study sought to determine the extent of participation.
Emphasizing on the importance of students‟ involvement in decision-making,
Walker & Logan, (2008) gave an example of a school in UK where the students
made an impact on staff appointment panels. The learners at Georges Mitchell
School in Leyton interview all prospective teachers and the head teachers. This
36
gives the student an opportunity to participate in recruitment of the staff and also
their views inform the final decision made. Czerniawski, Garlick, Hudson, &
Peters, (2009), adds that learners‟ presence in staff appointment panels is one of
the activities in which learners can participate in decision-making in schools. This
argument is supported by Pérez-Expósito, (2015) who observed that student
participation in school governance includes participating in decisions about the
head teachers‟ and teachers‟ appointments. In a study done in former rift valley
province of Kenya, Tikoko & Kiprop, (2011) found that the students were not
involved in staff recruitment. It is not known whether this is still the state of affair
in schools, and therefore this study sought to determine whether students were
involved in decisions relating to the recruitment of the staff.
In relation to the discipline of the staff, Tikoko & Kiprop (2011) found that the
students were not involved in disciplining the staff. The study was conducted in 15
secondary schools in the former Rift valley province of Kenya. Chemutai &
Chumba, (2014), in a study done in Kericho-West sub-county of Kenya found that
the students were not involved in matters to do with the discipline of the staff.
Lack of student participation in management of the staff personnel is not unique
problem in Kenya, a study done in Nigeria by (Nwankwo, 2014) found that
students‟ participation in decision-making in the areas human resources among
others things was very low. This seems to be an area that is reserved for the adults
as students are viewed as immature (Pérez-Expósito, 2015) to handle such cases.
The TSC Act of 2009, and the TSC code of Regulation for Teachers, Revised in
2014, section 146 (1) delegates some powers to BOM, like interdiction of the
37
teachers in secondary schools. Therefore it can be argued that student
representation in BOM may mean that they also participate in performing the roles
delegated to the BOM like disciplining of the staff. This is because the Basic
Education Act, 2013 stipulates the functions of BOM and further states that the
BOM will perform any other function to facilitate the implementation of its
functions under the Act or any other written law in this country. Therefore, the
students may be involved in the discipline of staff. Where the discipline case
involves both teachers and students, then it is important that all parties are
involved. Moreover some of the discipline cases against the teachers like those
listed in the Teachers Service Commission (Code of Conduct and Ethics for
Teachers) regulations of 2015, that is, Legal Notice No 126, section 22 involve the
students too.
Regarding student participation in appraising the teachers, Odhiambo, (2005) in his
study on Teachers‟ appraisal: the experiences of Kenyan secondary school
teachers, found that only a small proportion of the teachers indicated that they
would like to be appraised by the students. He concluded that majority of the
teachers preferred to be appraised by the head teachers. This indicates that teachers
are not free to be appraised by the students, yet this is a crucial area which student
should be strongly encouraged to participate. Students are always at the receiving
end of the teaching process. Chopra, (2014) argues that the students that are placed
at the receiving end of educational activities are rarely given an opportunity to
participate in teacher evaluations or professional development among other things.
They are expected to listen and receive what their teachers are giving them. They
38
are not given opportunities to give the feedback of the teaching and learning
process.
Tikoko & Kiprop, (2011) also found that teachers‟ appraisal was done by the head
teachers in secondary schools. The argument that is advanced is that, failure to
involve students in such decisions may relate to the feeling that the students do not
have the technical knowledge required or it may be viewed as giving students a lot
of control over their teachers hence undermining their authority (Flutter, 2007;
Lundy, 2007b). It is also argued that students are viewed as minors and therefore
they have no authority to judge teachers (Tikoko & Kiprop, 2011). Student
participation in appraising their teachers is actually not about gaining power, but
having an objective appraisal that will be of benefit to the teaching learning
process and consequently enhancing academic performance. (Elstad, Lejonberg, &
Christophersen, 2017) found that student responses have the potential to provide
teachers with useful feedback about their educational practices.
In a study done in Meru Central District of Kenya, (Karuntimi & Tarus, 2014)
concluded that the current evaluation system for teachers does not live up to the
expectations when applied in secondary schools. This study argues that inclusion
of students‟ views may add value to the teachers‟ evaluation system. This study
sought to establish the extent of student participation in appraising their teachers in
secondary schools management.
39
2.7 Student Participation in Management of School Curriculum
There is an abundance of existing research already suggesting strongly that student
participation in decision-making in school tends to enhance the learning
experiences (Fielding, 2001; Hannam, 2001; Lodge, 2005; Rudduck & Flutter,
2000). This has positive effects for the learners, who benefit from a strong sense of
being trusted and therefore improves their discipline in school. Harber, (1995)
observes that in democratic schools, students have some say both over what is
learned and how it is learned. This suggests that students should be involved in
deciding the contents for their learning and the methods of teaching employed by
the teachers for the curriculum delivery. They need to be involved in the selection
of subjects and the topics to be studied individually or in groups within the
subjects. This involvement in decision-making in relation to curriculum is
important as far as student discipline is concerned.
From a health perspective it is important, among other things, to involve learners
in everyday school life, including overall strategies for making decisions
(Simovska, 2004). Thus, the emphasis in a school needs to be placed on teaching
and learning process, the whole school atmosphere, management structures and
physical environment. This is lacking in most Kenyan secondary schools, yet
students would like to participate in all curriculum decisions. In the work of
Fielding (2001), on Students as Researchers project, students contended for the
curriculum as a joint making of meaning. They felt that their views should be
incorporated in the school curriculum.
40
In his study, Hannam, (2001) found out that participative activities enhanced
school attendance, self-esteem, motivation to learn, engagement with learning and
attainment among the students. The student perception in this study was that
involvement in participative activities enhanced learning across the curriculum. He
sums it altogether that student participation in decision-making and
implementation impacted on school effectiveness and school improvement. The
researcher agrees with Hannam in his support for student participation in decisions
concerning curriculum. This study therefore sought to establish whether this
involvement had any influence on student discipline.
Tikoko & Kiprop, (2011) in their study on the extent of student participation in
management of secondary schools in Kenya, a sample of 15 schools, found out that
students did not participate in the choice of textbooks they used because they were
already identified at the MOE level and schools had nothing to do with their
choices. They also found that students were not involved in deciding the teaching
methods, nature of assignments and grading system. The researchers used
descriptive cross sectional survey research design. Huddleston, (2007) affirms that
school curricula and evaluation criteria are decided by the state or regional
authorities. There is little room left for teachers or students to participate in such
decisions. Backman & Trafford, (2006) noted that the students they interviewed
felt that there was very little opportunity for them to influence curriculum content
or teaching methods. As a matter of fact, there are many areas under curriculum
management in which students can participate in decision making. These include
nature of assignments, assessment strategy and marking (Huddleston, 2007).
41
Tikoko & Kiprop (2011) found out that students did not participate in deciding the
number of examinations done in a school term. Chemutai & Chumba, (2014) in a
study done in Kericho West Sub- County, found that students were not involved in
decisions concerning the number of examinations done in a school during any
given school term. Given that the researchers used descriptive survey design, this
study used the mixed method design, specifically triangulation to determine the
extent of student involvement in determining the number of examinations given in
a school term. Triangulation methods helps in validation of the data collected using
both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods.
In a study done in Eastern Region of Kenya, researchers found that the students
participated in selection of the subjects they studied in secondary schools (Mulwa
et al., 2015). The researchers used the descriptive survey research design. It was
interest to establish whether this was the state of affairs in other parts of the
country and therefore this study used the mixed methods design to ensure
validation of the data obtained to determine the extent of student participation in
selection of the subjects they studied in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi counties.
In a study done in Zimbambwe, Shumba, Maphosa, & Shumba, (2008) found out
that although the teachers and students were aware of the pupils‟ rights to
participate in deciding the subjects they studied, in practice most of the students
indicated they had no say in the choice of the subjects, a position that was
confirmed by most of the teachers and all the head teachers.
42
In relation to the school hour programme, Wango, (2009) underscores the
importance of programmes in the organization and notes that they strengthen the
overall institutional management. He stresses that the programmes and activities
should transfer decision-making to the ultimate beneficiaries, i.e. the learners. The
students should therefore be involved fully in drawing the school programmes of
their schools. They need to influence decisions relating to duration of preps, and
weekend programmes of schools with boarding facilities.
Student participation in decisions relating to school curriculum is one of the least
explored areas of student participation. Usually school curriculum is determined by
government or Ministry concerned with education. This leaves no room for
students to participate in decision-making. According to Hannam, (1998), in his
sample of sixty schools, it is in only one school where students participated in
curriculum decisions. Pupils were fully involved together with teachers in
curriculum planning and review. It is assumed that when students‟ opinion are
respected and valued, they will be more committed in their learning and will take
greater responsibility of their behaviour. Huddleston, 2007 notes that there are
assumptions that student have a legitimate interest only in student-specific issues
and that they have no right to decide the areas of decision making in which they
want or do not want to participate in. This assumption is not right especially for the
countries that are signatory to the UN convection on the right of the child that
gives the children the right to express their views in all matters that affect them and
for their views to be given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity.
This study therefore sought to establish the extent of student participation in
43
management of school curriculum and the influence this may have had on
students‟ discipline.
2.8 Student Participation in Management of Students and Welfare Issues
This entails participation in decisions concerned with formulation of school rules,
selection of student leaders, school diet, school uniform, nature of punishment,
student discipline, sports, clubs, entertainment, setting achievement targets
decisions among others. School rules compiled in partnership with students are
more likely to be relevant, understood and adhered to. A study done by the
Children Research Centre in Ireland found out that students through Student
Councils need to influence management decisions through policy and rules. They
support the involvement of students in formulation of school rules and regulations
(Keogh & White, 2005). They however, didn‟t determine whether this involvement
had any influence on student discipline.
When representatives of students participate in formulation of the school rules, the
student body has the obligation to comply with the rules (Cook-Sather, 2006). This
gives the students ownership of the rules and therefore day-to-day operations are
guided by them. Mati, Gatumu, & Chandi, (2016), in a study on students'
involvement in decision making and their academic performance in Embu West
Sub-County of Kenya, found that ownership was realized by students‟
participation in formulation of school rules and disciplinary issues among other
things. Democratic schools are more effective because in such schools, students
and staff comply to the rules if they are democratically agreed upon. This also
leads to improvement of communication within the school (Harber, 1995).
44
The Taskforce on Student Discipline and Unrest in Secondary Schools of 2001
found that schools were not involving students in the formulation of school rules.
The rules were found to be undemocratic, vague, and oppressive and were at times
applied selectively (Republic of Kenya, 2001b). This led to lack of ownership
resulting to resentment and open defiance. Almost a decade later, Tikoko &
Kiprop, (2011) confirmed that students were still not involved in formulation of
school rules in secondary schools. A more recent study done by Kilonzo, (2017),
found that majority of the respondents said that students were not involved in
enacting school rules and policies. This is contrary to what has been observed
elsewhere on the effective discipline in schools by many scholars (Baginsky &
Hannam, 1999; Hannam, 1998; Kagendo, 2009; Mager & Nowak, 2010; Nayak,
2011). It is not clear why schools have continued to exclude students‟ views while
formulating the school rules.
Nayak, (2011) observed that the students should agree with the rules necessary for
achieving the purposes set by the school. For the students to agree with the rules,
they should be involved in formulating them. They need to understand them and
also understand the goals of the school clearly.
Involvement of students in the discipline process is viewed as central to having
long-lasting results as far as their discipline is concerned. The students need to
have a stake in controlling their behaviours in school. This helps in impacting them
with an understanding that good discipline yields good results in school (Christie,
1998). Kagendo, (2009) found out that involving students in formulation of school
rules and regulations was one of the effective methods of managing student
45
discipline in secondary schools. The Taskforce on Student Discipline and Unrest in
Secondary Schools of 2001 recommended, among others, that the head teachers be
more democratic and inclusive in the running of the institutions by involving
teachers and students in the formulation and enforcement of school rules (Republic
of Kenya, 2001b). Since the law in Kenya provides for the establishment of
Student Councils which are democratic bodies through which students are involved
in making important decisions in schools (Republic of Kenya, 2012a), it was of
interest to establish whether students participate in formulating the school rules and
determine the extent to which they participate.
Nayak, (2011) contends that, it is much easier to develop a sense of group self-
discipline by involving students in the formulation of school rules than through the
enforcement of rules formulated without their participation. Participation helps the
students to understand the rules and this makes implementation easier.
In a survey conducted by National Society for the Prevention of cruelty to Children
(NSPCC) on school councils in partnership with School Council, UK and the
Advisory Centre for Education (ACE), it was found that students laid more
emphasis in improving their councils, participating in the development of
discipline policies (Baginsky & Hannam, 1999). Formulation of schools rules is
therefore the area of students‟ domain and lack of student participation could be
the reason for the many indiscipline cases being experienced in secondary schools.
This study sought to determine the extent of student participation in formulation of
school rules and whether this participation had any influence on their discipline.
46
In a study on participatory governance in secondary schools: the students‟
viewpoint in eastern region of Kenya, it was found that the prefects system was the
most commonly used structure for students‟ involvement in decision making
(Mulwa et al., 2015). It was not clear why this was the case when the there is a lot
of emphasis on student participation in management of the schools they attend
through the student council form of student leadership. The government provided
for the establishment of the student councils in secondary schools which are used
avenue for student participation in decision making. It was noted that in most
secondary schools in Kenya, students have minimal input if at all, in the selection
of prefects (Republic of Kenya, 2001b). The teachers and the administrators make
the decisions on who should become prefect and without consulting the students
from among whom they make the choices. In some schools, this body of students
is mainly a control tool for the teachers and administrators rather than a
representative body. If students are not involved in the selection of their leaders,
there is a possibility of appointing unpopular leaders rendering them ineffective.
It has also been observed that the privileged position of prefects in secondary
schools in Kenya causes resentment making them a target of attack during
disturbances like it happened in Nyeri high school where prefects lost their lives.
They are also isolated from the mainstream student body and are not able to read
the mood of the school (Republic of Kenya, 2001b). In this case therefore, there is
no way they can help in management of discipline in school, since they are
completely disconnected from the students‟ body. The prefect system has also been
criticised for encouraging blind obedience to school authorities (Sifuna, 2000).
They are used as control tool of the school administration. Njue, (2011)
47
recommended that the prefects should be democratically selected from the
students‟ body. This study was done before the enactment of the Basic education
act of 2013 that provides for student participation in decision-making in schools
and schools had not embraced the concept of Student Councils. Nayak, (2011)
observed that group self-discipline is achieved when students are allowed to select
their leaders democratically among other things. The students should therefore be
given opportunity to elect their leaders democratically through the guidance of
their teachers.
The Student Council members influence important decisions on behalf of the
students‟ body. They participate in decisions concerning the school uniform,
discipline issues and other welfare issues. In a study done by the children research
centre in Ireland by Keogh and Whyte (2005), they found out that Student
Councils members felt strongly that their roles were representing students views,
influencing decisions on uniforms, food in the canteen, fixing things, dealing with
issues, solving problems, helping students, organizing events etc. They however
never established whether there is any influence of student participation in
addressing student welfare issues on their discipline.
In relation to student participation in student discipline, Mukiti, (2014) found that
Student Councils performed disciplinary roles such as punishing minor indiscipline
cases. He however did not establish the extent of student participation in decision
making. It is not clear whether the levels of participation were low or high. The
findings of Mukiti, 2014 differed with those of a study done by Chemutai &
Chumba (2014), which found that students‟ views were excluded in discipline of
48
students. Since both studies used descriptive survey design, this study used the
mixed methods design to determine the extent of student participation in decisions
relating to their discipline.
As regard nature of punishment, literature revealed that students were excluded in
deciding on the nature of punishments (Chemutai & Chumba, 2014; Tikoko &
Kiprop, 2011). Ideally, it is important that the students are involved in deciding the
punishment they should receive after infringing on the school rules. Mulwa et al
(2015) noted that students should play an active role in determining disciplinary
action against them since this is an area of decision making that affect the student
directly.
The presidential committee on student unrest and indiscipline, (Republic of Kenya,
1991) recommended that school managers need to involve students in matters
regarding change of school diets or uniform. Student involvement in uniform
decisions is crucial, since this affect the directly. They always want to be part of
the decision concerning the design and the colour of their uniform. The students
always want to feel smart and presentable in school uniform and if they feel
otherwise, they reject it. In the year 2012, students of Rwathia girls‟ secondary
school held a demonstration demanding to be allowed to wear shorter skirts. The
students said their uniform was too long and ugly (Karanja, 2012). It took the
intervention of the then Minister for Education, to have the length of their skirt
reduced to near knee length as opposed to earlier ones that almost touched their
ankles. This incidence clearly points that students value their involvement in
decisions relating to their uniform. It was not clear whether students participated in
49
making school uniform decisions and therefore this study sought to determine
whether they participated and the extent to which they participated.
In a survey conducted by NSPCC on school councils in partnership with School
Council UK and the Advisory Centre for Education (ACE), it was found out that
the most frequently mentioned agenda items of the council were canteen matters,
uniform and toilets. These touch on the welfare of the students and therefore they
should participate fully in decision-making process in school. Tikoko & Kiprop
(2011) found, that students were not involved in the making decisions about their
welfare issues like diet, school routine, but it is not clear whether this is still the
case since this study was done before the promulgation of the Basic Education Act
of 2013 that provided for the establishment of the Student Councils.
In most secondary schools head teachers and the teachers make all the decisions in
relation to the co-curricular activities that the students need to participate in and at
times students have no stake. Co-curricular activities include athletics, ball games,
sports, clubs, movements and societies which impact directly on students. Tikoko
& Kiprop, (2011) found out that students are not involved in the making decisions
about co-curricular activities. This actually contravenes the observation made by
various scholars on effective discipline in schools. Many researchers support the
idea of involving students in making decisions concerning co-curricular activities
(Hannam, 1998; Manefield et al., 2007). Katz & Chard, (2000) recommended an in
depth research topic of the students choice as likely activities that could replace
negative tendencies. They propose the use of non-competitive activities that may
help students learn cooperation, collaboration and shared responsibilities. This
50
suggests that student participation in decision-making in these activities may help
them develop well. This study sought to determine the extent of student
participation in decisions relating to sports, clubs, setting achievement targets in
extra curriculum activities and entertainment.
2.9 State of Student Discipline in Secondary Schools
Students‟ discipline in Kenyan secondary schools has been deteriorating with time
in spite the fact that all stakeholders understand that discipline is very important for
the smooth running of any school (Bakhda, 2004). It plays a vital role in the
achievement of educational goals and objectives. Good discipline creates a good
image of the school and ought to be maintained at all times because it leads to
proper learning (Eshiwani, 1993).
Student indiscipline has been one of the major challenges facing secondary schools
in Kenya. It is manifested in different forms such as boycotting classes, noise
making, theft, absenteeism, possession of weapons other than fire arms, possession
of inflammable substance, lateness, sexual harassment, sneaking from school, drug
sale, drug and substance abuse, bullying, rudeness to teachers, fighting among
students, violent unrests, riots, strikes that culminate in destruction of school
property, rape and injuries or even loss of life among others (Gikungu & Karanja,
2014; Samoei, 2012; Simatwa, 2012). Student indiscipline is not only a problem
that is experienced in Kenyan schools. A study done Nigeria found that the most
experienced types of indiscipline was bullying, truancy or absenteeism, vandalism
of school property, theft/stealing and fighting (Ali, Dada, Isiaka, & Salmon, 2014).
51
Simatwa, Odhong, Juma, & Choka, (2014) found that substance abuse were
prevalent among public secondary school students in Kisumu East Sub-County.
Ndaita, (2016) drug abuse as one of the types of indiscipline in secondary schools
in addition to fighting, failure to complete assignments, drug abuse, sexual-
deviance, sneaking out of school, stealing other students‟ property and general
defiance of school authority and rules. This suggests that secondary schools in
Kenya are faced with various forms of indiscipline which may hinder achievement
of educational goals.
The most noticeable form of student indiscipline is the strikes or unrests.
Secondary schools have been experiencing violent student strikes from as early as
1900. For example, the 1908 strike of Maseno School is clearly captured in the
report of the Taskforce on Student Indiscipline and Unrest (Republic of Kenya,
2001b). The number of schools experiencing some form of student unrest
continued increasing in the seventies with boys‟ schools being most affected,
followed by co-educational schools, and girls‟ schools in that order (Kinyanjui,
1975; Mwangi, 1985). Between 1980 and 1990, the number of schools
experiencing student unrests had increased tremendously from 22 (0.9%) to 187
(7.2%) (Republic of Kenya, 2001b). This is a significant increment in just one
decade and given that these figures comprised of only the known and the recorded
cases.
In the 1990s, it was reported that mass indiscipline in school had become so
common that it evoked little interest in the press unless where there was loss of
human life (Griffin, 1994), as it happened in St. Kizito mixed secondary school
52
where male students invaded the girls‟ dormitories and violently raped a number of
them, setting off commotion during which 19 girls lost their lives (Republic of
Kenya, 2001b). The nature of indiscipline witnessed in secondary schools took a
dramatic turn for worse towards the close of 20th
century and the beginning of 21 P
stP
century. The unrests were characterized by violence and massive destruction of
school property. It was reported that in some schools, the students were determined
to cause maximum harm to human life (Republic of Kenya, 2001b), like it
happened in Nyeri high school where prefects were locked up in cubicles while
asleep and were doused with petrol and set ablaze, killing four of them. In the year
1997, Bombululu girls‟ secondary school dormitory was set ablaze while they were
asleep killing 28 of them. In Kyanguli secondary school, 68 boys lost their lives
when the dormitory was set on fire while asleep and scores of them escaped with
injuries (Republic of Kenya, 2001b).
In the year 2008, it was reported that more than 300 secondary schools experienced
unprecedented student unrests in Kenya. The consequences of these unrests
included loss of life, destruction of student and school property worth millions of
shillings, disruption of school curricula, tension amongst students, anxiety and
panic amongst teachers, parents, school managers and the Ministry of Education
(Malenya, 2014; Muindi & Mwai, 2008; Ngare, 2008; Wetangula & Ngirachu,
2008).
This spate of unrests in secondary school led to the speaker of the National
Assembly directing the Minister for Education to set up a special commission to
investigate the causes of school unrest and violence. Though this report was not
53
released to the public, the media reported a number of root causes identified by the
taskforce which included overloaded curriculum, autocratic school administration,
drug and substance abuse, poor living conditions in schools, fear of mock
examinations, excessive use of corporal punishment, lack of avenues of expressing
their grievances, pressure for excellent academic performance, abdication of
parental responsibility, prefect system deemed autocratic, poor quality food, harsh
rules that impede students‟ freedom among others (National Crime Research
Centre, 2017). It has been noted however, that not all the recommendation made by
the task forces have been implemented (Malenya, 2014).
The most recent spate of unrest in secondary schools was experienced in the year
2016 where over 130 secondary schools experienced burning of their school
property (National Crime Research Centre, 2017). This point clearly that student
indiscipline in secondary schools is a major challenge facing the educational
sector. For the goals of education to be realized then the MOE in partnership with
other education stakeholders (BOM, head teachers, teachers, parents, students
among others) should come up with amicable measures to curb the problem. It
could be that the students are demanding for their participation in decision making
process in schools.
2.10 Student Participation in Decision-making and student Discipline
Student participation in decision-making in the schools they attend has been touted
as one of the most important ways of minimising or even eliminating student
indiscipline (KSSHA, 2014). The effects of student participation in decision-
making include improvement of relationships among the students, improvement of
54
facilities and influence on rules, policies, and procedures, and improved school
ethos. Improvement of school ethos lead to improved school engagement, high rate
of student attendance, enhanced acceptance, or compliance with school rules,
enhanced school climate and democratic school ethos (Mager & Nowak, 2010).
Wilson, (2009) found out that involved pupils had improved relationships with
adults. Good relationship between students and their teachers yields good
discipline in school. The researcher concurs with above studies that there is a
relationship between student participation in decision-making and student
discipline.
Hart, (1992) developed a model of adult-child interactions using a ladder referred
to as Hart‟s Ladder of Participation. The ladder provides a visual representation of
ways in which adults and children interact with each other and how different types
of interactions affect the distribution of power and control. In the first three levels,
that is manipulation, decoration, and tokenism, adults have more power and control
while children (in this case, students) are the less informed or involved. It is at
these levels that most head teachers, teachers and even parents in secondary
schools in Kenya find their interactions with students. Although there may be
times when there are legitimate purposes for interactions at these levels, schools
cannot claim to genuinely involve students in decision-making using these types of
interactions. Typically, adults (in a school environment, head teachers and
teachers) make all decisions and students are only involved as a means to guide
them into agreement with decisions made.
55
In the top, two levels of the Hart‟s (1992) Ladder, child initiated and directed and
child initiated and shared power, the children hold the most power and control
while adults only provide support or guidance when needed. An example of
interaction at these levels could be a Student Council that develops an idea and
asks the school to support them. The students would design and run the events with
teachers providing full support. However, the ladder has been criticised for
portraying that participation occurs in sequence (Smith & Thomas, 2009).
Smith & Thomas, (2009) suggest that children need access to information and to
safe space in order to contribute their views. They should also be given time,
encouragement and support to enable them to develop and articulate their views.
Studies have shown that schools that actively invite and respond to the students‟
views regarding policy and day to day school procedures demonstrates improved
school attendance, academic progress, test scores and students behaviour
(Baginsky & Hannam, 1999; Hannam, 2001; Holdsworth & Thomson, 2002;
Mager & Nowak, 2010; (Rudduck & Flutter, 2000) Rudduck & Flutter, 2000).
Many studies have connected positive student-teacher relationships to enhanced
learning and behaviour in (Borden, 2004; Croninger & Lee, 2001; Gottfredson,
2001; Hoy & Miskel, 1982; Marachi, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2007; Voelkl, 1995).
(Ryan, 2006) observed that students have more influence in management of the
school and the curriculum but the real influence of the inclusion is not known.
In a study of the prefect system in secondary schools administration in Kajiado
district used the bureaucratic structural authority of Max Weber to show the
importance of prefects in school administrative hierarchy (Mugali, 2005). The
56
challenge that cannot be ignored in secondary schools is the cruelty with which the
prefects are treated by the student body. A case in point is the Nyeri High school
where the prefects were killed by the fellow students.
Mugali (2005) concluded that the prefects played an important role in secondary
schools administration and they could not be dispensed with but persistent use of
the system may lead to more loss of life, injuries and destruction of students and
school property. Prefects system encourages students to take passive roles in
school. This is what Flutter & Ruddock, (2004) referred to as students being
regarded as consumers or product of educational provision rather than active
participants (Ruddock & Flutter, 2004). In another study (Kanjoya, 1983)
recommended more studies on the use of prefects in secondary schools with the
view of establishing the student councils in their replace. Some schools have since
established student councils as a means of enhancing student participation and this
study sought to investigate the influence of student participation in decision-
making on discipline.
Nayak, (2011) advocates for self-discipline in schools and asserts that it can be
developed effectively when students are given adequate opportunity of sharing
responsibility and planning of school activities on a cooperative basis. The students
should therefore be afforded opportunities to participate fully in planning of school
activities in school. These may include decisions in planning and development of
the physical and material resources, curriculum issues, school programmes, sports,
clubs etc. He further contends that self-discipline grows and develops in a
democracy.
57
Griffin (1994) supports the importance of senior students in school taking higher
levels of responsibility but this should be accompanied by the right guidance from
the administrators and teachers. Griffin fully supports student involvement in
decision-making as an important way of enhancing student academic performance
and discipline. Njue, (2011) concluded that the prefects were acting as link
between the school administration and the students by implementing
administrative instructions among others. The study, however, didn‟t establish the
relationship between student participation in decision-making and student
discipline.
Cook-Sather, (2006) contends that students should not be only heard but they
should be present when decisions are being made in the important committees in
schools and they should also have power to influence decisions. This way the
students own the decision made in the school and implementing them becomes
easier. Whitty and Wisby, (2007) argued that student participation in decision-
making leads to school performance in terms of improvement in behaviour,
engagement or attainment. This agrees with Lansdown (2001) argument that
schools that allow students to participate in decision-making are likely to be more
harmonious, enhanced relationships between staff and students and offers more
effective learning environment. Student participation in decision-making in school
is therefore an important aspect as far as student discipline in schools is concerned.
This study therefore sought to analyze the influence of student participation in
management of the school curriculum and management of the students and welfare
issues respectively, on influenced student discipline.
58
Alimi (2014), in a study done in Nigeria concluded that students' participation in
the maintenance of school discipline gives them the opportunity to solve their own
problem, develop the right conduct, self-control, cooperative efficiency and
fairness among other things. On the same vein, Brasof, (2011) argues that solutions
created with students are successful since they tend to have more students buy-in.
The students know better their problems, the origin of the problems and therefore
they are always in a better position to solve them. At times the students just need
guidance from the teachers as they decide how best they solve their problem. This
helps them to grow and develop into responsible adults. Mati, et al, (2016)
observed that student participation in disciplinary issues help them grow
responsibly as well as making them accept the consequences of their own decisions
and actions. This study therefore sought to determine the influence of student
participation in decision making on student discipline.
2.11 Summary
The literature reviewed has revealed that majority of the countries that are
signatory to UNCRC of 1989 have put structures in place to facilitate student
participation in decision-making in secondary schools. In Kenya, MOE, KSSHA
and UNICEF, Kenya, have been very keen on ensuring that secondary schools
implement Student Council system of student leadership. The law in Kenya
provides for the establishment of the Student Councils through which students
participate in the decision-making process in secondary schools. The literature
revealed scanty information on the form of student leadership in secondary schools
in the wake of the new dispensation (after the enactment of the Basic Education
Act of 2013). It was clear from the literature reviewed that secondary schools were
59
not representing students in Boards of Management as required by the Basic
Education Act of 2013. School were not representing students in Parents‟
Association and staff meetings. The literature further revealed that students were
not involved in management of the school finances, physical resources and staff
personnel in this country. It was not clear whether this was the state of affairs, even
after the operationalization of the Basic Education act of 2013.
The literature revealed scanty information on student participation in management
of the school curriculum and management of the students and welfare issues
particularly after the enactment of the Basic Education Act of 2013. The literature
underscored the importance of involving the students in management of students
and welfare issues since this impact on them directly. From the literature, the
extent of student participation in different areas of decision-making in secondary
schools was not clear. There was scarce information on the influence of student
participation in decision making on student discipline. This study therefore sought
to determine the influence of student participation in management of school
curriculum and management of students and welfares issues on student discipline.
60
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This chapter gives a description of the research design, the location of the study,
variables of the study, target population, the sampling design, instruments, validity
and reliability of the instruments, pilot study, data collection techniques, data
analysis and logical and ethical consideration.
3.2 Research Design
This study used the mixed method research design, and specifically triangulation
method in which both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods were
implemented simultaneously. Quantitative data were obtained by use of
questionnaires while qualitative data were collected through face-to-face
interviews and focus group discussions. Triangulation method was appropriate for
this study because data collection involved three different methods implemented
simultaneously in the same institutions. This was the best way to validate the data
obtained and gain a deeper and wider understanding of the findings from the study.
The underlying rationale of the use of the triangulation design is that the strength
of the two methods will complement each other and offset each method‟s
respective weaknesses (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009). The quantitative and qualitative
data were integrated during interpretation phase where the interpretation noted
either a lack of agreement or agreement.
61
3.3 Variables of the Study
The independent variable in the study was the student participation in decision-
making in management of secondary schools. The study considered two
management task areas namely; management of school curriculum and
management of students and welfare issues. The dependent variable was the
students‟ discipline. The intervening variables were rural and urban setting.
3.4 Location of the Study
This study was conducted in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi counties of Kenya. They
represented a rural and urban set up, respectively. This aspect gave the study
diversity regarding the status of discipline and the extent of student participation in
decision-making in secondary schools.
Tharaka-Nithi County was selected for this study for the following reasons: First it
has various categories of schools which include girls‟ boarding, boys‟ boarding,
mixed boarding, mixed day and boarding and mixed day secondary schools.
Second, it has been experiencing students‟ unrests and other forms of indiscipline
in secondary schools (Republic of Kenya, 2001b).
Nairobi County was selected for this study not only to give the urban setting
environment but also the fact that it has been experiencing students unrests and
other forms of indiscipline in secondary schools (National Crime Research Centre,
2017; Okumu, 2014). It has various categories of schools which include girls‟
boarding, boys‟ boarding, mixed boarding, girls‟ day, boys‟ day and mixed day
62
secondary schools just like the Tharaka-Nithi County. Most of the schools were
endowed with better physical and material resources and adequate teaching staff.
3.5 Target Population
This section describes the study units (secondary schools) and the respondents
targeted for this study.
3.5.1 Secondary Schools
The target population for the study was two hundred and fourteen (214) public
secondary schools in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi counties. The schools were
categorized into girls‟ boarding secondary schools, boys boarding secondary
schools, mixed boarding secondary schools, mixed day and boarding secondary
schools and mixed day secondary schools. In Tharaka-Nithi County, there were
135 public secondary schools comprising of 19 girls‟ boarding secondary schools,
8 boys boarding secondary schools, 5 mixed boarding secondary schools, 21 mixed
days and boarding secondary schools and 82 mixed day secondary schools. In
Nairobi County the study targeted a total of 79 secondary schools comprising of 15
girls‟ boarding secondary schools, 10 boys‟ boarding secondary schools, 6 mixed
boarding secondary schools, 6 girls‟ day secondary schools, 8 boys‟ day secondary
schools and 34 co-educational day secondary schools. Table 3.1 shows the target
population of the secondary schools by type in both Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi
counties.
63
Table 3.1: Number of secondary schools in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi
Counties
Type of School Tharaka-Nithi Nairobi City
Girls‟ boarding 19 15
Boys‟ boarding 8 10
Mixed boarding 5 6
Mixed day and boarding 21 -
Mixed day 82 34
Girls‟ day - 6
Boys‟ day - 8
Total 135 79
3.5.2 Respondents
The study targeted 214 head teachers, 2433 teachers, 81582 students, 81582
parents and 13 Sub-county Directors of Education (SCDE) in Tharaka-Nithi and
Nairobi counties. Tharaka- Nithi County had a total of 135 head teachers, 1253
teachers, 36199 students, 36199 parents and 4 SCDE. Nairobi County had a total
of 79 head teachers, 1180 teachers, 45383 students, 45383 parents and 9 SCDE.
The head teachers were useful participants in this study because they are the chief
school administrators and so they had the responsibility of ensuring student
discipline. They are also conversant with everything that goes on in school
regarding the extent of student participation in decision-making, the status of
student discipline and the influence of student participation in decision-making on
student discipline. According to the Basic Education Regulation of 2015, the head
teachers are charged with the responsibility of day to day management of
secondary schools. They are also the team leaders for implementing the Ministry of
Education policies and programmes (Republic of Kenya, 2015). They were
64
therefore best suited to give information in relation to student participation in
decision-making in secondary schools and the extent to which student participation
had influenced student discipline.
The teachers were targeted because they spend the most amount of their time with
the students and therefore they were best suited to know areas of student
participation in decision-making. Moreover, teachers interact with students in
various forums, i.e. in classroom during lessons, during sports in the fields, during
clubs etc. The students were targeted because their participation in decision-
making in schools and discipline were the subjects of investigation. The study
expected that they would give more accurate information on the areas of
participation in decision-making, extent of participation in decision-making and
the extent to which this participation influenced their discipline.
Parents were used in this study to give their views on discipline of their children in
school and about the involvement their children in decision-making in secondary
schools. This is also in view of the fact that most of the student indiscipline cases
are sorted out often between teachers and parents (Bakhda, 2004; Tranter, 2006).
The Sub-county Directors Education were targeted because they have access to
valuable information on the state of student discipline in secondary schools in their
areas of jurisdiction given that the Basic Education Regulation of 2015, requires
them to attend all disciplinary proceedings affecting students in schools under their
jurisdictions (ROK, 2015). They also play an oversight role in the implementation
of MOE policies in secondary schools.
65
3.6 Sampling Procedures and Sample Size Determination
This section describes the sampling procedures, the sampled schools and the
sampled respondents in the study.
3.6.1 Secondary Schools
In selecting the secondary schools for the study from the target population of 214
schools, the stratified random sampling technique was used to ensure that day and
boarding, mixed, and single gender secondary schools were proportionally
represented in the sample. This way, any uniqueness in their experiences relating
to student participation in decision-making was captured. Stratified random
sampling is acceptable when dealing with study populations that are not uniform
(Fraenkel & Wallen, 2009; Orodho, 2005a) because it increases the
representativeness of a study sample (Shaughnessy, Zechmeister, & Zechmeister,
2003).
A lottery technique was then used to draw the samples from each category of
schools. The names of the school were arranged in alphabetical order. Each name
was assigned a number. Names were substituted with a piece of paper of the same
size, colour, texture and shape, which were numbered. The papers were then folded
in such a way that they were of the same shape and looked alike. They were placed
in a container and mixed thoroughly. The required numbers were selected by
someone without looking. The names of the school selected were the simple
random samples.
66
The sample therefore, comprised of 38 public secondary schools which translate to
18% of the targeted population in both Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi counties. The
sampling was done in proportion to the population and was within the acceptable
sample size of 10 to 20% (Ary, Jacobs, & Razaviah, 1972; Babbie, 2005; Gay,
1996; Orodho, 2005b). The researchers support this view, by asserting that, social
science researchers use many variables in the study. This point to the research
questions the study seeks at answering being a basis for sample size chosen. The
sample size in this study was also based on Babbie, (2005) and Gay & Airasian,
(2003) proposal that time and financial constraints were the factors that contributed
to the sample size.
Sample distribution in the counties was as follows; Tharaka-Nithi had a total of
135 secondary schools. These included 19 girls‟ boarding, 8 boys boarding, 5
mixed boarding schools, 21 mixed day and boarding, and 82 mixed day secondary
schools. A sample size of 18% for each of this category gave three (3) girls‟
boarding, one (1) boys‟ boarding, one (1) mixed boarding, four (4) mixed day and
boarding; and fifteen (15) mixed day secondary schools giving a total of twenty
four (24) sampled secondary schools as shown in Table 3.2.
67
Table 3.2: Sample distribution of the types of schools
Type of School Tharaka-Nithi Nairobi City
N n N n
Girls‟ boarding 19 3 15 3
Boys‟ boarding 8 1 10 2
Mixed boarding 5 1 6 1
Mixed day and boarding 21 4 - -
Mixed day 82 15 34 6
Girls‟ day - - 6 1
Boys‟ day - - 8 1
Total 135 24 79 14
Key: N-Total Population; n-Sample
Table 3.2 shows that Nairobi County had a total of 79 secondary schools
comprising of 15 girls‟ boarding, 10 boys boarding, 6 mixed boarding, 6 girls‟ day,
8 boys‟ day and 34 mixed day secondary schools. Only 18% of the schools from
each category were sampled to participate in the study. A sample size of 18% for
each of the categories of the schools gave 3 girls‟ boarding, 2 boys‟ boarding, 1
mixed boarding, 1 girls‟ day, 1 boys‟ day and 6 mixed day secondary schools
giving a total of 14 sampled secondary schools.
3.6.2 Respondents
The respondents for this study were secondary school head teachers, teachers,
students, student leaders, parents and Sub- county Directors of Education (SCDE).
The sampling of each category is described below.
68
a. Head teachers
From the target population of 214 head teachers in the two counties, 38 head
teachers were sampled. The head teachers included in this study were those from
the schools randomly selected. The number of head teachers who participated in
the study therefore corresponded with the number of sampled schools. A total of
38 head teachers participated in this study which translated to 18% of the total
population and comprised of 24 head teachers from Tharaka-Nithi County and 14
head teachers from Nairobi City County.
b. Teachers
Simple random sampling, specifically the lottery method was used to select three
hundred and twenty two (322) teachers from the 38 randomly sampled schools
from both counties. This translated to 12% of the target population of teachers in
both counties. In Tharaka-Nithi County, 168 teachers were included in the study
sample and this translated to 12% of the targeted population. This number (168)
was divided by 24 sampled schools which gave a total of 7 teachers from each
sampled school. Similarly, 12% of targeted population of the teachers in Nairobi
County gave a total of 154 teachers. This number, (154) divided by 14 sampled
schools gave a total of 11 teachers from each sampled school.
c. Students
The students that were included in the study sample were drawn from the 38
schools that were sampled from both counties. The table for determining large
sample size by Krejcie & Morgan, (1970), was used to determine the sample size
of the students. This is because of the high target population of students in both
69
counties. According to the table, from the target population of 36,199 students the
corresponding sample size for the population was 379 in Tharaka-Nithi County.
Similarly, from the target population of 45,383 students in Nairobi City County, the
corresponding sample size of the students was 379. To determine the number of
students to be sampled in every school, the total sample of students was divided by
the number of schools in each county. In Tharaka-Nithi the total sample was 379.
When this number was divided by 24 sampled schools, this gave a total of 16
students from every school. This therefore translated to a total of 384 students in
Tharaka-Nithi County.
In Nairobi County, the total sample was 379 students; this number divided by 14
sampled schools gave a total of 27 students from every sampled school. The total
number of students sampled in Nairobi County was therefore, 378. Therefore the
total number of sampled students in the two studied counties was 762. Stratified
random sampling was then used to select the students from each sampled school.
This ensured that different class levels of secondary school students were
represented in the study sample. A simple random sampling (lottery technique) was
then used to select the sample of students from each class level in all the sampled
schools. In Tharaka-Nithi County, four (4) students were selected from each class
level (Form 1 - Form 4), giving a total of 16 students from every sampled school.
In Nairobi County, seven (7) students were selected from each class level (Form 2 -
Form 4), but only 6 students were sampled from Form 1. This gave a total of 27
students from each sampled school.
70
d. Student Leaders
From the 38 sampled schools, simple random sampling was used to select 12
schools to participate in Focus Group Discussion (FGDs) with the students leaders.
The specific sample included 6 schools from Tharaka-Nithi County and 6 schools
from Nairobi County. Further purposive sampling method was used to select 6
student leaders from each of the 12 sampled schools to participate in FGDs. The
sample comprised of a total of 72 student leaders from both counties.
e. Parents
From the 38 sampled schools, simple random sampling was used to select 12
schools from both Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi City counties to participate in the
parents‟ interview. From every county, 6 schools were sampled. Convenience
sampling technique was then used to select two parents from each sampled school,
giving a total of 24 parents. The parents were from either gender i.e. the mother or
father of the students.
f. Sub-County Directors of Education (SCDE)
The study targeted 13 SCDE, 4 from Tharaka-Nithi County and 9 from Nairobi
City County. Simple random sampling was used to select 18% of the targeted
population, which translated to three (3) SCDE. Specifically, one SCDE was
sampled from Tharaka- Nithi County and two SCDE from Nairobi County.
Therefore a total of three (3) SCDE were sampled.
71
3.7 Research Instruments
The data for this study was collected using the following instruments:
i) The Decision making Questionnaire for Head teachers and Teachers
(Appendix I)
ii) The Decision making Questionnaire for the students (Appendix II)
iii) The Decision making Interview Guide for SCDE (Appendix III)
iv) The Decision making Interview Guide for Parents (Appendix IV)
v) The Decision making FGD Guide for the Student Leaders (Appendix V)
The instruments are briefly discussed in the sections that follow.
i) The Decision making Questionnaire for the Head teachers and Teachers
The Questionnaire for Head teachers and Teachers was developed by the
researcher after a thorough survey of literature and informal discussions. The
researcher also consulted widely with peers and the supervisors regarding areas of
student participation in decision-making.
The first section of the questionnaire explained the purpose of the study and
requested the respondents to adhere to the instructions given by the researcher. The
questionnaire was divided into two parts i.e. section A and B. Section A sought to
establish the background information of the schools and the head teacher and
teachers. Section B sought pertinent information on student discipline, areas of
student participation in decision-making, student representation in school
management bodies, extent of student participation in decision-making and extent
to which student participation in decision-making influenced their discipline. The
respondents were required to rate the extent of student participation in decision-
72
making in Likert scale items on a five point scale (i.e. 5-Extensive participation, 4-
High participation, 3-Moderate participation, 2-Low participation, 1-No
participation).
In order to determine the extent to which student participation in decision-making
influenced student discipline, the respondents were required to indicate their
responses on a five Likert Scale items ranging from Extremely high influence to
No influence (i.e. 5-Extremely high influence, 4-High influence, 3-Moderate
influence, 2- Low influence, 1-No influence). A copy of this instrument is provided
in Appendix I.
ii) The Decision making Questionnaire for the Students
The first section of the questionnaire explained the purpose of the study and
requested the students to adhere to the instructions given by the researcher. It
consisted of 12 items. The questionnaire sought information on student gender,
class level, type of school, student discipline, areas of student participation in
decision-making, form of student leadership, student representation in school
management bodies, the extent of student participation in decision-making and
extent to which this participation in decision-making influenced student discipline.
The respondents were required to rate the extent of student participation in
decision-making in Likert scale items on a five point scale (i.e. 5 - Extensive
participation, 4 - High participation, 3 - Moderate participation, 2 - Low
participation, 1 - No participation). In order to determine the extent to which
student participation in decision-making influenced student discipline, the students
were required to indicate their responses on a five Likert Scale items ranging from
73
Extremely high influence to No influence (i.e. 5- Extremely high influence, 4-
High influence, 3- Moderate influence, 2- Low influence, 1- No influence). A copy
of this instrument is provided in Appendix II.
iii) The Decision making Interview Guide for SCDE
The interview guide for SCDE comprised of guiding questions to allow the
researcher to probe further. The guide was prepared by the researcher for the
purpose of eliciting in-depth information from the SCDE regarding student
discipline, forms of student leadership, student representation in school
management bodies, areas of student participation in decision-making, the extent
of student participation in decision-making in school and the influence of student
participation in decision-making on discipline. The instruments were then used in
cross checking the responses in the questionnaires. A copy of this instrument is
provided in Appendix III.
iv) The Decision making Interview Guide for the Parents
This instrument comprised of semi-structured questions. The guide was prepared
by the researcher and it helped in eliciting information from the parents regarding
student discipline, areas of student participation in decision-making, and the
influence of student participation in decision-making on their discipline. Probes
were used to elicit reasons. A copy of this instrument is provided in Appendix IV.
v) The Decision making FGD Guide for the Student Leaders
This instrument sought information regarding student discipline, forms of student
leadership, student representation in school BOM, PA and staff meeting, areas of
74
student participation in decision-making, the extent of student participation in
decision-making and the influence this participation on student discipline. A copy
of this instrument is provided in Appendix V.
3.7.1 Validity
The content validity of the instruments used in this study was established through
expert judgment (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2012; Gay, 1996; Gay, Mills, &
Airasian, 2009). The instruments were submitted to experts iteratively for
consideration and their suggestions on different items and sections used to refine
them and increase validity. The questionnaires were further refined after the pilot
study conducted in four schools in order to improve their comprehensibility,
relevance and clarity.
3.7.2 Reliability
The reliability of the instruments was determined after the pilot study by
calculating the Cronbach‟s alpha using the statistical package for social studies
(SPSS). Cronbach's alpha is the most common measure of internal consistency
("reliability"). It is commonly used when there are multiple Likert questions that
form a scale and the researcher wishes to determine if the scale was reliable.
The questions in a questionnaire were devised to measure the extent of student
participation in decision-making and the extent to which student participation in
decision-making influenced student discipline in secondary school. Each question
on student participation in decision-making had a 5-point Likert item ranging from,
"No participation" to "extensive participation," while each question on the extent to
75
which student participation in decision-making influenced student discipline had a
5 point Likert item ranging from “no influence to extremely high influence."
In order to determine whether the questions in this questionnaire reliably measured
the same latent variable, a Cronbach's alpha was run. The value of the alpha
coefficient ranged from 0 to 1 and was used to describe the reliability of factors
extracted from scales (i.e. rating scale: 1 = No participation, 2 =Low participation,
3 = Moderate participation, 4 = high Participation, 5 = Extensive participation and
1=No influence, 2 = Low influence, 3 = Moderate influence, 4 = High influence,
5= extremely high influence). A higher value shows a more reliable generated
Likert scale. Since, the alpha coefficients were all greater than the level of
significance (0.5), the researcher concluded that the instruments had an acceptable
reliability coefficient and hence appropriate for the study. Table 3.3 on item total
statistics presents the value (Cronbach's alpha) for particular items from the scale
which indicated the reliability of each.
Table 3.3: Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized
Items
No of Items
Head teachers
and teachers
.923 44
Students .900 44
The results shown in the reliability statistics Table 3.3 indicate that the Cronbach's
alpha was 0.923 for head teachers and teachers‟ questionnaire and 0.900 for
students‟ questionnaire, which indicated a high level of internal consistency
(reliability) for the scales with this specific sample. The closer the alpha is to one
76
(1), the higher the level of consistency. Any coefficient correlation of more than
0.7 is considered reliable (Fraenkel et al., 2012).
3.7.3 Pilot Study
This is the process of carrying out a preliminary study and it involves going
through the entire research procedure with a small sample. There is general
agreement among researchers that however careful one is in construction of
instruments for data collection, they cannot be perfect, hence the need to test
before administering them to the respondents (Babbie, 2005; Bryman, 2004;
Cohen, Marion, & Marion, 2004; Gay, 1996). The purpose of piloting is also to
reveal any defects in research plan (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2008). According to
Orodho (2005b) the number in the pilot study should be small, about one per cent
of the entire sample size. This study used four secondary schools selected by the
researcher, two from Tharaka-Nithi County and two from Nairobi City County.
The schools involved in pilot study were not among the sampled schools for the
actual study. The pilot study was conducted to determine whether the instruments
gave the intended results, availability of the study population and how the
researcher will fit in their daily schedule, acceptability of data collection methods,
time needed to administer the questionnaires, how to sequence the data collection
process in each school, willingness of the respondents to participate in the study.
Adjustments of the data collection instruments and procedures were done on the
basis of the results of the pilot study.
77
3.8 Data Collection
The required letter of approval to conduct the research was obtained from Kenyatta
University. The research permit to carry out the study was obtained from the
National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI). Data
collection was done first in secondary schools Tharaka-Nithi County and then
Nairobi County with the help of research assistants hired and trained by the
researcher. The researcher visited the sampled schools and sought audience with
the head teachers and spent time in creating rapport. Head teachers and teachers‟
questionnaires were given to the respondents in envelopes with instructions to seal
the completed questionnaires in their individual envelopes. This was done to assure
the respondents of the confidentiality of their responses. The respondents were
allowed two weeks to complete the questionnaires.
During the second visit to the schools, the researcher collected the duly filled head
teachers and teachers‟ questionnaires, administered the student questionnaires,
conducted interviews with the parents and held Focus group discussions (FGDs)
with the student leaders, respectively. In some schools the researcher yielded to the
demands of the head teachers that the teachers administer the student
questionnaires on behalf of the researcher. Therefore the researcher had to spend
some times with the assisting teachers to brief them on how to administer the
questionnaires. The collection of data in Nairobi County secondary schools was
conducted in the same manner as in Tharaka-Nithi County.
78
In relation to SCDE interviews, the researcher visited the sampled SCDE in both
counties during the visits to schools and booked an appointment for the interviews.
The interviews were conducted in between visits to different schools.
Regarding the parents‟ interviews, the researcher sought permission from the head
teachers of the school sampled to sample and interview two parents while they
visited the school. Some head teachers asked the researcher to visit the schools to
interview the parents during the school parents‟ day meetings or academic days
and the researcher complied. All interviews were conducted by the researcher on a
one-on-one basis. Finally, all the questionnaires were assembled and the assistants
were debriefed.
3.9 Data Analysis
Data analysis was based on the objectives of the study. The first objective was to
determine the extent to which students participate in decision making in secondary
school management. This objective yielded both quantitative and qualitative data.
The quantitative data was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) and presented using frequencies, percentages, and means.
Qualitative data from the open-ended items, interviews and FGDs were organized
into themes guided by research question and presented using descriptions and
quotations. The data from the interviews and FGDs were transcribed first and then
they were combined with the data that were recorded manually.
The second objective was to examine the extent to which type of school, class level
and gender of the students influenced student participation in decision-making in
79
secondary schools. To address this objective, the study tested the following
hypothesis:
“There is no significant difference between the types of school, class levels and
gender of students on student participation in decision making in secondary
schools”.
Two way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test whether there were
differences between the types of school, class levels and gender of students on
student participation in decision making. The hypothesis was tested at a confidence
level of 0.05.
The third objective was to establish the current status of student discipline in
secondary schools in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi Counties. This objective yielded
both quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data was analysed using
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The data generated was presented
using descriptive statistics which included frequencies and percentages. Qualitative
data from the interviews and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were transcribed,
combined with the data that were recorded manually then organized into themes
guided by the research questions and presented using descriptions and quotations.
The forth objective was to analyse the extent to which student participation in
management of school curriculum influence student discipline. It yielded both
quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data was analysed using SPSS
and presented in terms of frequencies, percentages and means. Qualitative data
from the interviews and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were transcribed,
80
combined with the data that were recorded manually then organized into themes
guided by the research question and presented using descriptions and quotations.
The fifth objective was to analyse the extent to which student participation in
management of students and welfare issues influence student discipline. It yielded
both quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data was analysed using
SPSS and presented in terms of frequencies, percentages and means. Qualitative
data from the interviews and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were transcribed,
combined with the data that were recorded manually then organized into themes
guided by the research question and presented using descriptions and quotations.
On the extent of student participation in decision making, the study used the
following mean scale: 1.0 - 1.4 = Low participation; 1.5 - 2.4 = moderate
participation and 2.5 - 3 = High participation. This meant that a mean of 1.4 and
below was interpreted to be low level of student participation in decision-making.
A mean of 1.5 to 2.4 meant that there was moderate extent of student participation
in decision-making and a mean of 2.5 – 3 meant that there was high extent of
student participation in decision-making.
On the extent to which student participation in decision-making influenced student
discipline, the study used the following mean scale: 1.0 - 1.4 = Low influence; 1.5
- 2.4 = moderate influence and 2.5 - 3 = High influence. This meant that a mean of
1.4 and below was interpreted to be low level of influence of student participation
in decision making on student discipline. A mean of 1.5 - 2.4 meant that there was
moderate influence of student participation in decision-making on student
81
discipline and a mean of 2.5 - 3 meant that there was high influence of student
participation in decision-making on student discipline.
On the status of student discipline, the study used the following mean scale 1.0-1.4
= Poor discipline; 1.5 - 2.4 = Average discipline and 2.5 - 3 = Good discipline.
This meant that a mean of 1.4 and below was interpreted to be poor discipline of
the students. A mean of 1.5 - 2.4 meant that there was average discipline of the
students and a mean of 2.5 - 3 meant that there was good discipline of the students.
3.10 Ethical Considerations
The researcher observed the ethical standards throughout the study. To ensure that
the respondents gave informed consent, the purpose of research was explained
clearly to the respondents and the right of the participant to agree to participate or
withdraw from research at any point or to request that the data collected from them
should not be used was spelt out to them. Those who wished to withdraw from the
study, their rights were granted. The participants signed a consent form to indicate
that they agreed to participate in the research voluntarily.
To ensure confidentiality and privacy of the respondents, they were requested not
to put their names or any mark that would identify them on the questionnaires.
Codes were used to identify the participants without revealing their identity. The
researcher ensured anonymity of the respondents to protect them from being
victimized for giving information to the researcher. The respondents were also
provided with envelops to seal the duly filled questionnaires. Fraenkel, et al.,
82
(2012) observe that no one should be allowed access to the data collected as a way
of ensuring confidentiality, the researcher further adhered to this.
The researcher observed mien and decorum by ensuring the right mannerisms were
observed while carrying out research study. The researcher was confident and well
informed about the area of study and therefore was able to respond accurately to all
the questions that emerged during the study. The researcher also followed the right
protocol while collecting data in the field. To ensure openness, the researcher
assured the respondents that the thesis will be available at the National
Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) for anyone
interested in following up with the results and outcomes.
83
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS, INTERPRETATION AND
DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
The purpose of this study was to establish the extent of student participation in
decision-making in secondary school management as well as determining its
influence on student discipline in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi counties with a view
of informing educational practices in Kenya. This chapter presents the findings of
the study in tandem with the objectives of the study which are discussed under the
following themes:
1. The extent of student participation in decision-making in secondary school
management.
2. The influence of type of the school, class level and gender of the students on
student participation in decision-making in secondary schools.
3. The status of discipline in secondary schools in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi
Counties.
4. The influence of student participation in management of school curriculum on
student discipline.
5. The influence of student participation in management of students and welfare
issues on student discipline.
4.2 Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
This part of the chapter presents demographic characteristics of the study sample.
This helped in providing a clear background of the findings of the study.
84
4.2.1 Number of secondary schools and student respondents per type of
School
The sample comprised of 24 (63%) public secondary schools from Tharaka-Nithi
County and 14 (37%) from Nairobi County. The selection was done to ensure that
all types of secondary schools were proportionately represented in the study
sample. Table 4.1 shows the number of secondary schools of each type selected
from the counties of Nairobi and Tharaka-Nithi together with the number of
students that participated in this study.
Table 4.1: Number of secondary schools and student respondents per type of
School
Type of school Tharaka-
Nithi
Nairobi No. of Schools No. of
Students
n n Total % n %
Girls‟ boarding 3 3 6 15.8 133 17.7
Boys‟ Boarding 1 2 3 7.9 56 7.4
Mixed Boarding 1 1 2 5.3 67 8.9
Mixed day and
boarding
4 - 4 10.5 86 11.4
Mixed day 15 6 21 55.3 357 47.4
Boys‟ Day - 1 1 2.6 27 3.6
Girls‟ Day - 1 1 2.6 27 3.6
Total 24 14 38 100 753 100
It is evident from Table 4.1 that about half, 21 (55.3%) of the secondary schools
were of mixed day school type. It was noted that most secondary schools in the
two counties were of this type. In Tharaka-Nithi County, a small proportion, 4
(10.5%) of the schools were of mixed day and boarding type, but there were no
85
similar schools in Nairibi County. In Nairobi County, two single-gender day
secondary schools participated in the study but there were no similar schools in
Tharaka-Nithi County.
It can also be seen from Table 4.1 that majority, 357 (47.4%) of the student
respondents were in mixed day secondary schools. Only a small proportion, 27
(3.6%) and 27 (3.6%) of the students were from girls‟ day and boys‟ day secondary
schools respectively.
4.2.2 Distribution of Student respondents per Class Level
The students who participated in this study were drawn from all the levels of
secondary school learning (Form one to Form 4). The distribution of the students
per class levels is summarized in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2: Distribution of Student respondents per Class Level
School level f %
Form 1 141 19.3
Form 2 166 22.7
Form 3 230 31.4
Form 4 195 26.6
Total 732 100.0
It can be seen from Table 4.2 that majority, 230 (31.4%) of the students who
participated in this study were in form 3 while the smallest proportion, 141
(19.3%) were in form 1.
86
4.2.3 Gender of Students Respondents
The study sought to establish the gender of the students who participated in this
study. The results of the number of student respondents of each gender are shown
in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1: The Gender of Students Respondents
Figure 4.1 shows that among the students who disclosed their gender, slightly more
than half 388 (52%) of the students were female while slightly less than half, 356
(48%) were male. Therefore more female students participated in this study as
compared to their male counterpart.
4.2.4 Demographic Characteristics of the Head teachers and Teachers
The characteristics that were considered in this study were age, gender, education
qualification and teaching experience of the respondents. On the basis of gender,
the results show that majority, 20 (52.6%) of the head teachers were male while the
rest, 18 (47.4%) were female. Among the teachers on the other hand majority, 144
(52.4%) were female while the rest, 131 (47.6%) were male. The distribution of the
head teachers and teachers on the basis of age is summarized in Table 4.3.
87
Results in Table 4.3 show that majority, 9 (50.0%) of head teachers were aged
between 41-50 years while only a small proportion, 5 (27.8%) of them were over
50 years of age. In contrast, majority 57 (38.2%) of the teachers were aged
between 31-40 years and 49 (32.9%) were aged 30 years and below. It was worth
noting that no head teacher was below 30 years of age.
Table 4.3: Age of the head teachers and teachers respondents
Age Head teacher Teachers
n % n %
30 years & below - - 49 32.9
31-40 years 4 22.2 57 38.2
41-50 years 9 50.0 32 21.5
51 years and above 5 27.8 11 7.4
Total 18 100.0 149 100.0
The results on the distribution of the head teachers and teachers‟ respondents in
terms education qualifications are presented in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Head teachers and teachers’ education qualifications
Education
Qualification
Head
teacher
Teachers
n % n %
Diploma in Education 3 8.1 38 13.7
B.Ed. 21 56.8 186 67.2
B.Sc. 2 5.4 17 6.1
M.Ed. 9 24.3 27 9.8
Any other 2 5.4 9 3.2
Total 37 100.0 277 100
88
Results in Table 4.4 show that slightly more than half, 21 (56.8%) of the head
teachers and majority, 186 (67.2%) of the teachers had Bachelor of Education
(B.Ed.) degree qualification. A small proportion, 9 (24.3%) of the head teachers
and 27 (9.8%) of the teachers had Master of Education (M.Ed.) degree
qualification. The teaching experience of the head teachers and teachers was also
determined and the results are presented in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Head teachers and teachers’ years of teaching experience
Head teachers Teachers
Teaching experience n % n %
5 years & below 3 7.9 134 46.2
6-10 years 1 2.6 47 16.2
11-15 years 2 5.3 12 4.1
16-20 years 16 42.1 43 14.8
Over 21 years 16 42.1 54 18.6
Total 38 100.0 290 100.0
The results in Table 4.5 show that majority, 16 (42.1%) and 16 (42.1) of the head
teachers reported teaching experiences of 16-20 years and over 21 years
respectively, while majority, 134 (46.2%) of the teachers on the other hand,
reported teaching experience of less than 5 years.
4.2.5 Form of Student Leadership in Secondary Schools
This study sought to establish the form of student leadership in secondary school.
The results are presented in Figure 4.2.
89
Figure 4.2: Form of student leadership in secondary schools
The result in Figure 4.2 shows that the most prevalent form of student leadership in
a large majority, 34 (89.5%) of public secondary schools was in form of Student
Councils. The small minority, 4 (10.5%) who had not established Student Councils
were using the Prefect System form of student leadership. The schools using the
prefects system were in the process of establishing the Student Councils but one of
the head teachers appeared to be unsure about effectiveness of the Councils. These
results were corroborated by the Sub-county Directors of Education (SCDE). For
example during the interview, one of the SCDE stated that,
The Student Councils have been there but they have not been in existence
for a very long time. Some schools still suffer from the previous hang over.
However, I am not aware of any secondary school which does not have the
student council right now.
The results in Figure 4.2 were corroborated further by the findings from the student
leaders Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). The student leaders confirmed that the
most prevalent form of student leadership in their schools was Student Councils.
However, in one of the schools where the prefect system was still in use, the
90
student leaders revealed that the Student Council system had been established and
discontinued after one term probably because the president elected was a young
form two student, who was considered a junior student by the senior form 3 and 4
students. The student leader who was the head boy of the school at the time of the
Focus Group Discussions commented and said,
In our school the Student Council couldn‟t work at all. We tried it for only
one term and discipline was deteriorating. It was discarded and we reversed
to the Prefect System. I was in Form 2 then, when I was elected as the
president of the Council and it could not work at all.
When asked to explain why a Form 2 student was elected as president of the
Council and not a senior student, the student leaders were categorical that, it was
the students‟ choice and nothing could be done about it.
However, it was clear from the Focus Group Discussions that the students were in
favour of Student Councils and were looking forward to having them established in
all schools. For example, in one school that had the Prefects System, the student
leaders through FGDs strongly felt that they needed to adopt Student Council
system of student leadership. Supporting this view, one head boy said,
All parties must be involved in selection of student leaders. We do not want
dictatorship in schools; the country is now embracing democracy.
This response from the students is not unexpected given that the Student Council
System affords the learners some powers to contribute in active decision-making in
the governance of their schools. The prefects system on the other hand limits the
91
student voice in school management which according to Flutter and Ruddock,
(2004) renders students consumers or products of educational provision rather than
active participants.
It was also noted from the FGDs that the students were not in favour of the prefect
system because they felt that the prefects were appointed by the school
administration and the teachers. In a few cases however, the outgoing prefects
were involved in suggesting names of other students who could be appointed as
prefects based on their performance in their school work. This approach of student
participation is what Hart, (1992) referred to as tokenistic. One student leader
commented, and said,
Prefects here are selected on the basis of academic achievement. Some of
the prefects have no leadership qualities and therefore not effective at all.
Student Council form of leadership is the best.
It has, however, been argued that allowing student representation in BOM requires
a cultural almost radical change in the thinking of the administrators who
themselves were trained in the old prefect system of student governance (Cook-
Sather, 2006). This may also be the reason why there are still schools without
Student Councils in the studied counties. That this is, however, changing rapidly is
clear from this study that a large majority, 89.5% of the secondary schools, in the
counties studied had embraced the Student Council system of student leadership
and shunned the prefect system. Therefore, the findings indicate that the most
prevalent form of student leadership in secondary schools studied was Student
Councils.
92
Reporting about similar findings in Scotland, Tisdall (2007) found out that 84% of
11–16 year olds reported that their school had a council. The findings also support
those of study done by Whitty & Wisby, (2007) in England and Wales that found
majority of the schools had student councils in schools. However, the findings of
this study are not consistent with a study done in Eastern Region in Kenya by
Mulwa, et al, (2015) that found that the most commonly used form for student
involvement in decision making was the prefect system. The reason for
inconsistency could be timing of the study, in that the current study was done after
the operationalization of the Basic Education Act of 2013 that provide for the
representation of the students in Boards of Management in secondary schools.
The establishment of the Student Councils in schools demonstrate that the school
administrators have come to realize their importance in enhancing school
management. They are viewed as an avenue for student participation in decision
making through representing them within the school and outside. They give the
views of the students when important decisions are being made. They assist in the
running of the schools by performing various roles which include monitoring and
supervising school programmes, resolving conflicts among the students, reporting
on discipline cases and resolving minor disciplinary issues among other things
(Mokaya, Thinguri, & Mosiori, 2015).
4.3 The Extent of Student Participation in Decision Making
The first objective of this study was to determine the extent of student participation
in decision-making in secondary school management. In this regard the study was
guided by the following research question:
93
What is the extent of student participation in decision-making in secondary school
management?
To achieve this objective, the study sought the views of head teachers and Sub-
county Directors of Education (SCDE) on representation of the students in school
Boards of Management (BOM), Parents‟ Association (PA) and staff meetings. The
study further sought the views of the head teachers, teachers, students and SCDE
on the extent of student participation in decision-making in the secondary schools.
The findings are presented and discussed in the sections that follow.
4.3.1 Student Representation in Boards of Management, Parents’
Association and Staff meetings in Secondary Schools
This study sought to determine whether students in public secondary schools were
represented in Boards of Management (BOM), Parents‟ Associations (PA) and
staff meetings through a questionnaire for the head teachers in the participating
secondary schools. The views of Sub-county Directors of Education were also
sought through the interviews. The results from the head teachers are shown in
Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: Student representation in BOM, PA and staff meetings
Representation BOM PA Staff meeting
n % n % n %
Represented 3 8.1 5 13.5 3 7.9
Not Represented 34 91.9 32 86.5 35 92.1
Total 37 100 37 100 38 100
94
Table 4.6 shows that majority, 34 (91.9%) and 32 (86.5%) of the head teachers
reported that students were not represented in Boards of Management (BOM) and
Parents‟ Association, respectively. Similarly majority, 35 (92.1%) of head teachers
reported that student representatives were not participating in staff meetings. The
foregoing scenarios obtained in secondary schools in both Nairobi and Tharaka-
Nithi counties implies that schools were breaching the law by failing to have
students representatives in BOM as provided for in the Basic Education Act of
2013, Section 56 (1g).
Further enquiry revealed that most secondary schools were managed by BOM
constituted before the Basic Education Act of 2013, that is, the Board of Governors
(BOGs). The latter were not required to have student representatives in their
meetings. By the time the current study was conducted the schools were still
waiting for the regulations from the Ministry of Education for the
operationalization of the Act. In reference to the constitution of BOM, one Sub-
county Directors of Education observed,
We are forming the new boards now. They were delayed partly by the
regulations from the Ministry of Education that came rather late, but it is a
requirement of the law that a democratically elected student be involved as
an ex-officio member.
Because of the Ministry of Education delay, most schools were operating with
executive boards at the time this study was conducted. The delay was also blamed
on the National Parents‟ Association which had gone to court to stop schools from
constituting the BOM. In this regard, another SCDE commented,
95
Most schools are operating with executive boards because the National
Parents Association went to court and got an injunction to stop the schools
from constituting the BOM. This created delays in their formation.
Regarding the Parents‟ Association, it was noted that most schools had Parent
Teachers Associations (PTA) in place and not the Parents‟ Association (PA) as
provided for in the Basic Education Act of 2013. With respect to this, one of the
SCDE said,
Basically what we have in schools is the PTA, and students are not
included. By the very nature of its discretion, unless the name is changed,
then students cannot be included.
The students, through FGDs disagreed with the sub-county directors of education
point of view and were of the opinion that they should be represented in PA
meetings to express their views too and so that their views can inform the final
decisions made. Referring to PA, one student leader gave a comment that was a
representative of the group members, she said,
All parties in school should participate in the Parents‟ Association meeting.
The main reason why the parents meet is to talk about us. Why shouldn‟t
we be involved?
It is important to note that the Basic Education Act of 2013 does not provide for
student representation in PA meetings. In this regard, then one may argue that the
schools in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi counties were not breaching any law by not
having student representatives in the PAs. Other researchers have however argued
96
in favour of student representation in the PAs. For example, Njue, (2014), in a
study that found that prefects were not involved in mainstream governance of the
schools, recommended for their involvement in PA meetings, among other things.
Regarding the staff meetings, the study found that the students were not
represented. When asked about the involvement of the students in the staff
meetings, one of the SCDE categorically said,
Look at the name we are calling it, „staff meeting,‟ unless we change the
name, we cannot have students represented in the staff meetings. They are
entirely for staff and not learners.
According to the SCDE, the students do not need to be represented in staff
meetings because they are entirely meant for the staff members. However, the
purpose for the meetings is mainly to deliberate on matters concerning student
welfare and learning and their representation will afford them an opportunity to be
heard and to influence the decisions made (Tikoko et al., 2011). There is however
no law requiring schools to involve students in staff meetings. The current Basic
Education Act of 2013 does not provide for the student representation in staff
meetings.
These findings that the students in secondary school were not represented in BOM,
PA and staff meetings are consistent with the findings of a related study done
earlier by Tikoko et al., ( 2011). These researchers found that students were not
represented in major decision-making organs in secondary schools. Similarly,
Chemutai & Chumba, (2014) in their study of the Student Council participation in
97
decision-making in public secondary schools in Kericho West sub-county also
found that Student Council members were excluded from key decision-making
areas of their schools. Given that the decisions made in the management meetings
affect the students in one way or another, denying them the opportunity to express
their views is not acceptable as far as their rights are concerned.
Failure to involve students in BOM, PA and staff meetings in school confirm the
argument of Rudd, Colligan & Naik, (2007) that learners are still seldom consulted
or heard despite the changes being witnessed in education system. In support of
this view, Fielding (2001) notes that most of the education stakeholders speak too
readily and too presumptuously on behalf of young people and yet they often do
not understand their views. In most cases, the views of the students will always
differ from those of the adults. The adults do not understand what the students are
going through in schools and if they purport to understand and make decisions for
them, the students develop rejectionist tendencies of decisions made without their
involvement.
Fletcher, (2005) affirms that meaningful student involvement in decision making
involves students joining committees, boards of education, and advisory boards at
all levels. The researcher supports the idea of involving the students in
management committees in schools where they get the opportunity to express their
views and influence the decisions on matters affecting them. In support of this,
Walker and Logan, (2008) argue that student governors can influence policies in
schools and also can inspire other students to take part in decision-making process.
98
4.3.2 Student Participation in Management of School Finances and Physical
Resources
The study sought to establish the extent of student participation in management of
school finances and physical resources in secondary school. The decision-making
areas that were considered in this study were school budgets, school fees and
planning and development of physical facilities. The views of head teachers,
teachers and students on student participation in decision-making were sought on a
five point Likert scale ranging from No participation to Extensive participation.
The data obtained was transformed from five point Likert scale to three point
Likert scale (low, moderate and high participation, respectively). The study used
the following mean scale: 1.0-1.4 = Low participation; 1.5-2.4 = Moderate
participation; 2.5-3.0 = High participation. The results are discussed in the sections
that follow:
a) Head teachers views on Student Participation in Management of School
Finances and Physical Resources
The results of head teachers on student participation in management of school
finances and physical resources are summarized in Table 4.7.
99
Table 4.7: Head teachers’ views on student participation in management of
finances and physical resources
Decision-Making area N Mean LP MP HP
n % n % n %
School budget 37 1.05 35 94.6% 2 5.4% 0 0.0%
School fees 36 1.11 33 91.7% 2 5.6% 1 2.8%
Physical facilities 38 1.55 23 60.5% 9 23.7% 6 15.8%
Key:
LP-Low participation; MP-Moderate participation; HP-High participation
Results in Table 4.7 show that a large majority, 35 (94.6%) and 33 (91.7%) of the
head teachers said that there were low levels of student participation in decisions
concerning school budget and school fees respectively. The means (school budget
= 1.05 and school fees = 1.11) confirm that the levels of student participation in
management of the school finances was low. Similarly, majority, 23 (60.5%) of the
head teachers, reported low levels of student participation in decision making in
relation to planning and development of physical facilities. However, the mean of
1.55 indicate moderate level of student participation in decisions relating to
planning and development of physical facilities. This therefore implies that
according to the head teachers, schools were moderately involving students in
decisions relating to physical facilities.
b) Teachers’ views on Student Participation in Management of School
Finances and Physical Resources
The results of teachers on students‟ participation in management of school finances
and physical resources are summarized in Table 4.8.
100
Table 4.8: Teachers’ views on student participation in management of
finances and physical resources
Decision-Making area N Mean LP MP HP
n % n % n %
School budget 282 1.13 252 89% 22 8% 8 3%
School fees 281 1.14 254 90% 15 5% 12 4%
Physical facilities 285 1.36 216 76% 34 12% 35 12%
Key:
LP-Low participation; MP-Moderate participation; HP-High participation
Results in Table 4.8 reveal that majority, 252 (89%) and 254 (90%) of the teachers
reported low levels of student participation in school budget and school fees
decisions, respectively. Similarly majority, 216 (76%) of the teachers were of the
view that student participation in decisions relating to planning and development
of physical facilities was of low level. The means (school budget = 1.13; school
fees = 1.14 and physical facilities = 1.36) also indicate low student participation in
the management of the school finance and physical resources.
c) Students’ views on student participation in management of School
finances and physical resources
The results of students on student participation in management of school finances
and physical resources are summarized in Table 4.9.
101
Table 4.9: Students’ views on their participation in management of finances
and physical resources
Decision-Making area N Mean LP MP HP
n % n % n %
School budget 736 1.13 672 91% 35 5% 29 4%
School fees 735 1.20 643 87% 35 5% 57 8%
Physical facilities 724 1.37 541 75% 98 14% 85 12%
Key:
LP-Low participation; MP-Moderate participation; HP-High participation
Results in Table 4.9 show that a large majority, 672 (91%) of the students said that
they participated in low levels in school budget decisions. Similarly majority, 643
(87%) and 541 (75%) of the student reported low student participation in school
fees decisions and planning and development of physical facilities respectively.
The means (school budget mean=1.13; school fees mean=1.20 and planning and
development of physical facilities mean=1.37) indicate low student participation in
management of the school finance and physical resources.
The findings of this study therefore reveal that all the respondents (head teachers
mean = 1.05, teachers mean = 1.13 and students mean = 1.13) were in agreement
that the level of student participation in school budget decisions was low.
Similarly, all the respondents (head teachers mean = 1.11, teachers mean = 1.14
and students mean = 1.20) were in agreement that the level of student participation
in school fees decisions was low.
102
In relation to management of school finances, the results were in agreement with
the views of the Sub-County Directors of Education that were interviewed. In fact,
one of the SCDE said,
Decisions on school budget, school fees and planning and development of
physical facilities are discussed in Boards of Management and Parents‟
Association meetings and students are not represented in these bodies.
From the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with the student leaders, it was clear
that students were involved in very low levels in determining the amount of fees
paid in their schools. In some schools students were involved in discussing the
school fees only when they complained about the type and quality of food given by
the school. This was done in the presence of their parents during the parents‟
meeting. Improvement of the school diet in school meant increasing the amount of
school fees paid by the students and therefore parents had to be involved. In
relation to this, one student leader said,
We are only involved in school fees issues when we complain about the
poor quality food we eat in school. We are always told that improving on
the quality of food will mean we pay more fees. These discussions are done
during parents‟ meeting, so that the parents can decide either to add fees or
not.
Students were of the view that they should be involved in management of school
finances so that they can give their views too. There was a general feeling that
students should be allowed to participate in decisions relating to financial support
of the needy students or bursary allocation. They said the awards were based on
103
academic performance which means that some needy students who were not
performing well in their academics because of missing many classes when sent
home for the school fees could not benefit. In support of this argument one student
leader said,
We should be allowed to participate in decisions concerning the
sponsorship of the students. In our school, it is based on academic grades
which could be poor simply because the students are ever sent home for the
school fees. They end up missing many lessons.
The findings of this study that student participation in decisions relating to the
school budgets and school fees was low corroborate what has been reported by
other researchers (Chemutai & Chumba, 2014; Njue, 2014; Tikoko & Kiprop,
2011). These authors (Tikoko & Kiprop, 2011) did their study before the
enactment and operationalization of the Basic Education Act of 2013 while
Chemutai & Chumba, (2014) and Njue, (2014) did their study before
operationalization of the Basic Education Act of 2013. One would have therefore
expected to find more student participation in decision-making in their secondary
schools in the current study in the wake of the new dispensation of the Basic
Education Act of 2013.
Lundy, (2007) had earlier concluded that children‟s views were not sought or
listened to or, were afforded tokenistic opportunities to participate and engage with
adults. This has not changed despite the provisions of the structures in schools that
provide for student participation in decision making. Ryan (2006) notes that school
budget is one of the areas that members of school community (including the
104
students) need to be involved in. Pérez-Expósito (2015) observes that student
participation in school governance includes making decisions about the effective
use of resources and school budget among other things.
Literature indicates that there are countries that ensure student participation in
budget decisions through student representatives in governing bodies. For
example, in South Africa, students are involved in management of school finances
in different ways. Some Student Councils participate in organizing fundraising
functions, deciding the amount of funds to be allocated to them in the school
budget, deciding a sliding scale of payment for parents with more than one child in
the school while others were involved in the establishment of bursary fund for
students from the school for their post-secondary education, among other things
(Carr, 2005). One of the positive responses Carr, (2005) found with regard to
student participation in the school governing body meetings was that, the students
had excellent accounting skills to help with finances. In Kenya, it is reported that
students made contributions to the Task Force that was reviewing the fees structure
of secondary schools (KSSHA, 2014). This can be done at the institutional level
too. They can be involved in decision concerning the amount of schools fees to be
paid in school and especially in relation to different vote heads, raising funds for
different projects in school and the management of such funds, allocation of
bursary to the needy and bright students, amount of fees paid by the parents with
more than one child in school among other things.
In relation to student participation in decision making on planning and
development of physical facilities, the students and the teachers were in agreement
105
that the participation was low while the head teachers reported moderate
participation. The head teachers may have tried to give rosy responses portraying
themselves as democratic. Considering that students were not represented in BOM
and PA‟s meeting where decisions on physical facilities are made, the responses of
the students and teachers may be portraying the true state of affair. These results
were also in agreement with the findings from the FGDs with the student leaders
where they unanimously agreed that the participation was low. Similar findings
were reported by Nwankwo, (2014), who found that student participation in
decision on infrastructural facilities was very low in a study done in Nigeria.
4.3.3 Student Participation in Management of Staff Personnel
The study sought to establish the extent of student participation in decision-making
in management of staff personnel in secondary school. The decision-making areas
that were considered in this study were staff discipline, interview of staff and
teachers‟ appraisal. The views of head teachers, teachers and students on student
participation in decision-making were sought on a five point Likert scale ranging
from No participation to Extensive participation. The data obtained was
transformed from five point Likert scale to three point Likert scale (low, moderate
and high participation, respectively). The study used the following mean scale: 1.0-
1.4 = Low participation; 1.5-2.4 = Moderate participation; 2.5-3.0 = High
participation. The results are discussed in the sections that follow:
106
a) Head Teachers’ Views on Students’ Participation in Management of Staff
The results of the head teachers on student participation in management of staff
personnel are summarized in Table 4.10.
Table 4.10: Head teachers’ views on student participation in management of
staff
Decision-Making area N Mean LP MP HP
n % n % n %
Discipline of staff 38 1.05 36 94.7% 2 5.3% 0 0.0%
Interview of staff 38 1.00 38 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Appraising the
teachers
38 1.47 27 71.1% 4 10.5% 7 18.4%
Key:
LP-Low participation; MP-Moderate participation; HP-High participation
Results in Table 4.10 show that all the 38 (100%) head teachers that participated in
this study reported low student participation in decisions relating to the interview
of staff. Similarly a large majority, 36 (94.7%) of the head teachers reported that
there was low student participation in decisions relating to the discipline of staff.
The means in both cases indicate low levels of student participation in
management of staff personnel (interview of staff = 1.00, discipline of staff =1.05).
In relation to appraisal of teachers, majority, 27 (71.1%) of the head teachers said
that students were not involved in appraising their teachers. However, the mean of
1.47 (when rounded up gives 1.5) indicating that the student participation in
appraising the teachers was moderate.
b) Teachers’ views on Student Participation in Management of Staff
107
The results of the teachers on student participation in management of staff
personnel are summarized in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Teachers’ views on student participation in management of staff
Decision-Making area N Mean LP MP HP
n % n % n %
Discipline of staff 283 1.12 259 91.5% 14 4.9% 10 3.5%
Interview of staff 284 1.07 272 95.8% 5 1.8% 7 2.5%
Appraising the teachers 285 1.35 223 78.2% 24 8.4% 38 13.3%
Key:
LP-Low participation; MP-Moderate participation; HP-High participation
Results in Table 4.11 show that a large majority, 272 (95.8%) and 259 (91.5%) of
the teachers reported low levels of student participation in decisions relating to the
interview of staff and discipline of staff, respectively. Similarly majority, 223
(67.2%) of the teachers reported low levels of student participation in appraising
their teachers. The means indicate low levels of student participation in
management of staff personnel (interview of staff = 1.32; discipline of staff = 1.18
and appraisal of teachers = 1.35). This implies that according to the views of the
teachers, student participation in management of staff personnel was of low levels.
c) Students’ views on student participation in Management of Staff
The results of the students on their participation in decisions relating the
management of staff personnel are summarized in Table 4.12. The study also
sought the views of the student leaders through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs).
108
Table 4.12: Students’ views on student participation in management staff
Decision-Making area N Mean LP MP HP
n % n % n %
Discipline of staff 731 1.25 627 85.8% 28 3.8% 76 10.4%
Interview of staff 728 1.17 650 89.3% 34 4.7% 44 6.0%
Appraising the teachers 717 1.35 555 77.4% 58 8.1% 104 14.5%
Key:
LP-Low participation; MP-Moderate participation; HP-High participation
Results in Table 4.12 reveal that majority, 650 (89.3%) and 627 (85.8%) of the
students said that they participated in low levels in decisions relating to interview
of staff and staff discipline, respectively. Similarly majority, 555 (77.4%) of the
students indicated low levels of participation in appraising their teachers. The
means (interview of staff = 1.25, discipline of staff = 1.17 and appraisal of teachers
= 1.35) in all the cases indicate low levels of student participation in management
of staff personnel. The results are in agreement with the findings from the FGDs,
where student leaders reported that they were not involved in management of the
staff personnel and where they were involved, the involvement was of low levels.
In connection with this, one student leader commented,
We are not involved in appraising our teachers unless when we complain
concerning the teaching of a particular subject, and then we are asked about
the performance of the teacher teaching us that subject.
Another student leader from a different schools commented:
When majority of the students perform poorly in a particular subject, we
are always asked to appraise the teacher teaching that subject as the
administration try to get the reasons for poor performance.
109
This implies that according to the students, the extent of student participation in
appraising their teachers was of low level. They also said that they would like to be
involved to a large extent in appraising their teachers since this would impact
positively on the performance of the teachers and consequently that of the students.
From the foregoing, the study established low levels of student participation in
interviewing of staff. All the respondents, (head teachers, teachers and students)
were in agreement that student participation in decision-making was low (mean
was less than 1.4). In support of these results, one of the Sub-county Directors of
Education (SCDE) in an interview said that,
The panel for interviewing the teachers is decided by the Teachers‟ Service
Commission (TSC) and sent to the schools and students are not included.
Therefore, they cannot be included in the panel.
Low levels of student participation in decision making in schools is what Hart,
(1992) referred to as tokenism, where students views are not considered when
decisions affecting their lives are being made. Students always resent tokenistic
participation in decision making and they may not buy the decisions made without
their inputs. Low levels of student participation imply that staff recruitment is an
area that is reserved for school administrators, teachers and other stakeholders in
secondary school management. Perhaps students are viewed as immature to
participate in such decisions. Yet, according to the Basic Education Act of 2013, it
is the function of the BOM to advice the County Education Board (CEB) on the
staffing needs of the school and also to recruit, employ and remunerate non-
110
teaching staff of the school. Therefore, students should participate in such
decisions through their representatives in BOM.
From the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), students were of the opinion that they
should be involved in the recruitment of the staff and especially the subordinate
staff. They pointed out that some of the subordinate staff employed in the school
could neither speak English nor Kiswahili and yet the school had students from
different counties of the country. This hindered effective communication in school
since not all students understand the language spoken by the communities where
the school is located. In support of this one student leader said,
The school should advertise the jobs and conduct interviews for those who
wish to be employed. The students should be represented in these
interviews so that they can give their inputs. Right now we have cooks and
security workers who cannot speak English or Kiswahili, yet we have
students from all over the country.
This suggests that students‟ inputs should be sought to some extent during staff
recruitment. Issues of employing non-qualified staff will not occur if the
recruitment process is open to all stakeholders in schools.
The findings of this study that there were low levels of student participation in
interviewing the staff are consistent with those of Tikoko and Kiprop, (2011). The
schools therefore cannot claim to be involving students in decision making if
students are not allowed to give their views during the staff interviews. This is
against the democratic principles that call for involvement of all stakeholders in the
111
running of a school. Walker and Logan (2008), note that involvement of students
in decision-making in schools is a key principle of democratic education. If truly
students are represented in BOM as required by the Basic Education Act, then the
representatives of the students should be allowed to give students‟ views regarding
the recruitment of staff in school.
Emphasizing on the importance of student involvement in decision-making,
Walker and Logan (2008) gave an example of a school in UK where the students
made an impact on staff appointment panels. In that school, the students
interviewed all prospective teachers and the head teachers. Czerniawski et al
(2009), affirm that the presence of learners‟ in staff appointment panels is one way
in which learners can express their opinions in schools. This argument is supported
by Leonel Pérez-Expósito (2015) who observed that student participation in school
governance includes participating in decisions about the head teachers‟ and
teachers‟ appointments.
In relation to discipline of staff, the findings reveal that in the majority of the
secondary schools in the two counties studied, students were not involved in issues
to do with the discipline of staff. This can be seen from the fact that a large
majority, 36 (94.7%) of the head teachers, 259 (91.5%) of the teachers and 627
(85.8%) of the students reported low students participation in the discipline of
staff. The overall means (Head teachers = 1.05; Teachers = 1.12; Students = 1.25)
were low. The findings are consistent with those of Chemutai and Chumba (2014)
and Tikoko and Kiprop, (2011) who found that the students were not involved in
matters to do with the discipline of the staff. One would have expected more
112
participation of student in the current study since the Basic Education Act, of 2013
provides for students‟ representation in BOM, and BOM is delegated some duties
of discipline of teachers by the TSC (ROK, 2014, ROK, 2009). This seems to be
an area that is reserved for the adults as students are viewed as immature to handle
such cases. Some of the discipline cases even involve students and teachers
together and this makes it imperative that students participate in them. Similar
findings were reported in a study done in Nigeria by Nwankwo, (2014) that found
that students‟ participation in decision-making in the areas human resources among
others things was very low.
With regard to appraisal of the teachers, the findings of this study show that
majority, 19 (51.4%) of the head teachers, 193 (67.2%) of the teachers and 487
(67.9%) of the students said that students were not involved in appraising of the
teachers. The overall mean of the teachers (mean= 1.35) and the students (mean =
1.35) indicate low student participation in decision making. However, the head
teachers‟ mean of 1.47 indicate moderate level of participation of the students in
decision making. The head teachers may have given responses to demonstrate that
they are observing the democratic principles of involving students in decisions
taken in schools, since they are the ones charged with day to day running of the
schools. Given that the teachers and the students had nothing to lose, their
responses could be portraying the right position as far as participation of the
students in appraisal of their teachers is concerned.
The results of the teachers and students are consistent with those from the FGDs
with the student leaders where they reported low participation in appraising their
113
teachers. It can therefore be implied that there were low levels of student
participation in appraising their teachers. These findings are similar to those
reported by Tikoko and Kiprop (2011) who noted that the task of appraising
teachers was left in the hands of the head teacher as stipulated in the Ministry of
Education regulations. Similar findings were reported by Odhiambo, (2005), who
concluded that majority teachers indicated that they would prefer to be appraised
by the head teacher.
The argument that is advanced is that failure to involve students in such decisions
may relate to the feeling that the students do not have the technical knowledge
required or it may be viewed as giving students a lot of control over the teachers
hence undermining their authority (Flutter, 2007; Lundy, 2007b). Other researchers
(Tikoko & Kiprop, 2011) argue that students are viewed as minors and therefore
they have no authority to judge teachers. Student participation in appraising their
teachers is actually not about gaining power, but having an objective appraisal that
will be of benefit to the teaching learning process and consequently the academic
performance. Chopra, (2014) argues that the students that are placed at the
receiving end of educational activities are rarely given an opportunity to participate
in teacher evaluations or professional development among other things. They are
just expected to be the recipient of the teaching and learning process.
The importance of the appraisal cannot be underestimated. It gives a chance to
focus on work activities, goals, identifying and correcting existing problems, and
give motivation for better future performance (Karuntimi & Tarus, 2014). In a
school situation where teaching and learning is the core business, teachers‟
114
appraisal is valuable if done by the key stakeholders i.e. the students. They are
better placed when it comes to the appraisal of the teachers in the class room
teaching since they are always at the receiving end of teaching and learning
process. They need to give feedback of the teachers‟ performance as far as
teaching and learning process is concerned.
4.3.4 Student Participation in Management School Curriculum
This study sought to determine the extent of student participation in decision-
making in six areas of interest under curriculum management in a school
organization. These included the drawing of the school programme (official and
unofficial school hours), setting of academic targets, nature of assignments,
number of internal examinations, grading system and selection of subjects. The
views of head teachers, teachers and students on student participation in decision-
making were sought on a five point Likert scale ranging from No participation to
Extensive participation. The data obtained was transformed from five point Likert
scale to three point Likert scale (low, moderate and high participation,
respectively). The study used the following mean scale: 1.0-1.4 = Low
participation; 1.5-2.4 = Moderate participation; 2.5-3.0 = High participation. The
results are discussed in the sections that follow:
a) Head teachers’ views on student participation in curriculum Management
The results of the head teachers on student participation in management of school
curriculum are summarized in Table 4.13.
115
Results in Table 4.13 reveal that majority, 32 (86.5%) of the head teachers reported
high participation of students in selection of subjects. The mean of 2.78, is an
indication that students participated in high level in selection of subjects. Similarly,
majority, 32 (84.2%) of the head teachers, reported high student participation in
club decisions. With a mean value of 2.76, the study established that student
participation in decision making in relation to club decisions was high.
In relation to the student participation in setting academic targets, majority, 24
(63.2%) of the head teachers reported high levels of student participation. The
mean of 2.39, is an indication of moderate student participation in decision-
making. Additionally, majority, 16 (42.1%) of the head teachers were of the view
that the extent of student participation in decision-making was moderate in
drawing the school programme. The mean of 2.16 is an indication of moderate
participation in decision making. Although majority 24 (63.2%) and 20 (52.6%) of
the head teachers reported low levels of student participation in grading system and
nature of assignments, it is however notable that the means (grading system = 1.61
and nature of assignments = 1.76) indicate moderate levels of student participation
in decision making in both cases. This implies that according to the head teachers
students participated moderately in decisions relating to grading system and nature
of assignments.
116
Table 4.13: Head teachers’ views on student participation in curriculum management
Decision-Making area N Mean LP MP HP
n % n % n %
School programme 38 2.16 10 26.3% 12 31.6% 16 42.1%
Setting academic targets 38 2.39 9 23.7% 5 13.2% 24 63.2%
Nature of assignment 38 1.76 20 52.6% 7 18.4% 11 28.9%
No. of internal exams 38 1.84 16 42.1% 12 31.6% 10 26.3%
Grading system 38 1.61 24 63.2% 5 13.2% 9 23.7%
Subject selection 37 2.78 3 8.1% 2 5.4% 32 86.5%
Key:
LP - Low participation; MP - Moderate participation; HP - High participation
117
It is worthwhile noting that the head teachers reported either moderate or high
levels of student participation in decision making in all areas of decision making
under curriculum management. This implies that the head teachers recognise the
importance of involving the students in decision making process in as far as school
curriculum management is concerned.
a) Teachers’ views on Student Participation in Curriculum Management
The results of the teachers on student participation in management of the school
curriculum are presented in Table 4.14.
Results in Table 4.14 reveal that majority, 230 (80.7%) of the teachers felt that the
students participated in highly in selection of subjects they wished to study. The
overall mean of 2.67, is an indication that students participated in high levels in
selection of subjects in schools. Similarly, majority, 206 (71.5%) of the teachers
reported a high level of student participation in club decisions. The overall mean of
2.56 confirms that the level of student participation was high in club decisions.
118
Table 4.14: Teachers’ views on student participation in curriculum management
Decision-Making area N Mean LP MP HP
n % n % n %
School programme 287 1.69 154 53.7% 67 23.3% 66 23.0%
Setting academic targets 289 2.30 81 28.0% 41 14.2% 167 57.8%
Nature of assignment 282 1.67 163 57.8% 50 17.7% 69 24.5%
No. of internal examination 283 1.55 187 66.1% 35 12.4% 61 21.6%
Grading system 284 1.28 234 82.4% 20 7.0% 30 10.6%
Subject selection 285 2.67 40 14.0% 15 5.3% 230 80.7%
Key:
LP-Low participation; MP-Moderate participation; HP-High participation
119
The results further shows that majority, 167 (57.8%) of the teachers reported high
levels of student participation in setting academic targets, respectively. However,
the overall mean of 2.30 indicate that the participation of students was moderate.
Other areas of decision making with moderate levels of student participation
according to the teachers‟ point of view were drawing the school programme
(mean =1.69), nature of the assignment (mean = 1.67) and number of internal
examination (mean = 1.55). However, it is notable from Table 4.14 that contrary to
the head teachers, majority, 234 (82.4%) of the teachers were of the view that
student participation in grading system was of low level. The overall mean of 1.28
confirms that student participation in grading system was low. This may imply that
the teachers do not think it is important to involve the students in determining the
system of grading in their schools.
a) Students’ views on Student Participation in Curriculum Management
The results of the students on student participation in management of school
curriculum are summarized in Table 4.15.
120
Table 4.15: Students’ views on student participation in curriculum management
Decision-Making area N Mean LP MP HP
n % n % n %
School programme 725 1.28 588 81.1% 69 9.5% 68 9.4%
Setting academic targets 724 2.34 191 26.4% 93 12.8% 440 60.8%
Nature of assignment 720 1.65 446 61.9% 83 11.5% 191 26.5%
No. of internal examination 724 1.63 457 63.1% 78 10.8% 189 26.1%
Grading system 722 1.45 528 73.1% 66 9.1% 128 17.7%
Subject selection 707 2.49 150 21.2% 60 8.5% 497 70.3%
Key:
LP-Low participation; MP-Moderate participation; HP-High participation
121
Results in Table 4.15 show that majority, 497 (70.3%) of the students were of the
view that their participation in selection of subjects was high. The mean of 2.49 in
setting the academic targets is a confirmation that indeed the student participation
in decision-making was high. Similarly, majority, 440 (60.8%) of the students
were of the view that their participation in setting academic targets was high.
However, the mean 2.34 indicate moderate level of student participation in setting
academic targets. The other areas of decision making with moderate levels in
participation according to the students were nature of assignments (mean = 1.65)
and number of internal examinations (mean = 1.63).
It is notable from Table 4.15 that majority, 588 (81.1%) of the students reported
that they participated in low levels in drawing the school programme. The mean
score of 1.28 is an indication that the participation in drawing the school
programme was low. This position was affirmed by the student leaders through
focus group discussions.
From the foregoing, it is clear that all the respondents were in agreement that there
were high levels (head teachers‟ mean = 2.78, teachers‟ mean =2.67and students‟
mean = 2.49) of student participation in selection of the subjects to study. In
agreement with the results, the student leader through the FGDs, acknowledged
student participation in selection of the subjects. However, in some schools they
said that the decision on the choice of the subjects was made in consultation with
the parents and teachers. In connection with this, one student leader said,
122
In our school, we select the subject in form three and we do it together with
our parents and teachers. The teachers and parents give us guidance as we
select the subjects to specialise in.
Some of the students felt that they were compelled to take some subjects they
didn‟t like, since they were required to meet the minimum grade set for each
subject by the subject teachers. In this regard, one of the student leaders said,
We choose the subject but we must attain the minimum grade required for
that subject. If one chooses a subject and does not attain the minimum
grade for the subject, they are not allowed to do it. This is unfair to us
because you end up doing another subject that you don‟t like.
In both of the foregoing scenarios, the students were clearly involved in selection
of the subject to take, though there were some schools which were limiting the
students in the choice of subjects by pegging selection to the academic
performance. This is likely to impact their career choices later in life. The findings
are consistent with those of Mulwa et al., (2015) and Ong‟injo, (2014) which
found that students participated in selection of their subjects in secondary schools.
Concerning setting of the academic targets, the study found that students
participated moderately in setting academic targets as indicated by the head
teachers (mean = 2.34), the students themselves (mean = 2.39) and the teachers
(mean = 2.30). These results were corroborated by those from the Focus Group
Discussions (FGDs) from which it also emerged that in some schools, the
123
academic targets were set with consultation with the students, teachers and parents
during academic meetings. During one FGD, one student leader said,
We set the academic targets in consultation with the teachers and the
parents. This keeps us on our „toes‟ always. We have to work extra hard to
meet our targets.
Supporting this view of the student leaders, one parent who participated in the
interview said,
When we go for academic meetings in school, we discuss the academic
performance with our children and teachers, and then we ask them
(children) to set the grade and the points they would be targeting to achieve
at the end of the term or year. This has to be agreed upon by all the parties.
From the foregoing, it is clear that students were involved in setting the academic
targets. The study further found from the student leaders that the academic targets
were in two folds, that is, the individual academic target that each student targets to
achieve and the class academic target. In some schools, they set individual targets
and then from them they were able to calculate the class target. In other schools,
they start with setting the class targets, and then the students were encouraged to
set the individual targets that would enable the class to meet its target.
The students were also encouraged to set academic targets for every subject. It was
established that targets were set based on the previous achievements and aimed at
continuous improvement. This meant that students could not set a target lower than
what they had attained previously in a particular subject or in overall mean grade
124
or mean score. Similar findings were reported by Tikoko and Kiprop (2011) and
Ong‟ijo (2014). Setting of the academic targets motivates the students towards
achieving them and therefore teachers and parents would want to encourage this
since this will consequently impact positively on academic performance of the
school.
The participation of students in the area of drawing of the school programme,
appeared to be viewed differently by the respondents. The head teachers (mean =
2.16) and the teachers (mean = 1.69) reported moderate levels of participation by
students while the students (mean = 1.28) said the participation was low. Thus, the
head teachers and teachers perceived that they were involving the students in
decision-making while the students felt excluded from the same. Student leaders
from most of the schools that participated in FGDs confirmed the reports of
students that they the involvement in drawing the school programme was indeed
low.
In the cases where students acknowledged being involved in drawing the school
programme, it was noted that they participated in drawing the programme for the
non-class school hours only. For example, in one of the schools, the students said
that the 4.00 - 6.00 P.M. school programme was student centred, in that they have
lessons during that time based on the time table they make themselves. In the same
school, they also talked of the „Kesha programme‟ which takes place from 9.00
P.M to 11.00 P.M during week days and up to 9.00 P.M during the weekends. In
this regard one student leader commented,
125
The KESHA programme is made by form 4 students and it starts from 9.00
P.M-11.00 PM during the week days and up 9.00 p.m. over the weekend.
The form 4 students lead the other students in making the academic
programme. These are discussion groups for different subjects and the
teachers also come to class.
One of the student leaders from another school said,
We participate only in deciding the duration of the preps that is, the
morning preps and the evening preps. We are not involved in drawing the
rest of the school programme.
The findings reflect conflicting views between the students on one hand, and the
head teachers and teachers on the other. The students feel excluded while the head
teachers and teachers portray themselves as democratic. Though some schools
through the FGDs with the student leaders acknowledged involvement in deciding
the time of the preps, after 4.00 P.M programme and weekend programme,
majority of the student leaders were of the view that the extent of participation was
low. Similar findings were reported by Kilonzo, (2017), in a study where majority
of the respondents said that the Student Councils were not involved in deciding the
time of the preps.
The reasons for failure to involve the students could be traditional tendencies of the
administrators and teachers who were not involved in such decisions themselves
(Huddleston, 2007). This leaves the students with a feeling of exclusion from such
important decisions that affects them in school. Such an experience does not
126
encourage independence and self-discipline among the students. It has been argued
that good programmes and activities should transfer decision-making to the
ultimate beneficiaries, i.e. the learners in the case of the secondary school (Wango,
2009).
In relation to the number of internal examinations done in a school term, all the
respondents (head teachers mean = 1.76, teachers mean = 1.67 and students mean
= 1.63) were in agreement that students participated moderately. The results were
corroborated by those of the student leaders through FGDS. From the FGDs, the
study found that some schools held demonstration because they were opposed to
the timing and the number of the internal examinations given to them. In relation to
this, one of the student leaders said,
The students had a demonstration because they did not want to do the
openers (examinations scheduled for the beginning of the school term) and
supplementary exams. They feel unprepared for the opening examinations
since they are done immediately after opening the school.
A student leader from another school that participated on FGDs commented,
We should be involved in deciding the number of the exams done in a term.
We are over burdened with so many exams, such that we don‟t have
adequate time for preparation. The number of the examinations should to
be reduced.
This implies that the students were demanding for more involvement in making
decisions to do with timing and the number of internal examinations done during a
127
school term. After a school holiday, the students feel ill prepared to sit for any
form of the examination. They were of the view that they needed to be given more
time to prepare for the examinations.
The findings of this study that students participated moderately in decision making
contradict the findings of earlier studies by Tikoko and Kiprop (2011) and Chemtai
and Chumba, (2014) which found that students were not involved in decisions
concerning the number of examinations done in a school during any given school
term. The study by Tikoko and Kiprop, (2011) was done before the enactment of
Sessional Paper No. 14 of 2012 and the Basic Education Act of 2013 that provides
for the establishment of the Student Councils in secondary schools while the
Chemtai and Chumba, (2014) study, the Student Councils could have been in their
formative stages of implementation. The findings of this study that the
participation was moderate can be attributed to the rolling out of the student
councils in majority of secondary schools. Student councils are used as avenues for
student participation in decision making secondary schools.
In relation to the nature of assignment, all the respondents (head teachers‟ mean =
1.76, teachers‟ mean = 1.67 and students‟ mean = 1.65) were in agreement that
student participation in decision making was moderate. The findings of this study
contradict those of an earlier study done by Chemtai and Chumba, (2014) that
found students were not involved in determining the nature of assignments given in
school. This disparity can be attributed to the fact that by the time this study was
done, majority of the schools had established the Student Council which is used as
a vehicle for student participation in decision making. This is because the Sessional
128
Paper Number 14 of 2012 that provided for the establishment of the student
councils was enacted in 2012, the year when the survey data for Chemtai and
Chumba was collected and the Basic education act was enacted in 2013.
Huddleston, (2007) points out that although school curricula and evaluation criteria
is decided by the state, the curriculum experienced in the classroom setting, and the
learning methods used give variety of opportunities for student participation in
decision making. These may include participation in decisions on the nature of
assignments and projects to be done by the students among others. At times,
students are given so many assignment by different teachers and from different
subjects, all to be completed at the same time, like for example during evening
preps and they are expected to be handed in to the respective teachers the
following day. In such a situation, the students may ask the teachers to give them
less demanding work in terms of time needed to complete it. This may entail
changing the nature of assignments to meet the demands of the students.
In relation to the grading system, the head teachers (mean = 1.61) and students
(mean = 1.45) reported moderate levels of participation while the teachers (mean =
1.28) reported that the participation was low. Given that grading of the students
work is done by the teachers, then the views of the teachers could be portraying the
true status of student participation. From the FGDs, the student leaders confirmed
that their level of participation in grading system was indeed low. This implies that
the level of student participation in grading system was low. Similar findings were
reported earlier by Chemtai and Chumba (2014), who found that students were not
involved in decisions concerning the grading system. Involving students in grading
129
system motivate them in learning and improving their grades. Openness in the
grading system is important and teachers need to practice it.
From the FGDs, student leaders felt that they should be involved fully in
management of their school curriculum. For instance, in the area of curriculum
delivery they said some teachers were not able to handle some topics well (e.g.
topic of sexually transmitted infections (S.T.Is) in Biology subject) and the
students were of the opinion that such topics would be handled better by guest
speakers or professionals. Involvement of external persons in delivery of some
aspects of curriculum has been requested by students in other parts of the world.
For example, a study involving secondary school children in the UK which sought
to evaluate the student experience with the life skills programme, found that
students did not understand why the schools insisted that all teachers be involved
in the teaching of life skills. Some aspects involved certain sensitivities which
made both the teachers and students uncomfortable or embarrassed. The students
felt that the sensitive and potentially embarrassing topics could be given to external
people who are highly motivated and trained instead of their teachers (Fielding,
2001).
In addition, the students through the FGDs felt that they also needed to be involved
in deciding on the teaching and learning methods used in delivery of the
curriculum content. They complained that there were subject contents that they
never understood simply because they were not being exposed to practical
experiences in the subjects that were practical oriented. They also observed that at
130
times, some teachers did not complete the syllabi as expected and they had no
avenues of airing this. In connection with this, one student leaders said,
Most of the times we are listening to the teachers, rarely are we given an
opportunity to express ourselves. Whenever an opportunity is offered to us
to speak, we do it with fear of retaliation.
These sentiments imply lack of trust between the students and their teachers
probably stemming from the fact that the students are rarely involved in decisions
concerning teaching and learning methods. If their views are also taken into
account in coming up with the final decision it will build their confidence and trust
in their teachers. The findings of this study are similar to those reported by
Huddleston, (2007) where the students felt that there was very little opportunity
availed to them to influence learning methods among other things. The student said
that trying to influence the curriculum content or learning methods was a bad
experience, no one listened to them and that the reaction of the teacher was
negative.
4.3.5 Student Participation in Management of Students and Welfare issues
The study sought to establish the extent of student participation in decision-making
in management of students and welfare issues in secondary school. The study
focused on student participation in decision-making in ten areas of interest in
management of students and welfare issues in a school organization. The views of
head teachers, teachers and students on student participation in decision-making
were sought on a five point Likert scale ranging from No participation to Extensive
participation. The data obtained was transformed from five point Likert scale to
131
three point Likert scale (low, moderate and high participation, respectively). The
study used the following mean scale: 1.0-1.4 = Low participation; 1.5-2.4 =
Moderate participation; 2.5-3.0 = High participation. The results are discussed in
the sections that follow:
a) Head teachers’ views on student participation in management of the
students and welfare issues
The results of the head teachers on student participation in management of the
students and welfare issues are summarized in Table 4.16.
Results in Table 4.16 show that majority, 32 (84.2%) of the head teachers were of
the view that student participation in selection of their leaders was high (overall
mean = 2.70). Similarly majority, 31 (81.6%) of the head teachers said that student
participation in setting achievements targets was high (mean = 2.71).
In formulation of school rules, majority, 24 (63.2%) of the head teachers reported
high levels of student participation. The mean of 2.45 (when rounded gives 2.6), is
an indication that the participation of students in school diet decisions was high. As
regards the student discipline, majority, 20 (52.6%) of the head teachers reported
high participation of students in decision making. With a mean of 2.29, the study
established from the head teachers that the student participation in student
discipline was moderate. It is notable from the results in Table 4.16 that the head
teachers reported moderate levels of student participation in decision making in
school diet, school uniform and nature of punishments.
132
Table 4.16: Head teachers’ views on student participation in management of students and welfare issues
Decision-Making area N Mean LP MP HP
n % n % n %
Formulation of rules 38 2.45 7 18.4% 7 18.4% 24 63.2%
Selection of leaders 38 2.79 2 5.3% 4 10.5% 32 84.2%
School diet 38 1.95 16 42.1% 8 21.1% 14 36.8%
School uniform 37 1.70 21 56.8% 6 16.2% 10 27.0%
Nature of punishments 38 1.63 21 55.3% 10 26.3% 7 18.4%
Students‟ discipline 38 2.29 9 23.7% 9 23.7% 20 52.6%
Setting achievement targets 38 2.71 4 10.5% 3 7.9% 31 81.6%
Sports 38 2.58 5 13.2% 6 15.8% 27 71.1%
Clubs 38 2.76 3 7.9% 3 7.9% 32 84.2%
Entertainment 38 2.58 6 15.8% 4 10.5% 28 73.7%
Key:
LP-Low participation; MP-Moderate participation; HP-High participation
133
b). Teachers’ views on student participation in Student personnel Decisions
The results of the teachers on student participation in management of the students
and welfare issues are summarized in Table 4.17.
The results in Table 4.17 reveal that majority, 231 (79.9%) of the teachers were of
the view that students participated in selection of student leaders highly. Overall
mean of 2.67, indicates that there was high participation of students in selection of
student leaders. Majority, 171 (59.8%) of the teachers reported that there was high
student participation in setting achievement targets. However, the overall mean of
2.34, indicate that the participation of students was moderate.
The teachers reported moderate levels of student participation in decision making
in formulation of rules, school diet, school uniform and nature of punishments. It is
notable from the results in Table 4.17 that majority, 231 (79.9%) of the teachers
were of the view that student participation in decisions relating to the nature of
punishment was low. The mean (1.44) confirms that the student participation was
low. This implies that teachers do not find it necessary to involve students in
deciding the nature of punishment to take when they infringe on school rules.
134
Table 4.17: Teachers’ views on student participation in management of the students and welfare issues
Decision-Making area N Mean LP MP HP
n % n % n %
Formulation of rules 288 1.81 144 50.0 56 19.4 88 30.6
Selection of leaders 289 2.67 36 12.5 22 7.6 231 79.9
School diet 290 1.69 162 55.9 57 19.7 71 24.5
School uniform 288 1.47 204 70.8 32 11.1 52 18.1
Nature of punishments 288 1.44 197 68.4 54 18.8 37 12.8
Students‟ discipline 287 2.04 105 36.6 66 23.0 116 40.4
Setting achievement targets 286 2.34 73 25.5 42 14.7 171 59.8
Sports 287 2.43 58 20.2 48 16.7 181 63.1
Clubs 288 2.56 45 15.6 37 12.8 206 71.5
Entertainment 286 2.31 75 26.2 47 16.4 164 57.3%
Key:
LP-Low participation; MP-Moderate participation; HP-High participation
135
c). Students’ views on student participation in management of the students
and welfare issues
The results of the students on student participation in management of the students
and welfare issues are summarized in Table 4.18.
The results in Table 4.18 reveal that majority, 480 (65.6%) of the students were of
the view that they participated in high level in selection of student leaders.
However the overall mean of 2.43, indicates that the participation of students in
selection of their leaders was moderate. It is notable from the results that majority,
415 (56.9%) of the students reported high participation in setting achievement
targets while one third 219, (30%) of the students said the participation was low.
On average the study established that there was moderate participation of students
in the setting of the achievement targets (mean = 1.45).
The students reported moderate levels of student participation in decision making
in the areas of school rules, nature of punishments and student discipline. However
the results reveal that their participation in decision making was low in the areas of
school diet and school uniform. It is notable from the results in Table 4.18 that no
area of participation in decision making that was reported to have high level of
student participation in decision making. This implies that the students were
expecting higher levels of involvement in all the areas of decision making
considered in this study.
136
Table 4.18: Students’ views on student participation in management of students and welfare issues
Decision-Making area N Mean LP MP HP
n % n % n %
Formulation of rules 728 1.57 466 64.0% 106 14.6% 156 21.4%
Selection of leaders 732 2.43 167 22.8% 85 11.6% 480 65.6%
School diet 737 1.44 533 72.3% 87 11.8% 117 15.9%
School uniform 730 1.37 575 78.8% 40 5.5% 115 15.8%
Nature of punishments 728 1.46 513 70.5% 98 13.5% 117 16.1%
Students‟ discipline 728 1.89 334 45.9% 138 19.0% 256 35.2%
Setting achievement targets 722 1.45 219 30.0% 95 13.0% 415 56.9%
Sports 729 2.18 234 32.1% 133 18.2% 362 49.7%
Clubs 730 2.34 174 23.8% 131 17.9% 425 58.2%
Entertainment 726 2.00 321 44.2% 81 11.2% 324 44.6%
Key:
LP-Low participation; MP-Moderate participation; HP-High participation
137
From the foregoing discussions, the study findings indicate that student
participation in selection of their leaders appeared to be viewed differently by the
respondents. The head teacher and teachers were in agreement that there were high
levels of participation of students in decision-making regarding selection of student
leaders (means > 2.5). However, the students (mean = 2.43) felt that they
participated moderately in selection of their leaders. The difference in the views
implies a situation where the head teachers and teachers feel that they are highly
involving the students in selection of their leaders while the students on the other
hand feel that the involvement is moderate. The fact that the students rated it
moderate implies that they expected more involvement in selection of their leaders.
The findings from the FGDs with the student leaders were in agreement with those
of the students. In a majority schools that participated in FGDS, the student leaders
said that the student participated highly in selecting their leaders while in a
minority of schools, (which were using the prefect system of leadership) were of
the view that the participation was moderate. In relation to this, one student leader
commented,
The students elect the student council members. The process of election in
our school is done the same as that of the national election in the country.
The students who want to become leaders apply the position they want.
They are then vetted by a vetting committee comprised of the teachers.
Those that sail through are given time to campaign and sell their
manifestos. The administration decides on the Election Day and the school
avails the election materials including the indelible ink.
138
When asked about the extent of participation, all the student leaders from this
school unanimously agreed that the participation in selection of their leaders was
high. From this school, it was noted that the process of election was very elaborate
since it was done following the democratic principles, just like the way national
elections are done in this country. The students were allowed to elect leaders of
their choice to the office and they were happy about it.
Another student leader from a different school commented,
We elect our student leaders into office. The students who want to take up
leadership position declare their interests and then they are vetted by the
teachers and the administration. They are allowed to campaign after class
hours. A day for election is set by the school administration.
When the student leaders from this school were asked to rate the extent of student
participation in selection of their leaders, they said it was moderate.
Another student leader from a school using the prefect system commented,
We participate moderately in selection of the prefects. The outgoing
prefects are asked to suggest the students who can take up leadership
position. The list is prepared according to the positions that are available.
Then the administration and teachers use the list prepared by the prefects to
appoint the students to prefect positions. This is done during a staff
meeting.
139
From the students‟ point of view, it is clear that some schools had high levels of
student participation in selection of the student leaders while in others, the
participation was moderate. Going by the views of the students because they are
ones at the receiving end, it can be implied that student participation in selection of
their leaders was generally moderate.
When the students participate in selection of their leaders, they are more acceptable
to the students‟ body and the students are always willing to support them in
performance of their duties and responsibilities. This enhances student discipline in
schools. Nayak, (2011) observed that group self-discipline is achieved when
students are allowed to select their leaders democratically. The students know their
peers well and they know those with leadership qualities, who can effectively
represent them in school management.
Student participation in setting the achievement target was viewed differently by
the respondents. The participation was reported to be high by the head teachers
(mean = 2.71), on one hand while the teachers (mean = 2.34) and students (mean =
1.45) on the other hand said it was moderate. These results were corroborated by
those of the student leaders through the FGDs. During one of the FGDs, a student
leader gave a comment that represented the views of group members. She said,
The students set achievement targets for their respective clubs, Christian
unions (CU), Young Christian society (YCS), sports, ball games, science
congress among others”. This is done through the guidance of our teachers.
We always work towards achieving these targets.
140
When the student leaders were asked to rate the extent of student participation in
decision making on a scale of five, majority of them rated it moderate. This was a
confirmation of the results of the students and teachers that the level of
participation of the students in setting achievement targets was moderate. These
findings agree with those reported by Chemutai and Chumba, (2014) who found
that student participation was encouraged in setting standards of cleanliness in
school among other things.
In relation to club decisions, there was an agreement between the head teachers
(mean = 2.76) and teachers (mean =2.56) that student participation in decision
making was high while the students (mean = 2.34) felt that the extent of
participation was moderate. The Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with student
leaders confirmed the findings that students were involved in making decisions on
the clubs they were affiliated to. In connection with this, one student leader
commented,
Teachers have nothing to do with the clubs, that‟s our domain as students.
We make most of the decisions concerning the clubs except when we get
invited to visit other schools when we consult the club patron to organize
the trip with the administration for us.
From the FGDs, it also emerged that students were affiliated to different clubs as
members. The decisions made in these clubs differed from club to club but all the
respondents were in agreement that they and indeed all the students participated in
deciding on the objectives of the club, activities of the clubs, leadership of the club,
raising funds for the club among other things. When the students leaders were
141
asked to rate the level of student participation in club decisions, they rated it high.
This implies that student participation in decisions relating to the clubs they were
affiliated to, was high. It is argued that active participation of the students in
extracurricular activity affords them opportunities to learn and develop skills
(Ong‟injo, 2014). Clubs impact on the students directly and since this is an area of
participation that does not threaten the teachers authority in school, many schools
find it easy to give students their space of participation.
In relation to the sports decision, the head teachers (mean = 2.58) reported high
levels of student participation in decision making while the teachers (mean = 2.43)
and students (mean = 2.18) reported moderate levels of participation. The findings
from the students and teachers were corroborated by the FGDs where the student
leaders said that they were involved. It emerged from the student leaders through
the FGDs that the students participated in deciding the type of sports to participate
in or athletic teams to join. The students were involved in selecting the leadership
of the sports teams. Sports impact the student in physical fitness as well as
character development and hence their involvement in making decisions on the
sport of their choice is vital.
The findings were consistent with those of a study done by Chemtai and Chumba,
(2014) that found that students were encouraged to give their inputs concerning the
type of co-curricular activities. Ong‟injo, 2014, in a study on influence of student
participation in school management on academic performance found that a
majority of the respondents said that students were involved in choice of co-
curricular activity to be involved in. However, Kilonzo, (2017) found that majority
142
of the respondents said that students were not involved in deciding time for games
and the co-curricular activities.
On entertainment, the head teachers (mean = 2.58) reported high levels of student
participation in decision making while the teachers (mean = 2.31) and students
(mean = 2.00) reported moderate levels of participation. The head teachers gave a
rosy response on student participation in entertainment decision to demonstrate
that they were following the democratic principle of involving students in decision
making. Considering the responses of the teachers and students, it can be implied
that students were involved in entertainment decisions moderately. The findings
were in concurrence with those of Chemutai and Chumba (2014) who found that
Student Councils were involved in making decisions concerning extra curriculum
activities though the study did not establish the extent of student participation. The
Student Councils are used as avenues of student participation in decision making in
secondary schools. The findings support of those of Kilonzo (2017) who noted that
Student Council members coordinate co-curricular activities in school.
There were mixed reactions among the respondents in their views in relation to
formulation of school rules. The head teachers reported high participation in
formulation of the school rules (mean = 2.45) while the teachers (mean = 1.81) and
the students (mean = 1.57) reported moderate participation. Considering the
responses from the teachers and the students, it may be seen that the head teachers
gave a rosy response in order to portray that they were complying with the
requirement of the Basic Regulation Act of 2015, the Basic Education Act, 2013
and also heeding to the calls of many researchers (Nayak, 2011; Mager and
143
Nowak, 2010; Keogh and White, 2005; Baginsky and Hannam, 1999; Hannam
1998; Haber, 1995) in relation to student involvement in formulation of school
rules. It may also be seen that since the student and the teachers had nothing to
lose, their response may be portraying the correct status of student participation in
decision-making in formulations of school rules. This therefore implies that there
were moderate levels of student participation in formulation of school rules.
The findings of this study contradict those of Chemutai and Chumba, (2014), who
found that student views were excluded in formulation of school rules. It can be
argued that by the time these researchers did their study, the Basic Education
Regulation of 2015 that require public participation in formulation of the school
rules and approval by the BOM had not been enacted.
Cook-Sather (2006), argues that where representative of students participate in
formulation of the school rules, the student body is faced with the obligation to
comply with them. The students feel that they are partners in formulation process
and so they are obliged to obey the rules agreed upon. Mati et al., (2016), found
that ownership was realized by student participation in decision making on
formulation of school rules and disciplinary issues among other things.
In relation to student participation in school uniform decisions, the head teachers
and teachers reported moderate levels of participation while the students said that
they participated in low levels. In agreement with the finding, one of the student
leaders on behalf of the FGD members commented,
144
When our school was upgraded to be a national school, the school uniform
was changed. We were asked to give our inputs concerning the type of
uniform we wanted, which we did and our views were taken into account
when making the final decisions.
In relation to school uniform, a student leader from another school, who was in
Form four during the collection of data for this study commented,
Our school uniform has never changed from the time I joined this school.
We have never been involved in making decisions concerning the school
uniform.
This view was representing the views of most of the student leaders who
participated in FGDs. These findings can be explained by the fact the school
uniform do not change frequently and many schools have maintained their uniform
since they serve to give the identity of the school. It may also be that the uniform
were done with the participation of the students who were no longer in school at
the time of the current study by virtue of the fact that they completed their studies
and that there has been no need to change them with the current group of students.
Carr, (2005) in a study done in South Africa, found out that the students
participated in decisions concerning the school uniform.
Regarding student participation in school diet decisions, the head teachers and
teachers reported moderate levels of student participation while the students said
that they participated in low levels. This state of affairs portrays a situation where
the head teachers and teachers feel that they are involving the students in decision
145
making and the student feel excluded. This explains the reasons why many schools
go on strike complaining of the poor diet in school or even high handedness of the
teachers and administration. Since the students are always at the receiving end,
their responses may be portraying the correct status of affair as far their
participation in decisions concerning their diet in school. Similar findings were
reported by Tikoko and Kiprop, 2011. One would have expected more
participation in this study owing to the enactment of the Basic Education Act of
2013.
In relation to student discipline, the head teachers, teachers and students were in
agreement that student participation in decision-making was of moderate levels.
The findings are consistent with those of Mukiti, (2014), who found that Student
Councils performed disciplinary roles such as punishing minor indiscipline cases
(Mukiti, 2014). However, the findings differed with those of a study done by
Chemutai and Chumba (2014), which found that students‟ views were excluded
while handling their discipline. This can be attributed to the time the study was
done. The data for Chemutai and Chumba (2014) study was collected in 2012 and
by this time the Basic Education Act was not enacted.
It was interesting to note from this study, that the head teachers and students were
in agreement that there were moderate levels of student participation in decisions
concerning the nature of punishment meted out to the students (students‟ mean =
1.46 and head teachers‟ mean = 1.63). However, the teachers (mean = 1.44)
reported low levels of participation which may be an indication of the
unwillingness on their part of allowing students to participate in deciding on the
146
nature of punishment to be given to the students who infringe on the school rules.
The findings from the head teachers and students were consistent with those a
study done by Aukot, (2017) that found that majority of students said that they
were included in disciplinary committee. However, the findings differed from the
earlier findings of Chemutai and Chumba, (2014) and Tikoko and Kiprop, (2011)
which found that student views were excluded in deciding on the nature of
punishments.
To sum it all, the students are the key stakeholders of the school and therefore,
their participation in all decisions that affect their life in school is crucial. In a
study done by Mulwa et al., (2015), students perceived their participation in
decision-making as being either significant or very significant. The researchers
therefore noted that failure to involve students in decision-making may lead to
unrests in schools. Lansdown, (2001), observes that the right of the child to be
heard extends to all areas of decision-making that affect children‟s lives in school
and any other place. Therefore, it is the high time that the teachers realize the
importance of allowing students to participate in decisions in the schools they
attend.
4.4 The Influence of Type of school, Class level, and Gender of the students
on Student Participation in Decision making
The second objective of this study was to examine the extent to which type of
school, class level and gender of the students influence student participation in
decision-making in secondary schools. The students who participated in this study
were drawn from seven different types of secondary school that included: girls‟,
147
boys‟ and mixed boarding secondary schools; girls‟, boys‟ and mixed day schools
and mixed, day and boarding secondary schools. The study also drew the students
from different class levels of learning in secondary schools which included; Form
1, Form 2, Form 3 and Form 4. In addition, the students that participated in the
study were males and females representing both genders. Therefore, the study
sought to answer the following question:
How does the type of school, class level and gender of the students influence
student participation in decision-making in secondary schools? To address this
question, the study used the following null hypothesis:
“There is no significant difference between type of school, class level and
gender on student participation in decision making in secondary school”.
Table 4.19 shows the results of the Levene‟s tests. A non-significant result was
found (p-value=0.396>0.05) indicating that homogeneity of variance assumption
was met.
Table 4.19: Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances
F df1 df2 p-value
1.046 40 676 .396
Dependent Variable: Student participation
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across
groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Q1 + Q2_b + Q2_a + Q1 * Q2_b + Q1 * Q2_a + Q2_b * Q2_a + Q1 *
Q2_b * Q2_a
148
4.4.1 ANOVA on type of school, class level and gender of the students and
student participation in decision making
A two way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the influence of
three independent variables (type of school, class level and gender) on the
dependent variable (student participation in decision making). There were 7 types
of schools (Boys boarding, Girls boarding, Boys day, Girls day, Mixed Boarding,
Mixed day and boarding, Mixed day), four class levels (Form 1 – 4) and two
gender levels (male and Female). The results are summarized in Table 4.20.
Results in Table 4.20 shows that all effects were statistically significant except for
gender factor. The main effect for type of school yielded an F ratio of (F 6,676 =
5.07, p = 0.000) indicating a statistically significant difference between boys‟ days
school, girls‟ day school, boys‟ boarding, girls‟ boarding, mixed day and boarding,
mixed day, mixed boarding school. The main effect for the class level yielded an F
ratio of (F3, 676 =14.07, p = 0.000), indicating a statistically significant difference
between Form 1, Form 2, Form 3 and Form 4. The main effect for gender yielded
an F ratio of (F1, 676 = 0.001, p = 0.970) indicating that the effect for gender was not
significant. This implies that participation of students in decision making was
equal for both male (M = 52.04, SD = 15.64) and female (M = 51.62, SD = 15.16)
students.
149
Table 4.20: ANOVA on type of school, class level and gender of the students and student participation in decision making
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 22491.85 40 562.30 2.67 .000
Intercept 514489.18 1 514489.18 2445.4 .000
Q1 0.29 1 .291 .001 .970
Q2_b 8879.07 3 2959.69 14.07 .000
Q2_a 6393.19 6 1065.53 5.065 .000
Q1 * Q2_b 274.09 3 91.37 .434 .729
Q1 * Q2_a 94.79 3 31.60 .150 .930
Q2_b * Q2_a 7296.74 18 405.38 1.93 .012
Q1 * Q2_b * Q2_a 531.20 6 88.53 .421 .865
Error 142222.73 676 210.39
Total 2075401.00 717
Corrected Total 164714.57 716
a R
2 = .137 (Adjusted R
2 = .085)
150
In terms of the interaction of various background characteristic, the study revealed
that the interaction between type of school and class level was significant, (F18, 676
=1.93, p = 0.012). Thus, the influence of the interaction between type of school
and class level on student participation in decision-making was statistically
significant. On the other hand, the influence of the interaction between gender and
class level was not statistically significant (F3, 676 = 0.150, p = 0.930). Further, the
influence of the interaction between gender and school type was not significant (F3,
676 = 0.434, p = 0.729).
Finally, the influence of the interaction among the three independent variables
(school type, class level, and gender) was not significant. This implies that the
interaction among the three independent variables (school type, class level, and
gender) had no effect on student participation in decision making. The study
observed that when gender is omitted, the interaction of school type and class level
influenced student participation in decision making.
4.4.2 Type of Schools and Student Participation in Decision making
The study sought to determine whether the differences in means of type of schools
on student participation in decision-making were significant. The descriptive
statistics for the type of schools in relation to student participation in decision
making are summarized in Table 4.21.
151
Table 4.21: Type of Schools and Student Participation in Decision making
Types of Schools
Dependent Variable: Student participation in decision making
Types of Schools Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Girls boarding 56.743a 1.310 54.170 59.315
Boys Boarding 56.856a 3.359 50.261 63.450
Mixed Boarding 47.461 1.884 43.761 51.160
Mixed day & Boarding 54.691 1.835 51.089 58.293
Mixed day 50.993 .819 49.385 52.601
Boys Day 45.185a 2.907 39.476 50.893
Girls day 48.532a 4.237 40.213 56.850
aBased on modified population marginal mean.
Results in Table 4.21 reveal that girls boarding and boys boarding had an almost
equal mean of 56.74 and 56.86, respectively. Mixed day and boarding and mixed
day secondary schools had a mean of 54.69 and 50.99 respectively. The rest of the
school type had mean below 50.
The researcher further sought to determine whether this difference in mean among
type of schools on student participation in decision making was statistically
significance or not. That is, which school type participated more in decision
making in secondary schools? The results of post hoc analysis are shown in Table
4.22.
152
Table 4.22: Post hoc analysis of school types and student participation in
decision making
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Student participation
Tukey HSD
(I) Type of
school
(J) Type of
school
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig. 95% Confidence
Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Girls‟
boarding
Boys‟ Boarding 2.41 2.354 .948 -4.55 9.38
Mixed Boarding 8.54* 2.209 .002 2.01 15.08
Mixed D & B 2.78 2.059 .828 -3.31 8.87
Mixed day 5.89* 1.505 .002 1.44 10.35
Boys Day 11.44* 3.172 .006 2.06 20.82
Girls day 7.97 3.120 .142 -1.25 17.20
Boys‟
Boarding
Girls‟ boarding -2.41 2.354 .948 -9.38 4.55
Mixed Boarding 6.13 2.671 .248 -1.77 14.03
Mixed D & B .36 2.548 1.000 -7.17 7.90
Mixed day 3.48 2.126 .658 -2.81 9.77
Boys Day 9.02 3.509 .136 -1.35 19.40
Girls day 5.56 3.462 .679 -4.68 15.80
Mixed
Boarding
Girls‟ boarding -8.54* 2.209 .002 -15.08 -2.01
Boys‟ boarding -6.13 2.671 .248 -14.03 1.77
Mixed D & B -5.76 2.415 .206 -12.91 1.38
Mixed day -2.65 1.964 .829 -8.46 3.16
Boys‟ Day 2.90 3.414 .980 -7.20 12.99
Girls‟ day -.57 3.366 1.000 -10.52 9.38
Mixed day
and Boarding
Girls‟ boarding -2.78 2.059 .828 -8.87 3.31
Boys‟ Boarding -.36 2.548 1.000 -7.90 7.17
Mixed Boarding 5.76 2.415 .206 -1.38 12.91
Mixed day 3.12 1.794 .592 -2.19 8.42
Boys‟ Day 8.66 3.319 .125 -1.15 18.47
Girls‟ day 5.20 3.269 .689 -4.47 14.86
Mixed day Girls‟ boarding -5.89* 1.505 .002 -10.35 -1.44
Boys‟ Boarding -3.48 2.126 .658 -9.77 2.81
Mixed Boarding 2.65 1.964 .829 -3.16 8.46
Mixed D & B -3.12 1.794 .592 -8.42 2.19
Boys‟ Day 5.54 3.006 .518 -3.35 14.43
Girls‟ day 2.08 2.952 .992 -6.65 10.81
Boys‟ Day Girls‟ board -11.44* 3.172 .006 -20.82 -2.06
Boys‟ Boarding -9.02 3.509 .136 -19.40 1.35
Mixed Boarding -2.90 3.414 .980 -12.99 7.20
Mixed D & B -8.66 3.319 .125 -18.47 1.15
Mixed day -5.54 3.006 .518 -14.43 3.35
Girls day -3.46 4.063 .979 -15.48 8.55
Girls‟ day Girls‟ boarding -7.97 3.120 .142 -17.20 1.25
Boys‟ Boarding -5.56 3.462 .679 -15.80 4.68
Mixed Boarding .57 3.366 1.000 -9.38 10.52
Mixed D & B -5.20 3.269 .689 -14.86 4.47
Mixed day -2.08 2.952 .992 -10.81 6.65
Boys Day 3.46 4.063 .979 -8.55 15.48
Based on observed means
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 210.389
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
153
Table 4.22 shows that only the difference in mean between girls boarding and
mixed boarding (p-value = 0.002<0.05), girls boarding and mixed day (p-value =
0.002<0.05) and girls boarding and boys day (p-value = 0.006<0.05) were
statistically significant. Girls boarding had the highest participation in decision
making compared to mixed boarding. The difference in mean between the two was
significant. Girls boarding (mean = 56.74) participated more in decision making
compared to mixed day (mean = 50.99), mixed boarding secondary schools (mean
= 47.46).and boys‟ day secondary school (mean = 45.19). This implies that the
girls boarding secondary schools participated more in decision making compared
to the other types of the schools. This explains why the numbers of girls‟
secondary schools that experience serious unrests are fewer compared to boys and
mixed schools. The feeling that they are valued in terms of being involved in
decisions made in school reduces the indiscipline tendencies
4.4.3 Class levels and Student participation in decision making
The study sought to determine whether the differences in means of class levels on
student participation in decision-making were statistically significant. The
descriptive statistics of student participation in decision making by class levels is
summarized in Table 4.23.
154
Table 4.23: Post hoc analysis of Class levels and Student participation
Dependent Variable: Student participation
Class level Mean Std.
Error
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Form 1 58.764a 1.487 55.846 61.683
Form 2 50.572a 1.979 46.685 54.458
Form 3 48.302a 1.333 45.684 50.921
Form 4 48.626a 1.878 44.938 52.314
aBased on modified population marginal mean.
Estimated Marginal Means
Results in Table 4.23 reveal that Form one class had the highest mean (58.76)
while form two had a mean of 50.57. Form three had a mean of 48.30 whereas
form four had a mean of 48.62. The researcher further sought to determine whether
the difference in means among class levels on student participation in decision
making was statistically significance or not. That is, which class level participated
more? The results of post hoc analysis are shown in Table 4.24.
155
Table 4.24: Multiple Comparison of class levels on participation in decision
making
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Student participation
Tukey HSD
(I) School
level
(J) School
level
Mean
Difference (I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig. 95% Confidence
Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Form 1 Form 2 6.01* 1.685 .002 1.67 10.35
Form 3 7.42* 1.574 .000 3.37 11.47
Form 4 7.54* 1.626 .000 3.35 11.73
Form 2 Form 1 -6.01* 1.685 .002 -10.35 -1.67
Form 3 1.41 1.491 .779 -2.43 5.25
Form 4 1.53 1.545 .755 -2.45 5.51
Form 3 Form 1 -7.42* 1.574 .000 -11.47 -3.37
Form 2 -1.41 1.491 .779 -5.25 2.43
Form 4 .12 1.424 1.000 -3.55 3.78
Form 4 Form 1 -7.54* 1.626 .000 -11.73 -3.35
Form 2 -1.53 1.545 .755 -5.51 2.45
Form 3 -.12 1.424 1.000 -3.78 3.55
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 210.389.
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Results in Table 4.24 reveal that the interaction between form one class and the
rest of the classes was significant. However the interaction between form 2, form 3
and form 4 was not significant. It was observed that there was a significant
difference in mean between form one and form two in relation to student
participation in decision making in school (P-value = 0.002). Form one (mean =
58.76) can be deduced to participate more than form two (mean = 50.57). It was
further found that the difference in mean between form one and form three was
statistically significance (p-value = 0.000) implying that form one students
156
participated more in decision making compared to form three. Finally, the
difference in mean between form one and form four was also statistically
significant (p-value = 0.000), thus we conclude that between form one and form
four, form one participated more in decision making in their school. It was worth
noting that the difference in mean between form 2, form 3 and form 4 was
statistically not significant and hence they equally participated in decision making
in their school.
The findings that the form one students participated in decision making more than
all the other classes can be attributed to the fact that they had just joined secondary
schools where they found that students were allowed to participate in decision
making process in school. This may be explained by the fact that the form one
students were coming from a background (i.e. primary schools) where they were
never involved in decision making process in school to secondary school where
they experienced participation.
4.5 The Status of Student Discipline in Secondary Schools
The third objective of the study, sought to establish the status of student discipline
in secondary schools in both Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi counties. In this regard the
study sought to answer the following research question:
What is the current status of students‟ discipline in secondary schools in Tharaka-
Nithi and Nairobi counties?
The views of head teachers, teachers, and students were obtained through
questionnaires while those of the parents and SCDE were obtained through the
157
one-on-one interviews. The views of student leaders were obtained through Focus
Group Discussions (FGDs).
4.5.1 Types of Indiscipline Cases Experienced in Secondary Schools
The study sought to establish the types of student indiscipline that were prevalent
in secondary schools from the head teachers, teachers and students. The
respondents were required to indicate by ticking against the most common types of
indiscipline that were experienced in their schools. Results from the questionnaires
were summarized using both frequencies and percentages as shown in Table 4.25.
Table 4.25: Types of indiscipline Cases experienced in secondary schools
Type of Indiscipline Head teachers Teachers Students
f % f % f %
Students unrests/strikes 3 8.4 22 7.6 96 14.1
Drugs & substance abuse 22 61.1 167 56.8 246 36.3
Theft 28 77.8 238 82.4 520 76.8
Fighting 12 33.3 138 47.8 312 46.1
Absenteeism 30 83.3 230 79.6 484 71.5
Lateness 30 83.3 211 73.0 481 71
Sneaking out of school compound 15 41.7 111 38.4 190 28.1
Failure to do cleaning duties 19 52.8 202 69.9 409 60.4
Sexual harassment 1 2.8 18 6.2 36 5.3
It can be seen from Table 4.25 that majority, 30 (83.3%) of the head teachers
reported lateness and absenteeism to be the most commonly experienced types of
indiscipline among the students while majority, 238 (82.4%) of the teachers and
majority, 520 (76.8%) of the students cited theft as the most common type of
indiscipline among students.
158
Other types of indiscipline notable from Table 4.25 include drug and substances
abuse and fighting. Sub-county Directors of Education (SCDE) corroborated these
results by acknowledging the presence of fighting, truancy, theft, drugs and
substance abuse, sneaking out of the school compounds, unrests and rejecting of
District Mock exams among others. One of the SCDE said,
Three schools in my district went on strike. In fact they were involved in
fighting among themselves and to solve the problem, I involved the student
leaders in talking to the students and in coming up with the solution.
In Kenya, the law considers fighting in school as an act of indiscipline as stipulated
in the Basic Education Regulations (2015), Legal Notice No. 39.
According to the Sub-county Directors of Education, the schools were also
grappling with cases bordering on criminal issues. They explained that some
students were affiliated to criminal gangs from the estates they came from. In
connection with this one SCDE commented,
The dwellers of Dandora estate had issues bordering on criminal cases like
stealing properties of others and fighting. They are affiliated to criminal
gangs which at times clash and fight with other gangs and end up affecting
the school discipline. Sometimes the students go to school with knives and
other weapons which they use to commit crimes after school.
A similar opinion was expressed by another SCDE who said,
It is not easy dealing with the children from the slums. Like now, I have a
murder case which occurred this week of a boy doing his KCSE exam. He
beat his sister‟s child to death, and now he is doing his exam in jail.
159
The people charged with the responsibility of dealing with student indiscipline
before it gets to the teachers and head teachers are the student leaders. Their views
were collected through the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). From the FGDs, the
most common types of indiscipline among students were theft, absenteeism,
lateness, failure to do cleaning duties, fighting, and drug and substance abuse.
Others that were considered less common and probably less serious included noise
making in class, failure to do assignments, poor dressing e.g. failure to tuck in the
shirts or blouses, putting on mini-skirts for girls and failure to put on school
uniform as required, dozing/ sleeping in class. During the FGDs, one of the student
leaders said,
Sleeping/dozing in class in this school, is considered as an academic
monster yet it has been so common with the students here.
It was noted from the FGDs and interviews with SCDE that some of these types of
indiscipline were unique to the school type. For instance it was noted that drugs
and substance abuse were common in boys, mixed secondary school and day
secondary schools. Sneaking out of the school compound was common in boarding
schools.
Kombo, (1998) in his study of Correlates of Student Deviant Behaviour in selected
Secondary Schools in Nairobi, ranked lateness second after truancy. The findings
of this study are also in agreement with those of Gikungu & Karanja, (2014) that
found stealing, fighting, sneaking, general truancy, among others as the types of
indiscipline commonly experienced in secondary schools. The findings of this
study also agree with those of (Ali et al., 2014) who found, bullying, truancy/
160
absenteeism, vandalism of school property, theft/stealing, fighting as the types of
indiscipline most experienced in Shomolu Local Government Area of Lagos State
in Nigeria.
The indiscipline of drug and substance abuse has been reported before this study
by Simatwa et al, (2014) who found that substance abuse were prevalent among
public secondary school students. Similarly, Gikungu & Karanja (2014) found
drug and alcohol abuse to be the type of indiscipline experienced in secondary
schools in Murang‟a North district. Most recently Ndaita, (2016), identified drug
abuse as one of the types of indiscipline in secondary schools in addition to
fighting, failing to complete assignments, drug abuse, sexual-deviance, sneaking
out of school, stealing other students‟ property and general defiance of school
authority and rules. This is not only a problem in Kenyan secondary schools
because it has also been reported in Nigerian secondary schools (Ifeoma, 2012;
Temitayo, Nayaya, & Lukman, 2013).
Indiscipline in schools hinders effective teaching and learning process and this
affect the overall performance of the school. If the goals of education have to be
realized, then the school administration, teachers and other education stakeholders
must look for ways of ensuring that students maintain good discipline. Self-
discipline should be instilled in leaners to ensure proper learning is taking place.
Nayak, (2011) observes that self-discipline can be developed effectively by giving
students opportunities to share responsibilities and planning of the school activities
in a cooperative manner.
161
4.5.2 The Status of the Student Discipline in Secondary Schools
The study sought the views of head teachers, teachers and students on the status of
student discipline in secondary schools. The respondents were required to rate the
student discipline on a five point Likert scale ranging from very good to very poor.
The data obtained was transformed from five point Likert scale to three point
Likert scale comprising of poor, average and good discipline, respectively. The
following mean scale was used: Poor discipline = 1.00-1.4; Average discipline =
1.5-2.4; Good discipline = 2.5-3. Table 4.26 shows how head teachers, teachers
and students rated the status of student discipline in their schools. The study further
sought the views of the Sub-county Directors of Education on discipline through
the interviews. The views of student leaders‟ on students‟ discipline were sought
through the FGDs.
Table 4.26: The status of the student discipline in secondary schools
Rating of the student discipline Head teachers Teachers Students
Mean 2.8 2.51 2.51
n % n % n %
Good 32 84.2 155 53.8 404 54.9
Average - - 126 43.8 308 41.8
Poor 6 15.8 7 2.4 24 3.3
Total 38 100 288 100 736 100.0
The results in Table 4.26 show that majority, 32 (84.2%) of the head teachers rated
student discipline in their school as good. On the other hand, majority, 155(53.8%)
of the teachers rated student discipline as good while majority, 404 (41.8%) of the
students reported that their discipline in the schools was average. The means (head
162
teachers = 2.8; teachers = 2.51 and students = 2.51) of all the respondents were
above 2.5, indicating that the students‟ discipline was good. When asked about the
status of discipline in secondary schools, one of the Sub-county directors of
education (SCDE) commented,
There is an improved level of discipline compared to four years back when
they were so many cases of indiscipline being brought to the Board of
Management (BOM). About 50% of the BOM meetings that time, were to
deliberate on matters of students‟ discipline. Of late the cases are very
minimal, rarely is discipline discussed by BOM.
The results were in agreement with those of the FGDs with the student leaders.
Most of the students‟ leaders rated student discipline as good while others rated it
as average. In connection with this a student leader commented,
Discipline in our school is quite good. The students are very cooperative in
schools. They obey the school rules, they are orderly during prep time and
they observe punctuality. We have not experienced students‟ unrests for the
three years.
From the fore going, it can be implied that that student discipline in secondary
schools in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi counties was as good.
The head teachers considered student discipline to be good because the students
recorded good academic performance, and there were minimal cases of indiscipline
in their school. In addition to the responses of the head teachers, the teachers also
considered student discipline to be good because students were complying with the
163
school rules without pressure from them, learning was not interrupted and students
were cooperative. The study established that the head teachers and teachers that
ranked student discipline as good were from the schools that had established
Student Councils form of student leadership. The teachers who ranked student
discipline as poor or average attributed their ranking to the fact that students were
not self-driven or motivated and they were still breaking the school rules. These
were teachers from the schools that were still using the prefect system of student
leadership.
4.5.3 The Frequency of Student Unrests/strikes in Secondary Schools
Unrests or strikes in secondary schools are some of the ways through which
indiscipline manifests itself. This study sought to find out the frequency of
unrests/strikes in secondary schools through questionnaires for head teachers,
teachers and students. They were required to indicate the frequency of the student
unrests by ticking in the questionnaire against none, once, twice, thrice or more
than thrice within a period of three years prior to the study. The results are
summarised in Table 4.27.
Table 4.27: Frequency of student unrests/strikes in secondary schools
Frequency of unrests Head teachers Teachers Students
f % f % f %
None 34 91.9 245 86.9 585 81.8
Once 2 5.4 33 11.7 94 13.2
Twice 1 2.7 4 1.4 16 2.2
Thrice - - - - 8 1.1
More than thrice - - - - 12 1.7
Total 37 100.0 282 100.0 715 100.0
164
It is clear from Table 4.27 that majority, 34 (91.9%) of head teachers, 245 (86.9%)
teachers and 585 (81.8%) students reported that their schools had not experienced
student unrests or strike. Only 1 (2.7%) head teacher, 4 (1.4%) teachers and 16
(2.2%) students reported experiencing strikes or unrests twice in a period of three
years prior to the study. These results were also supported by the FGDs with the
student leaders and the interviews done with parents and SCDE. Results in Table
4.27 also shows results where students reported more than two strikes/unrests
within a period of three years but the same was not reported by the teachers or
head teachers. These observations were confirmed by FGDs where it was reported
that the strikes were experienced in very few schools and they were caused by
inadequate food, poor relationships between students and teachers, supplementary
exams and exams done at the beginning of the school term.
When asked whether the schools in the area of their jurisdiction had experienced
any strikes/unrests, one SCDE said,
The sub-county has not experienced strikes in public secondary schools in
the last three years.
One SCDE in another sub-county commented that,
A number of schools have experienced unrests in this district, all related to
the exams. However, three of the schools that went on strike were involved
in fighting among themselves. In another school, the students had unrests
but according to me it was caused by the administration. Basically what
happened there is that the head teacher was mismanaging the school. I
totally agreed with the students.
165
When asked about strikes and unrests in schools, one of the parents commented,
The students really complain of the exams they are given at the beginning
of the term. The schools need to look into ways of consulting students so
that they agree on when those exams can be done.
From the FGDs with the student leaders, it also emerged that the unrests were
mostly experienced during the second term of the year simply because of the Joint
District Mock examinations and other internal examinations. It was reported that
the students were always under pressure to perform well academically. The SCDE
and parents concurred with the student leaders that students were always under a
lot of pressure to perform well academically and that most students were usually ill
prepared for the Joint District Mock examinations as well as the examinations done
at the beginning of the term and were therefore unwilling to do them. In some of
the schools, where unrests and demonstrations were experienced, the students were
opposed to the examinations done at the beginning of the term (opening exams).
One of the parents commented,
During the holidays they don‟t touch books, they are busy with other things
and so when they go back to schools and are given exams immediately after
opening they are not prepared at all. Because of this they end demonstrating
and striking as they reject them. The school administration needs to give
them time to prepare for the opening examinations.
Supporting this argument another parent commented and said,
At home the environment is not good at all for reading since they are also
helping us with house hold chores and at night there is no light for them to
166
do any reading. I cannot afford to buy paraffin which they use to provide
lighting at home. I have to save every coin I get for paying the fees.
The parents were of the opinion that the students‟ views should be taken into
account when making decisions on the timing of the internal examinations. The
exams should be done at a convenient time and not immediately after opening the
schools as the students were demanding. In line with this a study done by National
Crime Research Centre, (2017) had earlier recommended that schools should stop
administering excessive exams to the students and the amount of exams, especially
those that are given to the candidates should be regulated. This would help in
curbing indiscipline in schools. Students always tend to protest at decisions taken
without their involvement in school, and especially those relating to the timing and
the number of the examinations done in school. This is because of fear failing the
examinations.
From the fore going discussions, it is clear that student unrests had significantly
reduced in the last three years prior to this study in the counties studied. Only a few
schools had experienced unrests.
4.6 The Influence of Student Participation in management of school
curriculum on Student Discipline
The fourth objective of the study was to determine the extent to which student
participation in management of school curriculum had influenced their discipline.
The head teachers, teachers and students were requested to indicate in a
questionnaire the extent of influence of student participation in various areas of
167
decision-making on discipline on a five point Likert scale ranging from, “No
Influence” to “Extremely high Influence”. The data obtained was transformed from
five point Likert scale to three point Likert scale comprising of low, moderate and
high influence, respectively. The following mean scale was used: Low influence =
1.00-1.4; Moderate influence = 1.5-2.4; High influence = 2.5-3. The results are
summarized using frequencies, percentages and means.
4.6.1 Head Teachers’ Views on the Influence of Student Participation in
Management of School Curriculum on Students’ Discipline
The results of the head teachers on the influence of student participation in
management of school curriculum on student discipline are presented in Table
4.28.
168
Table 4.28: Head teachers’ views on the influence of student participation in management of curriculum on students’ discipline
Decision-Making area N Mean LI MI HI
n % n % n %
School programme 38 2.50 5 13.2 9 23.7 24 63.2
Setting academic targets 38 2.68 3 7.9 6 15.8 29 76.3
Nature of assignment 37 2.14 12 32.4 8 21.6 17 45.9
No. of internal Examination 38 2.16 10 26.3 12 31.6 16 42.1
Grading system 38 2.11 11 28.9 12 31.6 15 39.5
Subject selection 37 2.76 3 8.1 3 8.1 31 83.8
Key:
LI-Low Influence MI- Moderate Influence HI- High Influence
169
Results in Table 4.28 reveal that majority, 31 (83.8%) of the head teachers reported
that student participation in selection of subject had high influence on their
discipline. Similarly majority, 29 (76.3%) of the head teachers reported that
student participation in setting academic targets had high level of influence on
student discipline. This can also be seen from the overall means (selection of
subject = 2.76; setting academic targets = 2.68).
Majority, 24 (63.2%) of the head teachers were of the view that student
participation in drawing the school programme had high levels of influence on
their discipline. The mean 2.5 indicate high influence on student discipline.
Student participation in decisions relating to the nature of assignment, number of
internal examination and grading system had moderate levels of influence on
discipline. It is notable that no area of decision making that was reported to have
low influence on discipline of students. This implies that the head teachers attached
a lot importance on student participation in decisions relating to school curriculum
as way of enhancing students‟ discipline in secondary schools.
4.6.2 Teachers’ Views on the Influence of Student Participation in
Management of School Curriculum on Students’ Discipline
The results of the teachers on the influence of student participation in management
of school curriculum on student discipline are presented in Table 4.29.
170
Table 4.29: Teachers’ views on the influence of student participation in management of school curriculum on students’
discipline
Decision-Making area N Mean LI MI HI
n % n % n %
Drawing sch. programme 289 2.17 92 31.8 57 19.8 140 48.4
Setting academic targets 285 2.66 30 10.5 38 13.3 217 76.1
Nature of assignment 284 2.15 96 33.8 50 17.6 138 48.6
No. of internal Exams 283 2.06 108 38.2 50 17.7 125 44.2
Grading system 286 1.90 130 45.5 54 18.9 102 35.7
Subject selection 286 2.63 35 12.2 36 12.6 215 75.2
Key:
LI-Low Influence MI- Moderate Influence HI- High Influence
171
Results in Table 4.29 reveal that majority, 217 (76.1%) of the teachers reported
that student participation in setting academic targets had a high influence on
discipline. The overall mean observed was 2.66 which is also an indication of high
influence of participation on discipline. Similarly, majority, 215 (75.2%) of the
teachers reported that student participation in selection of subjects had high
influence on discipline. The mean of 2.63 indicate high levels of influence on
discipline.
All the other areas (school programme, nature of assignment, number of internal
examination and grading system) of decision making had moderate influence on
students‟ discipline since their overall means are ≤ 2.4 but ≥ 1.4. Similar to the
head teachers, it is notable from the teachers that no area of decision making under
curriculum was reported have low influence in decision making. This implies that
the teachers attached a lot importance on student participation in decisions relating
to school curriculum as way of enhancing students‟ discipline in secondary
schools.
4.6.3 Students’ Views on the Influence of Student Participation in
Management of School Curriculum on Students’ Discipline
The results of the students on the influence of student participation in management
of school curriculum on student discipline are presented in Table 4.30.
172
Table 4.30: Students’ views on influence of student participation in management curriculum on discipline
Decision-Making area N Mean LI MI HI
n % n % n %
School programme 730 1.85 374 51.2 89 12.2 267 36.6
Setting academic targets 738 2.62 109 14.8 63 8.5 566 76.7
Nature of assignment 730 2.14 274 37.5 81 11.1 375 51.4
No. of internal exams 733 2.10 298 40.7 66 9.0 369 50.3
Grading system 730 2.02 317 43.4 78 10.7 335 45.9
Subject selection 737 2.61 113 15.3 58 7.9 566 76.8
Key:
LI-Low Influence; MI- Moderate Influence; HI- High Influence
173
It can be seen from Table 4.30 that majority 566, (76.8%) and 566 (76.7%) of the
students were of the view that their participation in decision making in subject
selection and setting of academic targets respectively, had high influence on
student discipline. The means in both cases (subject selection = 2.61 and setting of
academic target = 2.62) indicate high levels of influence on student discipline. The
rest such as nature of assignment, number of internal examinations, grading system
and drawing the school programme were reported to have moderate levels of
influence on discipline. The fact that all the areas of decision making were reported
to have either high or moderate level of influence on discipline implies that the
student placed a high premium on their participation in school curriculum
decisions and that lack of it may lead to indiscipline in school.
From the findings of this study, the head teachers, teachers and students were in
agreement that student participation in selection of the subjects had a high
influence (mean ˃ 2.6 in all the cases) on student discipline. These respondents
placed a high premium in student participation in selection of the subjects to study.
Similar findings were reported by Mulwa et al., (2014) and Ongijo (2014). Student
participation in subject selection is important since they know their capabilities,
strengths and even interests. The subjects selected are crucial in determining their
future careers.
Student participation in setting academic targets was reported to have high
influence (means are ˃ 2.6 in all the cases) on student discipline by the head
teachers, teachers and students. Setting academic target encourages the students to
work towards excelling academically which eventually has an impact on the whole
174
school performance. Therefore, failure to involve students in setting the academic
targets can lead to indiscipline in schools. If the teachers insist in setting the targets
for the students, the students feel pressurized to perform excellently, sometimes
beyond their ability; this may lead to resentment among the students. Pressure for
excellent performance in school was listed as one of the causes of student unrest
that were experienced in the year 2008 (National crime Research Centre, 2017).
In relation to drawing the school programme, the respondents appeared to view it
differently. The head teachers reported that student participation in drawing the
school programme had high levels of influence on student discipline while the
teachers and students reported moderate influence on discipline. This may imply
that the head teachers attach a lot of importance on student participation in drawing
the school programme. Going by the responses of the students and teachers, it can
be implied that student participation in drawing school programme had moderate
influence on student discipline. Failure to involve students in drawing the school
programme can therefore lead to indiscipline. Shatilova, 2014 found that the
teachers offered student an opportunity to participate in decisions relating to
schedules for deadlines of home tasks, exams and breaks among other things. This
shaped the classroom environment which supported the autonomy. Wango, (2009)
observes that programmes should transfer decision making to the ultimate
beneficiaries. When students are allowed to participate in drawing various school
programmes, they understand them better and therefore able to comply with them.
They will always endeavour being at the right place at the right time and doing the
right activity as the programme indicates.
175
The findings of the study reveal that there was an agreement among the students,
head teachers and teachers that participation in decisions relating to the nature of
assignment, number of internal examinations and grading system had moderate
influence (means ≥ 1.9 but ˂ 2.5) on students‟ discipline. This implies that student
participation in decision making in the mentioned areas influenced students‟
discipline moderately. Students always want to be part of the decision concerning
the nature of assignment given by the teachers. Sometimes the students are given
so many assignments from different subjects to be done within a short time, may
be during evening prep time. If the teachers do not listen to the concerns of the
students, especially when they ask for less demanding assignments in terms of the
time needed to do them, they may be offended and fail to do the assignments. This
amounts to an act of indiscipline among the students. Failing to complete
assignments has been reported as one of the indiscipline cases experienced in
secondary schools (Ndaita, 2016).
The findings of this study indicate that student participation in all the six areas of
decision-making considered under school curriculum influenced student discipline.
However, the extent of influence varied from one decision-making area to another.
These findings are therefore consistent with those of Chemutai and Chumba,
(2014) in their study on Effects of Student Council Participation in Decision-
Making. These authors found out that there were increased levels of student
discipline according to the teachers and student leaders‟ perceptions among other
things. The findings of this study also agree with those of a study by Mukiti,
(2014), which found out that student indiscipline had reduced significantly since
176
the introduction of the student councils which are viewed as avenue for student
participation in decision making in schools.
4.7 The Influence of Student Participation in management of Students and
welfare issues on Students’ Discipline
The fifth objective of the study was to determine the extent to which student
participation in management of students and welfare issues had influenced
students‟ discipline. The head teachers, teachers and students were requested to
indicate in a questionnaire the extent of influence of student participation in
various areas of decision-making on discipline on a five point Likert scale ranging
from, “No Influence” to “Extremely high Influence”. The data obtained was
transformed from five point Likert scale to three point Likert scale comprising of
low, moderate and high influence, respectively. The following mean scale was
used: Low influence = 1.00-1.4; Moderate influence = 1.5-2.4; High influence =
2.5-3. The results are summarized using frequencies, percentages and means.
4.7.1 Head Teachers’ Views on the Influence of Student Participation in
Management of Students and Welfare issues on Students’ Discipline
The results of the head teachers‟ views on the influence of student participation in
management of school curriculum on student discipline are presented in Table
4.31.
177
Table 4.31: Head teachers’ views on influence of student participation in management of students and welfare issues on discipline
Decision-Making area N Mean LI MI HI
n % n % n %
Formulation of school rules 38 2.79 3 7.9 2 5.3 33 86.8
Selection of student leaders 38 2.87 1 2.6 3 7.9 34 89.5
School diet 38 2.37 9 23.7 6 15.8 23 60.5
School uniform 37 2.05 13 35.1 9 24.3 15 40.5
Nature of punishments 38 2.53 7 18.4 4 10.5 27 71.1
Students discipline 38 2.71 5 13.2 6 15.8 27 71.1
Setting achievement targets 37 2.73 3 8.1 4 10.8 30 81.1
Sports 38 2.63 4 10.5 6 15.8 28 73.7
Clubs 38 2.71 4 10.5 3 7.9 31 81.6
Entertainment 38 2.68 3 7.9 6 15.8 29 76.3
Key:
LI-Low Influence; MI- Moderate Influence; HI- High Influence
178
Results in Table 4.31 reveal that majority, 34 (89.5%) and 33 (86.8%) of the head
teachers reported that student participation in selection of student leaders and
formulation of school rules had high influence on their discipline. Similarly majority,
31 (81.6%) and 30 (81.1%) of the head teachers reported that student participation in
clubs decision and setting achievement targets had high influence on their discipline.
The area of determining the nature of punishment was also reported to have a high
influence on student discipline. The overall means in all the above mentioned areas are
greater than 2.5, an indication of high influence on students‟ discipline.
All the other areas of decision making considered in this study were reported to have
high influence on student discipline apart from the areas of school diet (mean = 2.37)
and school uniform (mean = 2.05), which were said to have moderate levels of
influence on discipline according to the head teachers. It is not clear why the head
teachers feel that participation in school diet and school uniform decisions only have
moderate influence on student discipline yet we have seen schools going on strike
complaining of the poor quality diet.
4.7.2 Teachers’ Views on the Influence of Student Participation in management
of students and welfare issues on Students’ Discipline
The results of the teachers‟ views on the influence of student participation in
management of school curriculum on student discipline are presented in Table 4.32.
179
Table 4.32: Teachers’ views on influence of student participation in management of students and welfare issues on discipline
Decision-Making area N Mean LI MI HI
n % n % n %
Formulation of school rules 289 2.40 65 22.5 43 14.9 181 62.6
Selection of student leaders 288 2.74 25 8.7 25 8.7 238 82.6
School diet 285 2.18 87 30.5 59 20.7 139 48.8
School uniform 286 2.05 107 37.4 59 20.6 120 42.0
Nature of punishments 287 2.14 95 33.1 56 19.5 136 47.4
Students discipline 287 2.48 50 17.4 48 16.7 189 65.9
Setting achievement targets 283 2.46 55 19.4 43 15.2 185 65.4
Sports 287 2.61 35 12.2 43 15.0 209 72.8
Clubs 287 2.60 35 12.2 46 16.0 206 71.8
Entertainment 286 2.57 39 13.6 45 15.7 202 70.6
Key:
LI-Low Influence; MI- Moderate Influence; HI- High Influence
180
Results in Table 4.32 reveal that majority, 238 (82.6%) and 209 (72.8%) of the
teachers reported that student participation in selection of student leaders and
sports decisions respectively, had high influence on student discipline. The means
of 2.74 and 2.61 respectively, indicate high influence on student discipline in both
cases. Similarly majority, 206 (71.8%) and 202, (70.6%) of the teachers reported
that student participation in decisions relating to the clubs and entertainment had
high influence on their discipline. The overall means (clubs = 2.60 and
entertainment = 2.57) confirm that indication the influence on student discipline
was high. Other areas of decision making that were said to have high influence on
discipline are student discipline (mean = 2.48 and setting achievement target (mean
= 2.46).
It is notable from Table 4.32 that student participation in decision making, in the
areas of formulation of school rules, school diet, school uniform and nature of
punishment had moderate levels of influence on discipline according to the
teachers. It is important to note that no area of decision making that was said to
have low influence on discipline. From the teachers‟ point of view, it can be
implied that they placed high value on student participation in management of
student and welfare issues.
4.7.3 Students’ Views on the Influence of Student Participation in
Management of Students and Welfare issues on Student Discipline
The results of the students‟ views on the influence of student participation in
management of school curriculum on student discipline are presented in Table
4.33.
181
Table 4.33: Students’ views on influence of student participation in management of students and welfare issues on discipline
Decision-Making area N Mean LI MI HI
n % n % n %
Formulation of School rules 731 2.17 264 36.1 77 10.5 390 53.4
Selection of student leaders 733 2.56 125 17.1 70 73.4 538 73.4
School diet 739 2.09 281 38.0 110 14.9 348 47.1
School uniform 733 1.96 346 47.2 73 10.0 314 42.8
Nature of punishments 733 2.11 278 37.9 96 13.1 359 49.0
Students discipline 740 2.36 198 26.8 80 10.8 462 62.4
Setting achievement targets 739 2.50 137 18.5 93 12.6 509 68.9
Sports 741 2.43 158 21.3 103 13.9 480 64.8
Clubs 736 2.49 143 19.4 86 11.7 507 68.9
Entertainment 737 2.26 226 30.7 91 12.3 420 57.0
Key:
LI-Low Influence; MI- Moderate Influence; HI- High Influence
182
Results in Table 4.33 reveal that majority, 538 (73.4%) and 509 (68.9%) of the
students reported that their participation in selection of student leaders and setting
achievement targets respectively, highly influenced their discipline in school. The
means of 2.56 and 2.50 respectively, indicate high influence on student discipline.
Similarly majority, 507 (68.9%) of the students reported that their participation in
clubs decisions had high influence on their discipline. The overall mean of 2.49 is
an indication of high influence on student discipline. Although majority, 462
(62.4%) of the students indicated that their participation in decisions on student
discipline had high influence on discipline, the overall mean of 2.36 of the same is
an indication of moderate levels of influence.
All the other areas of decision making (formulation of school rules, school diet,
school uniform, nature of punishment, sports and entertainment) considered in this
study were reported to have moderate levels of influence on student discipline.
Their means were ˃ 1.4 but ˂ 2.5. The fact that the students viewed all the decision
making areas under management of students and welfare issues as having either
high influence or moderate influence, it can be implied that the students valued
their involvement in decision making and that lack of it would lead to indiscipline
in schools.
From the foregoing, the findings of this study reveal that all the respondents (head
teachers, teachers and students) were in agreement that student participation in
selection of the student leaders had high influence (mean ˃ 2.5) on the student
discipline. This implies that student participation in selection of their leaders
enhances student discipline. The student leaders are more acceptable by the
183
students‟ body and they respect them. The finding support the findings of the
Special Commission, (2008) that was set to investigate the causes of school unrest
and violence that found that some of the causes of students‟ unrests were the
prefect system of leadership that were deemed autocratic and autocratic school
administration (National Crime Research Centre, 2017). The prefects are
handpicked by the school administration and teachers without much input from the
students. Prefects system encourages students to take passive roles in school. Lack
of involvement of students in selection of their leaders may therefore lead to
indiscipline in schools. Nayak, (2011) argues that for group self-discipline to be
realized, the students should be allowed to elect their leaders democratically
among other things.
The findings of this study further reveal that the head teachers, teachers and
students were in agreement that student participation in setting achievement targets
had high influence (mean is ≥ 2.5) on the student discipline. These results were
corroborated by those of student leaders through FGDs. When the student leaders
were asked to rate the extent to which student participation in decision making
influenced student discipline, on a scale of five, all of them rated it high.
Participation in setting achievement targets encourages students to work towards
achieving them. If on the other hand they are not involved in setting the targets,
they feel that they have no obligation of meeting the target since the targets are not
theirs but the teachers‟. This implies that failure to involve students in setting
achievement target will lead to students‟ indiscipline. The findings support the
arguments of Whitty and Wisby, (2007) that student participation leads to school
performance in terms of improvement in behaviour, engagement or attainment.
184
The findings further revealed that there was an agreement among the head
teachers, teachers and students that participation in clubs decision had high
influence on student discipline. Club is an extra curriculum activity that students
are involved in school. Through the FGDs with the student leaders, the study
established that students were affiliated to different clubs of their choices in school.
These included music, drama, debating, geographical, home economic, journalism,
among others. Students were also affiliated to religious organizations such as
Christian union (CU) and Young Christian societies (YCS). The students were
involved in decisions to do with the time of the meetings, objectives of the clubs,
raising funds for the clubs, organizing the trips, selection of the officials of the
clubs among other things.
There was an agreement among all the student leaders that student participation in
decisions relating to the clubs they were affiliated to, had high levels of influence
on their discipline. Clubs helps the students to realize their talents and therefore,
they work at perfecting them. Clubs also impact positively on character
development of the students. These findings are in agreement with the conclusion
of study done by Aukot, (2017) that student behaviour is moulded in organization
they were affiliated to in school, hence presence of discipline in school. Shatilova,
(2014) noted that participation affords students a great chance to learn
responsibility, citizenship and respect for others.
The findings of this study indicate that the head teachers and teachers were of the
view that student participation in entertainment and sports decisions had a high
influence (mean ˃2.5) on the student discipline while the students said the
185
influence was moderate (mean ˃ 1.4 but ˂ 2.5) in both cases. Considering the
views of the head teachers and teachers, since they are the ones who handle the
students‟ discipline, their views could be portraying the true state of affairs. It can
be implied that student participation in entertainment and sports decisions had a
high influence on students‟ discipline. Sports impact the student in physical fitness
as well as character development and therefore their involvement in making
decisions is important in enhancing student discipline. Students know very well the
sporting clubs they are interested in and therefore their involvement in choosing
the one to join is very crucial. At times they need guidance from the teachers but
this does not mean that the teachers impose on them the decision to take. Similar
finding were reported where majority of the respondents were of the view that
students should be involved in selecting the co-curricular activity to participate in
(Ongijo, 2014). Since the adults are guides in the realization of students‟ ideas
within the practical world of schools (Shatilova, 2014), they should give direction
to the students as they make decisions.
In relation to the influence of student participation in school diet decision, the
findings revealed that the head teachers, teachers and students were in agreement
that the influence on discipline was moderate. School diet caters for the welfare of
the students as far as body nourishment is concerned. These findings support those
of Kilonzo, (2017) that found that involving Student Councils in decisions on
student welfare activities influenced students‟ discipline. Failure to involve
students in school diet decisions has led to unrest in schools in the past. In most
cases the students complain about the poor quality and little quantity of foods
given in school. Such complains should not be ignored by the administration,
186
teachers and even the parents. For instance one of the causes of indiscipline in
schools listed in Special Commission that was set to investigate the causes of
student unrests in the year 2008 was poor quality foods in schools (National Crime
Research Centre, 2017).
On student participation in discipline decisions, the head teacher and teachers
reported high influence while the students reported moderate influence. However,
the student leaders through the FGDs unanimously agreed that their participation in
decision making highly influenced student discipline. Therefore, it can be implied
that student participation in decisions relating to their discipline influenced
students‟ discipline highly. The participation helps in preventing occurrence of
indiscipline cases, learning to handle their own issues and developing the good
conduct. The findings of this study support the conclusion made by Alimi (2014),
in a study done in Nigeria that students' participation in the maintenance of school
discipline give them the opportunity to solve their own problem, develop the right
conduct, self-control, cooperative efficiency and fairness among other things. Mati
et al., (2016) observed that student participation in disciplinary issues help them
grow responsibly as well as making them accept the consequences of their own
decisions and actions.
Brasof, (2011) argues that solutions created with students are successful since they
tend to have more students buy-in. The students are experts when it comes to the
root causes of indiscipline in school and they even know the best ways of dealing
with the problem. For example, in controlling the drug and substance abuse in
schools, they are more knowledgeable in this area than their teachers. They know
187
those that abuse drugs, where they get them from, who supplies them and
therefore, they can be very instrumental in solving the problem.
Student participation in decision making in the areas of nature of punishment
meted out to students and formulation of school rules were viewed differently by
the respondents. The head teachers were of the view that student participation in
deciding the nature of punishment meted out to them and formulation of school
rules had high influence on student discipline while the teachers and the students
were of the view that the influence was moderate. This is an indication that the
head teachers are pretty aware of the importance of student participation in
formulation of school rules in so far as student discipline is concerned. This study
established that the extent of student participation in formulation of the schools
rules was moderate, then it may follow that it had influenced their discipline
moderately, a confirmation of the teachers and students views.
Similar findings were reported by Kilonzo, (2017) who found that involvement of
Student Council in implementing school rules influenced students‟ discipline.
Involvement of students in formulation of the rules is quite crucial since the
students‟ views are taken into account and this ensures that the rules are
democratic, clear and not oppressive to the students. Participation makes the
students to understand the rules guiding their behaviour in school and therefore
find it easy to comply with them. Brasof, (2011) noted that the policies created
with the students address the root problems and therefore they are likely to adhere
to them, thus improving their behaviour. Nayak, (2011) observes that students
should agree with the rules necessary for achieving the school purposes. When
188
they agree with rules then they have the obligation to obey them. Cook-Sather
(2006), argues that where representative of students participate in formulation of
the school rules, the student body is faced with the obligation to comply with them.
The students feel that they are partners in formulation process and so they are
obliged to obey the rules agreed upon. Mati et al., (2016), found that ownership
was realized by students‟ participation in decision making on formulation of school
rules and disciplinary issues among other things.
4.8 Changes in Student Discipline after the Establishment of Student
Councils
This study sought to establish whether there have been changes in discipline of
students since the inception of the Student Councils. In this regard, the study
sought the views of the students, teachers and head teachers in selected secondary
schools in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi counties. The results are discussed in the
sections that follow.
4.8.1 Students’ Views on the Changes in their Discipline after the
Establishment of Student Councils
The students were required to indicate whether there were changes in their
discipline after the establishment of the Student Council in their school, by ticking
either Yes or No in the questionnaires. They were also asked to explain the
changes in discipline that were experienced in their school after the establishment
of the Student Council. The results are summarized in Figure 4.3.
189
Figure 4.3: Student views’ on changes in discipline after the establishment of
the student councils
The results in Figure 4.3 show that, majority 512 (82.1%) of the students reported
that they had experienced changes in discipline after the establishment of the
Student Council in their schools. When asked to briefly explain the changes in
discipline experienced, they cited improved student discipline, improved
relationship between the students and teachers, reduction of bullying, absence or
reduction of drug abuse in school, absence or minimal lateness, improved school
environment, no school dropout, no sneaking out of the school compound, student
respect their teachers and Student Council leaders, improvement in time
management and less noise making in classrooms. They also observed that
students had become more organized and responsible, there was improved
adherence to the school programme in the absence of the teachers, change of
attitude from negative to positive toward school, motivation to learn and improved
communication in school among others.
These results were supported by those from the Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
where the student leaders said there was improvement in discipline after the
190
establishment of the Student Councils. In a view that was representative of the
views of the other leaders in FGDs, one student leader said,
Discipline has really improved in this school. The students are quite
responsible and they are developing self-discipline.
The student leaders were in agreement that establishment of the Student Councils
had led to great improvement in discipline in secondary schools. When asked about
the changes in discipline experienced in schools, they replicated what the students
had given in the questionnaires. One of the student leaders said,
Students have become more organized and responsible in our school.
Cleaning duties are done on time, lateness and noise making in class has
reduced and no demonstrations and strikes have been experienced since the
Council was established.
Another student leader from a different school commented,
Student issues are easily addressed and sorted out by the Student Council
members before they escalate into full blown strikes. The students‟ body
respect the Student Council members and they always air their grievances
to the teachers and administration through them.
From the foregoing, it is clear from the student leaders‟ point of view, that there
were positive changes in student discipline attributed to the introduction of Student
Councils in secondary schools. The Student Council members help the school
administration and the teachers in ensuring that good discipline is maintained in
schools. They handle the problems of the students or issues that threaten discipline
191
before they escalate into full blown strikes or unrests in school. Owing to the fact
that students participate in electing their Student Council members, they listen to
them and also respect them.
4.8.2 Head teachers and Teachers’ Views on the Changes in Student
Discipline after the Establishment of the Student Councils
The head teachers and teachers were requested to indicate whether there were
changes in student discipline after the establishment of the Student Councils in
their schools, by ticking either Yes or No in the questionnaire.
All the 34 (100%) head teachers that responded to the question, and majority 208
(86.0%) of the teachers reported that there were positive changes in students‟
discipline since the inception of the Student Council system of student leadership.
However, a small proportion, 34 (14.0%) of teachers said there were no changes.
These could be the teachers from the schools that were using Prefect Systems of
leadership or their Student Councils were still at the formative stages of
implementation.
The study also sought to find out the changes in discipline experienced by the
schools after the establishment of the Student Council system of leadership. To
achieve this, the head teachers and teachers were asked to explain the changes that
were experienced after the establishment of the Student Council in their school.
The results from the head teachers are described below while those of the teachers
are summarized in Table 4.34. Some of the changes that were reported by the head
teachers included cooperation between teachers and students, improved student-
192
teacher relationships, improvement of student behaviour, improvement in dialogue,
positive attitude towards school, students accord the Council members maximum
cooperation and respect, significant reduction in school unrests/strikes among
others.
Table 4.34: Teachers’ Views on Changes in Student Discipline after the
Establishment of the Student Councils
Changes after inception of students councils f %
No response 247 83.7
Able to air their grievances 2 0.7
Cooperation between teachers and students 1 0.3
Easier to control different cases of indiscipline 1 0.3
Guidance and counselling by students themselves 1 0.3
Members of the council perform well 1 0.3
Minimized indiscipline cases 20 6.7
Students are more attentive, organized & participative 4 1.3
Positive attitude towards learning 8 2.7
Students are more responsible & self-driven 4 1.3
Students feel more represented 1 0.3
Students leadership is obeyed by the other students 5 1.6
Total 295 100.0
Table 4.40 shows that among the teachers that responded to the question, majority
20 (6.7%) said that implementation of the Student Councils led to minimization of
indiscipline cases. Other teachers reported that it led to students developing
positive attitude towards school, student leadership obeyed by other students,
students became more responsible and self-driven, and students are more attentive,
organized and participative among other things. These are the indicators of good or
enhanced discipline of the students. This implies that Student Council is an
193
effective system of student leadership and it has impacted positively on students‟
discipline.
The findings of this study are consistent with those of Mukiti, (2014) who found
that indiscipline cases among students had reduced significantly since the
introduction of the Student Councils in secondary school. The findings are also in
agreement with the report of KSSHA, (2014) where it was noted a 78% drop in
strikes after the schools started embracing Student Councils. Therefore there is no
doubt that Student Council is the right system of student leadership in secondary
schools and all schools should embrace it. It is effective in maintenance of good
student discipline and enhancing academic performance in school (UNICEF,
(2010).
The findings support the arguments of Whitty and Wisby, (2007) that student
participation leads to school performance in terms of improvement in behaviour,
engagement or attainment. Ryan, (2006) referring to the “Reaching success
through involvement” (RSI) project in United States, noted that the project
improved discipline in all participating schools.
The findings of the current study also agree with the argument of Lansdown,
(2001) that schools that allow students to participate in decision-making through
introducing more democratic structures are likely to be more harmonious, have
better staff-students relationships and a more effective learning environment.
Student Councils are the democratic structures that were introduced to secondary
schools to allow students participate in decision-making. The students through
194
their Student Council representatives are able to influence decisions made in
schools. When they are part of the decisions made in school, they own them and
implementation becomes easier. Brag, 2007, contends that participation in
decision-making will lessen young people‟s resistance, as they feel their views are
being taken into account.
There are many benefits of student participation in decision making in secondary
schools. Rudd et al., (2007) argues that the benefits of embedding learners‟ voice
include better relationships between students and staff, making education more
democratic, empowering and engaging among others. Ryan, (2006), notes that
those who argue for student leadership cite three kinds of arguments. First,
students have the right to be involved in all decisions that affect them. Secondly,
student inputs can improve schools and thirdly, students can learn democracy in
schools that practice it. Since Kenya is a signatory to the UNCRC (1989) which
demands that children be involved in all decisions that affect them, it is important
that the government through the Ministry of Education ensures implementation of
the Student Councils in all schools to ensure the rights of the children are
respected. In most cases, student indiscipline manifests when students realize that
their rights of participation in decision-making are being violated in school.
195
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes research findings, presents the conclusions and makes
policy recommendations. It also presents the suggestions of areas of further
research.
5.2 Summary
The purpose of this study was to establish the extent of student participation in
decision making in secondary school management as well as determining its
influence on student discipline in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi counties, with a view
of informing educational practices in Kenya. It was guided by the following
objectives:
1. To determine the extent to which students participate in decision making in
secondary school management.
2. To examine the extent to which type of school, class level and gender of the
students influence student participation in decision-making in secondary
schools.
3. To establish the current status of discipline in secondary schools in
Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi counties.
4. To analyse the extent to which student participation in management of
school curriculum influence student discipline.
5. To analyse the extent to which student participation in management of
students and welfare issues influence student discipline.
196
Mixed method design and specifically, Triangulation method was used as the
frame work to guide the study. Stratified random sampling was used to select 38
public secondary schools out of which, 24 schools were in Tharaka-Nithi County
and 14 schools were in Nairobi County. Data was collected from 38 head teachers,
293 teachers, 754 students, 72 student leaders, 12 parents and 3 Sub-county
directors of education. A total of 27 interviews were conducted and 12 Focus
Group Discussions (FGDs) with student leaders were held. The instruments used in
this study were Questionnaires for the head teachers and teachers, Questionnaires
for students, Interview guides for the Sub-county Directors of Education (SCDE),
Interview guides for the parents and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) guide for
student leaders. The study yielded both quantitative and qualitative data. The
quantitative data was analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics in
order to get answers to the research questions. The analysis also helped in testing
the Null hypothesis. Qualitative data from the open-ended items, interviews and
FGDs were organized into themes guided by research questions and presented
using descriptions and quotations. The main findings are summarized according to
the objectives of the study.
5.2.1 The Extent of Student Participation in Decision making in Secondary
Schools
The study found that a large majority of secondary schools were using the Student
Council form of student leadership. It was notable, however, that these councils did
not have representatives in Boards of Management (BOM), Parents‟ Associations
(PA) and staff meetings for various reasons including the fact that there was no
legal requirement for student representation in PA and staff meetings. The existing
197
policy guidelines, though recently introduced, do not require schools to have
student representatives in PA and staff meetings. The study found that the extent of
student participation in decisions relating to school budgets, school fees and
planning and development of physical facilities were of low levels. In relation to
management of staff, it was found that student participation in decisions relating to
discipline of staff, interview of staff and appraisal of teachers was of low levels.
In relation to management of school curriculum, the study established that student
participation in decision making was high in the selection of subjects. Moderate
levels of student participation in decision making were found in areas of setting
academic targets, nature of assignment, and number of internal examinations while
there were low levels of student participation in drawing the school programme
and grading system. On average it was established that, the overall level of student
participation in management of school curriculum was moderate.
In relation to management of students and welfare issues, the study established that
students participated to a moderate extent in decisions relating to formulation of
school rules, selection of their leaders, setting achievement targets, sports, student
discipline, nature of punishment and entertainment while the participation of
students in decision making was high in decisions relating to the clubs they were
affiliated to. There were low levels of student participation in decisions relating to
school uniforms and school diets. On average, the extent of student participation in
management of the students and welfare issues in secondary school was found to
be moderate.
198
5.2.2 The Influence of Type of Schools, Class Levels, and Gender of the
Students on Student Participation in Decision-making
The second objective of the study was to examine the extent to which type of
school, class level, and gender of the students influence student participation in
decision-making in secondary schools. The study established that the influence of
the interaction between type of school and class level on student participation in
decision-making was statistically significant (p = .012). It was further established
that the influence of the interaction between gender and school type was not
significant (p = .729) and the influence of the interaction between gender and class
level was not significant (p = .930). Finally, the influence of the interaction among
the three independent variables (school type, class level, and gender) was not
significant. This implies that the interaction among the three independent variables
(school type, class level, and gender) had no effect on student participation in
decision making. The study observed that when gender is omitted, the interaction
of school type and class level influenced student participation in decision making.
The study found that the difference in mean between girls‟ boarding and mixed
boarding (p = .002), girls‟ boarding and mixed day (p = .002) and girls‟ boarding
and boys‟ day (p = .006) were statistically significant. Girls‟ boarding had the
highest participation in decision making compared to mixed boarding, mixed day
and boys‟ day. It was established further that there was a significant difference in
mean between form one and form two (p = .002), form one and form three (p =
.000), form one and form four (p = .000) in relation to students participation in
decision making in school. This implied that form one students participated more
199
in decision making compared to form 2, form 3 and form 4. However, the
interaction between form 2, form 3 and form 4 was not significant.
5.2.3 The Status of Student Discipline in Secondary Schools
The third objective was to establish the status of student discipline in Tharaka-
Nithi and Nairobi counties. The study established that the most commonly
experienced type of indiscipline cases were theft, lateness, absenteeism, fighting,
failure to do cleaning duties and drugs and substance abuse. Frequency of unrests
or strikes in secondary schools was found to be low in the last three years prior to
this study. The findings on the rating of the students‟ discipline revealed that it was
good. This can be attributed to the establishment of student Councils in majority of
secondary schools and the increased levels of student participation in management
of school curriculum, and management of students and welfare issues.
5.2.4 Influence of Student Participation in management of School
curriculum on Student Discipline
The fourth objective of this study was to determine the extent to which student
participation in management of school curriculum influenced students‟ discipline.
The findings indicated that student participation in selection of subjects and setting
academic targets had high influence on student discipline. Student participation in
decisions on the nature of assignments, number of external examinations, grading
system and school programme had moderate influence on their discipline. The
overall influence of student participation in management of school curriculum on
student discipline was moderate.
200
5.2.5 Influence of Student Participation in Management of Students and
Welfare Issues on Student Discipline
The fifth objective of this study was to determine the influence of student
participation in management of students and welfare issues on student discipline. It
was found that student participation in selection of student leaders, setting
achievement targets, participation in decisions relating to clubs, sports,
entertainment and student discipline had high influence on their discipline. Student
participation in decisions relating to the nature of punishment, school diets, school
uniform, and formulation of school rules had moderate levels of influence on
student discipline. The overall influence of student participation in management of
students and welfare issues on students‟ discipline was found to be of moderate
levels.
5.3 Conclusions
Based on the findings of this study and guided by the objectives of the study it is
reasonable to conclude as follows:
The extent student participation in management of school finances, physical
resources and staff personnel was low. It was however, moderate in management
of school curriculum, and management of students and welfare issues. The school
managements were reluctant to involve students in the critical decision-making
areas in secondary school management.
Without gender considerations, the interaction between type of school and class
levels significantly affected how students viewed the extent of their participation in
201
decision-making. The type of school significantly influenced student participation
in decision making in secondary schools. There was also a significant difference
between class levels of students on student participation in decision making.
Whereas some schools were contending with various acts of student indiscipline
such as theft, lateness, absenteeism, fighting and drugs and substance abuse, the
serious expression of student indiscipline in form of strikes and riots had
significantly reduced during the three years period prior to the study. Students
discipline was good.
Student participation in management of school curriculum, management of
students and welfare issues influenced student discipline moderately.
5.4 Recommendations
5.4.1 Policy Recommendations
The study established that students were not represented in Boards of Management
(BOM), Parents Associations (PA) and Staff meetings. The study found low levels
of student participation in management of school finances and physical resources
and a small proportion of secondary schools had not established Student Councils.
In this regard, this study recommends that:
i) The Ministry of Education (MOE) should establish an enforcement structure to
ensure that all schools comply with the policy guidelines of student
representation in Boards of Management (BOM).
ii) The Ministry of Education should also provide a policy on student
representation in the Parents‟ Associations, staff meetings and any other
202
important committees in schools so that they can participate in decisions made
there.
iii) The Ministry of Education should ensure that all secondary schools establish
Student Council form of student leadership.
5.4.2 Recommendations Related to Practice
With regard to the status of student discipline, the study established that the most
commonly experienced type of indiscipline were theft, lateness, absenteeism,
fighting, as well as drug and substance abuse. There were a few isolated cases of
students being linked to criminal gangs and carrying weapons to school. In this
regard, the study recommends that:
i) Schools should take preventive measures of maintaining student discipline such
as ensuring adequate participation of students in decision-making in all areas of
school management, promote both top-down and bottom-up communication to
minimise or eliminate the chances of school unrests and other types of
indiscipline. Schools should also take corrective measures such as guidance
and counselling by the teachers and other professional counsellors among other
things.
ii) The schools, government, parents and other education stakeholders should help
in identifying the students that are linked to criminal gangs, and help them to
reform.
In relation to the influence of student participation in management of school
curriculum on student discipline, the study found that student participation in
setting academic targets and selection of subjects influenced student discipline in
203
high levels. In this regard, the study recommends that secondary school
management should actively involve students in all decision-making areas under
school curriculum, with more emphasis on student participation in setting of
academic targets and selection of subjects.
In relation to the influence of student participation in management of students and
welfare issues on student discipline, the study found that student participation in
selection of student leaders, setting achievement targets, club, sports and
entertainment decision influenced student discipline in high levels. In this regard,
the study recommends that;
i) School administrators and teachers should actively involve students in
decisions relating to management of students and their welfare issues with
more emphasis on student participation in selection of their leaders, club
decisions and setting of achievement targets for extra curriculum activities.
ii) School administrators should develop policies in their schools, specifying
how often the school rules should be reviewed or revised. The students
should be allowed to widely participate in reviewing or revising the school
rules.
5.4.3 Suggestion for Further Research
This study suggests further research in the following areas:
1. This study focused on the influence of student participation in decision-making
on students‟ discipline in public secondary schools. It will be important for a
study focusing on the influence of student participation in decision-making in
private secondary schools to be done.
204
2. A study focusing on other factors that affect student discipline in secondary
school apart from their participation in decision-making should be done.
3. This study established that a majority of secondary schools studied had Student
Council system of student leadership in place. The study therefore suggests a
study to be conducted on the effectiveness and challenges of the Student
Councils in secondary schools and other institutions of learning.
205
REFERENCES
Alderson, P. (2000). School students‟ views on school councils and daily life at
school. Children & Society, 14, 121-134.
Ali, A. A., Dada, I. T., Isiaka, G. A., & Salmon, S. A. (2014). Types, Causes and
Management of Indiscipline Acts Among Secondary School Students in
Shomolu Local Government Area of Lagos State. Journal of Studies in
Social Sciences, 8, 254-287.
Alimi, O. S. (2014). Students' Assessment of the Extent and Prospect of their
Participation In Maintenance of Discipline in Public Secondary Schools in
Osun State, Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, 10(22).
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razaviah, A. (1972). Introduction to Research in
Education. New York: Hold, Rhinehart and Wilson.
Aukot, J. T. (2017). Students Participation in Decsion making and its Implcation
in Secondary Schools Discipline in Turkana East Sub-County, Turkana
County, Kenya. University of Nairobi.
Babbie, E. (2005). The basics of social research (3rd ed.). London: Sage
publication.
Backman, E., & Trafford, B. (2006). Democratic Governance of Schools.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Baginsky, M., & Hannam, D. (1999). School Councils: The views of parents and
teachers. NSPCC Policy and Research Series. London: NSPCC.
Bahou, L. (2011). Rethinking the Challenges and Possibilities of Student Voice
and Agency. Educate(Special Issue), 2-14.
Bakhda, S. (2004). Management and Evaluation of Schools. Nairobi: Oxford
University Press, East Africa Ltd.
Borden, R. (2004). Taking School design to students. Washington D. C: National
institute of building science.
Brasof, M. (2011). Student input improves behavior, fosters leadership. Phi Delta
Kappan, 93(2), 20-24.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford
University press.
Carr, I. A. (2005). From policy to praxis: A Study of the Implementation of
Representative Councils of Learners in the Western Cape, from 1997 to
2003. PhD, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town.
206
Centre, N. C. R. (2017). Rapid Assessment of Arsons in Secondary Schools in
Kenya - July-August, 2016 Nairobi.
Charles, C. M. (1996). Building classroom discipline (5th ed.). United States of
America: Longman publishers.
Chemutai, L., & Chumba, S., K. (2014). Student Councils Participation in
Decision-making In Public Secondary Schools in Kericho West Sub
County, Kenya. International Journal of Advanced Research, 2(6), 850-
858.
Chopra, C. H. (2014). New Pathways for Partnerships: An exploration of how
partnering with students affects teachers and schooling. Doctor of
Philosophy, University of Washington.
Christie, D. (1998). Primary Education for PSD and citizenship. Paper presented at
the Gordon Cook Foundation Conference, Glasgow: University of
Strathclyde.
Cohen, L., Marion, L., & Marion, K. (2004). Research methods in education (5th
ed.). London: Routledgefalmer.
Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, Presence, and Power: „Student Voice‟ in
Educational Research and Reform. Curriculum Enquiry, 36(4), 359-390.
Critchley, S. (2003). The nature and extent of student involvement in educational
policy-making in Canadian school systems. Educatinal Management and
Administration, 311, 97 - 106.
Croninger, R. G., & Lee, V. E. (2001). Social capital and dropping out of school:
Benefits to at-risk students of teachers support and guidance. Teachers
College Record, 103(4), 548-581.
Czerniawski, G., Garlick, S., Hudson, T., & Peters, P. (2009). Listening to
Learners. London: Continuum.
Elstad, E., Lejonberg, E., & Christophersen, K.-A. (2017). Student evaluation of
high-school teaching: Which factors are associated with teachers‟
perception of the usefulness of being evaluated? Journal for Educational
Research Online Volume 9 (No. 1), 99–117.
Eshiwani, G. S. (1993). Education in Kenya since Independence. Nairobi:
Educational Research Publications.
Everard, K. B., Morris, G., & Wilson, I. (2004). Managing meetings, in Effective
School Management (4th ed.). London: Paul Chapman.
Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational
Change, 2, 123-141.
207
Fielding, M., & Rudduck, R. (2002, 12 - 14 September ). The transformative
potential of student voice: Confronting the power issues. Paper presented at
the Annual Conference of the Brirish Educational Research Association:
'Student Consultation, Communty and Democratic Tradition'.
Fletcher, A. (2005). Guide to students as partners in school change. Meaningful
student involvement Retrieved July 4th, 2016, from http//:www.Soundout.
org/MSIGuide.pdf
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2008). How to design and evaluate research in
Education. New York: The Mcgraw Companies Inc.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in
Education. New York: The Mcgraw Companies Inc.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate
research in education. New York: The Mcgraw Companies Inc.
Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational Research: Competencies for analysis and
application (5th ed.). London: Prentice-Hall international UK.
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational Research Competencies for
analysis and applications (7th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational Research
Competencies for analysis and applications (9th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Gikungu, J. M., & Karanja, B. W. (2014). An epistemic understanding of Strikes in
selected secondary schools, Kenya. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences, 5(5).
Gottfredson, D. (2001). School and Deliquency. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Government of Namibia. (1993). Users' guide to the education code of conduct.
Widhoek , Namibia.
Griebler, U., & Nowak, P. (2012). Student councils: a tool for health promoting
schools? Characteristics and effects. Health Education 112(2), 105-132.
Griffin, G. (1994). School mastery - Straight talk about boarding management in
Kenya. Nairobi: Lectern publication.
Hannam, D. (1998). Democratic processes in Education. Values Education for
Democracy and Citizenship. Paper presented at the Gordon Cook
Foundation Conference, University of the Strathclyde, Glasgow.
208
Hannam, D. (2001). A pilot study to evaluate the impact of student participation
aspects of the citizenship order on standards of education in secondary
schools.
Harber, C. (Ed.). (1995). Democratic Education and the International Agenda.
Derby: Education now Publishing Co-operative.
Hart, R. (1992). Children's Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship: UNICEF
International Child Development Center, Florence
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1982). Educational Administration; Theory research
and Practice (2nd ed.). New York: Random House, Inc.
Huddleston, T. (2007). From Student Voice to Shared Responsibility. Effective
practice in democratic school governance in European schools. London.
Juma, J. (2008). Violence in Kenyan schools spreading: Institute for Security.
Kagendo, D. A. (2009). Effectiveness of the Strategies used in Managing
Indiscipline in Secondary Schools, A Case of Maara District. M. Ed,
Kenyatta University, Nairobi.
Kanjoya, J. G. N. (1983). The role of student’s councils in primary Teacher
Training Colleges in Kenya. M.Ed, Kenyatta University, , Nairobi.
Karanja, S. (2012, July 9th). School girls boycott classes, demand shorter skirts,
Daily Nation.
Karuntimi, L. K., & Tarus, B. (2014). An Assessment of the Performance
Evaluation System Used to Evaluate Teachers in Secondary Schools in
Meru Central District-Kenya. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary
Studies, Vol 3 No 6 (2281-3993). doi: 10.5901/ajis.2014.v3n6p199.
Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. (2000). Engaging the Children Minds; The Project
Approach (2nd ed.). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
National School Health Policy, Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation and
Ministry of Education, Kenya. (2009).
Keogh, A. F., & White, J. A. (2005). Research Report by the Children Research
Centre on behalf of the National Children‟s Office. Second Level Student
Council in Ireland: A Study of Enablers, Barriers and Supports. Dublin:
Trinity College.
Kilonzo, D. K. (2017). Influence of Student Councils' Involvement in School
Governance on Studnet District in Public Secondary Schools in
Kathonzweni Sub-County, Kenya. Master of Education, University of
Nairobi.
209
King‟oriah, G. K. (2004). Fundamentals of Applied Statistics. Nairobi: The Jomo
Kenyatta Foundation.
Kinyanjui, K. (Ed.). (1975). Secondary school strikes: The art of blaming the
victim: IDS, University of Nairobi.
Kiprop, C. J. (2012). Approaches to Management of Discipline in Secondary
Schools in Kenya. International Journal of Research in Management, 2(2).
Kombo, D. K. (1998). Correlates of Students’ Deviant Behaviour in Selected
Secondary Schools in Nairobi. Kenyatta University, Nairobi.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research
Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
KSSHA. (2014). The Annual National Secondary School Student Leaders
Conference. Paper presented at the The 6th Annual National Secondary
School Student Leaders Conference, Bomas of Kenya.
Lansdown, G. (2001). Promoting Children‟s participation in Democratic Decision-
Making. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
Lodge, C. (2005). From hearing voices to engaging in dialogue: Problematizing
Student participation in school improvement. Journal of Educational
Change, 6, 125-146.
Lundy, L. (2007). „Voice‟ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational
Research Journal, 33(6), 927-942.
Mabovula, N. (2009). Giving voice to the voiceless through deliberative
democratic school governance. South African Journal of Education, 29,
219-233.
Machogu, F. O. (2012). Influence of prefects administrative role on students
discipline in public secondary schools in Masaba south district, Kenya.
M.Ed, University of Nairobi, Nairobi.
Mager, U., & Nowak, P. (2010). Effect of Students participation in School and
class-related decision-making - Evidence from a systematic review. Paper
presented at the The 20th IUHPE World Conference on health promotion,
Geneva, Switzerland.
Malenya, F. L. (2014). The Phenomenon of Student Violence in the Context of
Student Unrest in Kenyan Secondary Schools. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis,
Kenyatta University.
210
Manefield, J., Collins, R., Moore, J., Mahar, S., & Warne. (2007). Student Voice: A
Historical Perspective and New Directions. (Paper No. 10). Department of
Education, Melbourne.
Marachi, R., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2007). Effects of Students
Participation and Teacher Support on Victimization in Israeli Schools: An
Examination of Gender, Culture, and School type. Journal Youth
Adolescence, 36(2), 225-240.
Mati, A., Gatumu, J. C., & Chandi, J. R. (2016). Students' Involvement in Decision
Making and their Academic Performance in Embu West Sub-County of
Kenya. . Universal Journal of Educational Research 4(10), 2294-2298.
Mbiti, D. M. (1974). Foundation of school administration. Nairobi: Oxford
University Press.
Mokaya, J. O., Thinguri, R. W., & Mosiori, E. M. (2015). A Critical Analysis of
Acts of Student Indiscipline and Management Strategies Employed by
School Authorities in Public High Schools in Kenya. International Journal
of Education and Research Vol. 3 (12).
Mugali, J. G. (2005). The Prefect Systems in Secondary School Administration. A
case study of Kajiado District in Kenya. M.Ed Thesis, Kenyatta University.
Muindi, B., & Mwai, P. (2008, July 15). Reduce number of boarding schools:
Parents., Daily Nation.
Mukiti, M. T. (2014). Role of student council in secondary schools management in
Mwingi Central District, Kitui County, Kenya. M.Ed. Research Project,
Kenyatta University, Nairobi.
Mukula, S. M. (2005). Factors Influencing School Strikes in Central Division-
Machakos District. M.Ed. Research Project, Kenyatta University.
Mulwa, D. M., Kimosop, M. K., & Kasivu, G. M. (2015). Participatory
Governance in Secondary Schools: The Students‟ Viewpoint in Eastern
Region of Kenya. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(30).
Mutuku, E. M. (2011). Roles of Board of Governors in the Management of
Secondary Schools in Kasikeu Division, Nzaui District, Kenya. MEd.
Project, Kenyatta University
Mwangi. (1985). Causes of students strikes in kiambugi secondary school in
Murang'a district. M. Ed Research Project, Kenyatta University.
Nayak, K. C. (2011). School Organization and Administration. New Delhi:
Saurabh Publishing House.
211
Ndaita, J. S. (2016). The Nature and Causes of Indiscipline Cases among Public
Secondary School Students in Thika Sub-County, Kiambu County, Kenya.
British Journal of Education, 4(7), 55-66.
Ngare, P. (2008, July 14). Teachers sound alarm over violent strikes, Daily Nation.
Ngwokabuenui, P. Y. (2015). Students‟ Indiscipline: Types, Causes and Possible
Solutions: The Case of Secondary Schools in Cameroon. Journal of
Education and Practice, Vol.6 (No.22).
Njoroge, P. M., & Nyabuto, A. D. (2014). Discipline as Factor in Academic
performance in Kenya. Journal of Educational and Social Research.
Njue, N. K. (2011). Influence of prefects on maintenance of students' discipline in
public secondary schools in Gatundu North District, Kenya. M. Ed Thesis,
University of Nairobi.
Njue, N. K. (2014). Prefects as a Link between the Students and the Administration
in the Upholding of the Discipline in Public Secondary Schools in Gatundu
North District in Kenya. Online Journal of Social Sciences Research, 3(5),
94-101.
Nwankwo, I. N. (2014). Students‟ Participation in Decision Making and its
Implications for Educational Leadership. Journal of Emerging Trends in
Educational Research and Policy Studies (JETERAPS) 5(3): 362-367
Odhiambo, G. O. (2005). Teachers Appraisal: "The experiences of Kenyan
Secondary school Teachers". Journal of Educational Administration, 43(4),
402 - 416.
Okumbe, J. A. (1998). Education Management: Theory and Practice. Nairobi:
Nairobi University Press.
Okumu, M. A. (2014). An Investigation of Factors Influencing Indiscipline Among
Students in Public Day Secondary Schools in Makadara District, Nairobi
County. MEd., Kenyatta University.
Ong'injo, V. K. (2014). Influence of Students’ Participation in School Management
on Academic Performance in Public Secondary Schools in Kadibo
Division, Kisumu County, Kenya. Masters of Arts Degree, University of
Nairobi.
Orodho, J. A. (2005a). Elements of education and social science research methods.
Nairobi: Masola publishers.
Orodho, J. A. (2005b). Techniques of writing Research Proposals and Reports in
education and Social Sciences (2nd ed.). Nairobi: Kanezja HP enterprises.
212
Owen, R. G., & Valesky, T. C. (2011). Organizational Behaviour in Education:
Leadership and School Reform (10th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Owida, O. (2012). Boy Commits Suicide after a row over Classes, Daily Nation.
Papalia, D. E., Feldman, R., & Olds, S. W. (2006). A Child’s World: Infancy
through adolescence. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Pérez-Expósito, L. (2015). Scope and quality of student participation in school:
towards an analytical framework for adolescents, , 20:3, 346-374, DOI:
10.1080/02673843.2015.1009920 International Journal of Adolescence
and Youth, 20(3), 346-374. doi: 10.1080/02673843.2015.1009920
Rapid Assessment of Arsons in Secondary Schools in Kenya - July-August.
(2017). Nairobi: National Crime Research Centre
Republic of Kenya. (1999). Report of the Task Force on Totally Integrated Quality
Education and Training (TIQET) (pp. 228). Nairobi.
Republic of Kenya, (2001a). The Children‟s Act (2001).
Republic of Kenya. (2001b). Report of the Task force on student discipline and
unrest in secondary schools. Nairobi: Ministry of Education, Science and
Technology.
Republic of Kenya. (2012a). Sessional Paper No: 14. (2012) on Reforming
Education and Training Sectors in Kenya.
Republic of Kenya. (2012b). Task Force on Re-alignment of Education Sector to
the Constitution of Kenya 2010: Towards a Globally Competitive Quality
Education for Sustainable Development. Nairobi.
Republic of Kenya. (2013). Basic Education Act, No. 14 of 2013. Nairobi:
Government Printer
Teachers Service Commission (Code of Conduct and Ethics for Teachers)
Regulations (2015).
Rudd, T., Colligan, F., & Naik, R. (2007). Learner Voice: A Handbook. . Bristol:
Futurelab.
Ruddock, J., & Flutter, J. (2004). How to improve your School: Giving Pupil
avoice. London: Continuum.
Rudduck, R., & Flutter, J. (2000). Pupil Participation and Perspectives: 'Carving a
new order of experience'. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(1), 75-89.
Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
213
Samoei, W. K. (2012). The Role of Guidance and Counselling in Management of
Student Discipline in Secondary Schools in Londiani District, Kericho
County, Kenya. M.Ed Project Report, Kenyatta University.
Shatilova, I. (2014). How Students’ Voice Can Be Heard in the Finnish Context:
The Case of Primary, Lower Secondary and Upper Secondary Schools in
Jyväskylä. M.Ed, University of Jyvaskyla.
Shaughnessy, J. J., Zechmeister, E. B., & Zechmeister, J. S. (2003). Research
Methods in Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Shumba, J., Maphosa, C., & Shumba, A. (2008). Curriculum Decision-making
Decentralization Policy in Zimbabwe; how involved are students in
deciding curriculum content? Africa Education Review Journal, 5(1), 48-
69.
Simatwa, E. M. W. (2012). Management of Student Discipline in Secondary
Schools in Kenya, a case study of Bungoma County. International
Research Journals, 3(2), 172-189.
Simatwa, E. M. W., Odhong, S. O., Juma, S. L. A., & Choka, G. M. (2014).
Substance Abuse among Public Secondary School Students: Prevalence,
Strategies and Challenges for Public Secondary School Managers in Kenya:
A Case Study of Kisumu East Sub County International Research
Journals 5(8), 315-330.
Simovska, V. (2004). Student participation: a democratic education perspective
experience from the health-promoting schools in Macedonia. Health
education research. Theory and Practice 19 (2), 198-207.
Smith, B. P., & Thomas, N. (2009). A Hand book of Children and Young People's
Participation: Perspective from Theory to Practice. New York: Tailor and
Francis-e Library.
Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1973). How to Choose a Leadership Pattern.
Harvard Business Review.
Tikoko, B. J., Kiprop, C., & Bomett, E. (2011). The nature of student participation
in decision-making in secondary schools in Kenya. International Journal of
Current Research, Vol.3(10), 186-193.
Tikoko, B. J., & Kiprop, C. J. (2011). Extent of Student Participation in Decision-
making in Secondary Schools in Kenya. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science. International Journal of Humanities and
Social Sciences, 1(21).
Tisdall, K. (2007). School Councils and Pupil Participation in Scottish Secondary
Schools. Glasgow: The Scottish Consumer Council.
214
Torres, R. M. (2000). One Decade of Education for All: The Challenge Ahead.
UNICEF. (2007). A Human Rights-Based Approach to Education for All: A
framework for the realization of children’s right to education and rights
within education. New York.
United Nations Human Rights. (1989).Convention on the Rights of the Child. Pdf.
Retrieved on 17th
September 2018.
CESCR General Comment No. 13: The right to education (art. 13 of the Covenant)
(1999).
United Nations. (2009). Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment
NO. 12: The right of the child to be heard. Geneva: United Nations.
Voelkl, K. E. (1995). School warmth, student participation and Achievement.
Journal of Exp. Education, 63(2), 127-138.
Walker, L., & Logan, A. (2008). Leaner Engagement: A Review of Learners Voice
Initiative across the UK‟s Education Sectors Retrieved 6th Aug, 2016 from
https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/FUTL80/FUTL80.pdf
Wango, G. (2009). School Administration and Management: Quality Assurance
and Standards. Nairobi: The Jomo Kenyatta Foundation.
Wetangula, D., & Ngirachu, J. (2008, July 21). Brave boy sacrifices his life in an
inferno for the sake of colleagues, Daily Nation.
Whitty, G., & Wisby, E. (2007). Whose voice? An exploration of the current
policy interest in pupil involvement in school decision-making.
International Studies in Sociology of Education, 17(3), 303 - 319.
Wilson, L. (2009). Pupil Participation: Comments from a Case Study. Health
education research. Theory and Practice, 109(1), 86-102.
215
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
Decision-making Questionnaire for Head Teachers and Teachers
The purpose of this questionnaire is to solicit information relating to the student
participation in decision-making in secondary school and student discipline. It is
hoped that the findings of the study will help improve student participation in
decision-making in schools and enhance students‟ discipline.
Instructions
The researcher kindly request you to respond to the questions asked. You are
assured that the responses you give will be treated as confidential and will be used
for the research purposes only. You are reminded not to indicate your name
anywhere in this questionnaire. Please respond to all the questions by ticking (√) in
the spaces provided and briefly writing in the spaces provided appropriately.
SECTION A: Background information of the respondent (Tick where
necessary)
1. Gender: Male ( ) Female ( )
2. Age: 30 yrs. and below ( ) 31-40 yrs. ( )
41-50 yrs. ( ) 51 yrs. & above ( )
3. Qualification: Diploma in Education
B. Ed ( ) B. Sc. ( ) M. Ed ( )
Any other
4. Teaching experience:
5yrs. and Below ( ) 6-10yrs ( ) 11-15yrs. ( )
16-20 yrs. ( ) 21-30yrs. ( ) Over30yrs. ( )
5. Position: Head Teacher ( ) Teacher ( )
216
6. County: Tharaka-Nithi ( ) Nairobi ( )
7. Type of School:
Girls Boarding ( ) Boys Boarding ( )
Mixed Boarding ( ) Mixed Day and Boarding ( )
Mixed Day ( )
8. Current Student Population:
SECTION B: Student Discipline, Extent of Student participation and
Influence of Student Participation on Discipline
9. What are the types of students‟ indiscipline cases commonly experienced in
this school? Tick Yes or No.
Students Indiscipline Yes No
Students unrests/Strikes
Demonstration
Drugs and substance abuse
Theft
Fighting
Absenteeism
Lateness
Sneaking out of school compound
Failure to do cleaning duties
Sexual harassment
Specify any other
10. How would you rate the students‟ discipline of this school
Very good ( ) Good ( )
Average ( ) Poor ( )
Very poor ( )
Briefly explain your answer
217
11. How often have you experienced students‟ unrest or strike in your school in the
last three years?
None ( ) Once ( ) Twice ( )
Three ( ) More than three ( )
12. Students in this school participate in making decisions concerning the
following areas. Tick Yes or No.
Decision-making Area YES NO
School budget
School fees
Drawing school hour programme
Planning and development physical facilities
Discipline of staff
Interview of staff
Nature of punishments
Formulation of school rules
Election/Selection of their leaders
School diet
School uniform
Sports
Students discipline
Clubs
Entertainment
Number of internal Examination
Setting achievement targets
Grading system
Appraising the teachers
Setting academic targets
Nature of assignment
Subject option/selection
Specify any other:
218
13. a) Student leadership in this school is inform of:
Student councils ( )
Prefects ( )
b) When was the student council system of leadership embraced in this
school?
c) What preparations were done before implementing the student‟ councils?
d) Are there any changes in student discipline since the inception of student
councils? Yes ( ) No ( )
Briefly explain the changes
14. a) Are students represented in the following Board of Management (BOM),
Parents‟ Association (PA) and staff meetings?
i) BOM Yes ( ) No ( )
ii) PA Yes ( ) No ( )
iii) Staff meetings Yes ( ) No ( )
b) If the answer is yes, does this involvement influence students discipline in
any way?
Briefly explain:-
c) If the answer is No, give reasons why the students are not represented.
219
15. a) What is the extent of students‟ participation in decision-making in your
school in the following areas? Tick any one of the numbers 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 that
best represents your opinion about the extent of participation in decision-
making. The numbers of are weighted as follows: (5-Extensive participation)
(4-High participation) (3-Moderate participation) (2-Low participation)
(1-No participation).
Specific areas of decision-making 5 4 3 2 1
School budget
School fees
Drawing school programme
Planning and development physical facilities
Discipline of staff
Interview of staff
Nature of punishments
Formulation of school rules
Election/Selection of their leaders
School diet
School uniform
Sports
Students discipline
Clubs
Entertainment
Number of internal Examination
Setting achievement targets
Grading system
Appraising the teachers
Setting academic targets
Nature of assignment
Subject option/selection
b) Please specify any other area and give reasons
220
c) What is your expectation concerning student participation in decision-
making in school
16. Indicate the degree to which students‟ participation in decision-making in the
following areas influence their discipline positively. Tick any one of the
numbers 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 that best represents your opinion. The numbers are
weighted as follows: (5-Extreme high influence) (4-High influence)
(3-Moderate Influence) (2-Low influence) (1-No influence).
Specific areas of decision-making 5 4 3 2 1
School budget
School fees
Drawing school programme
Planning and development physical facilities
Discipline of staff
Interview of staff
Nature of punishments given to students
Formulation of school rules
Election/Selection of their leaders
School diet
School uniform
Sports
Students discipline
Clubs
Entertainment
Number of internal Examination
Setting achievement targets
Grading system
Appraising the teachers
Setting academic targets
Nature of assignment
Subject option/selection
b) Please specify any other area and give reasons.
221
APPENDIX II
Decision-making Questionnaire for the Students
The purpose of this questionnaire is to solicit information relating to the student
participation in decision-making in Secondary school. It is hoped that the findings
of the study will help improve student participation in decision-making in
Secondary and enhance students‟ discipline.
Instructions
The researcher kindly request you to respond to the questions asked. You are
assured that the responses you give will be treated as confidential and will be used
for the research purposes only. You are reminded not to indicate your name
anywhere in this questionnaire. Please respond to all the questions by ticking (√) in
the spaces provided and briefly writing in the spaces provided appropriately.
1. Gender: Male ( ) Female ( )
2. Level: Form 1 ( ) Form 2 ( )
Form 3 ( ) Form 4 ( )
3. Type of School:
Girls‟ Boarding ( ) Boys‟ Boarding ( )
Mixed Boarding ( ) Mixed Day and Boarding ( )
Mixed Day ( ) Girls‟ Day ( ) Boys‟ Day ( )
222
4. What are the types of indiscipline cases commonly experienced in this school?
Tick Yes or No.
Students Indiscipline Yes No
Students unrests/Strikes
Demonstration
Drugs and substance abuse
Theft
Fighting
Absenteeism
Lateness
Sneaking out of school compound
Failure to do cleaning duties
Sexual harassment
Specify any other.
5. Has this school experienced student unrests or strikes in the last three years?
Yes ( ) No ( )
6. How would you rate students‟ discipline in your school?
Very good ( ) Good ( ) Fair ( )
Poor ( ) Very poor ( )
7. How often have you experienced students‟ unrest in the last three years?
None ( ) Once ( ) Twice ( )
Three ( ) More than three ( )
223
8. In this school, students participate in decision-making in the following areas.
Tick yes or No.
Decision-making Area YES NO
School budget
School fees
Drawing school programme
Planning and development physical facilities
Discipline of staff
Interview of staff
Nature of punishments
Formulation of school rules
Election/Selection of their leaders
School diet
School uniform
Sports
Students discipline
Clubs
Entertainment
Number of internal Examination
Setting achievement targets
Grading system
Appraising the teachers
Setting academic targets
Nature of assignment
Subject option/selection
Specify any other:
224
9. a) Student leadership in this school is inform of:-
Student councils ( ) Prefects ( )
b) When was the student council system of leadership embraced in this school?
c) Are there any changes in student discipline since the inception of student
councils?
Yes ( ) No ( )
Briefly explain the changes
10. a) Are students represented in the following Board of management (BOM),
Parents‟ Association (PA) and staff meetings in this school?
i) BOM Yes ( ) No ( )
ii) PA Yes ( ) No ( )
iii) Staff meeting Yes ( ) No ( )
b) If the answer is yes, does this involvement influence students discipline
in any way?
Briefly explain:-
225
11. What is the extent of students‟ participation in decision-making in your school
in the following areas? Tick any one of the numbers 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 that best
represents your opinion about the actual participation. The numbers of the
actual participation scale are weighted as follows: (5-Extensive participation)
(4-High participation)(3-Moderate participation) (2-Low participation)
(1-No participation).
Specific areas of decision-making 5 4 3 2 1
School budget
School fees
Drawing school programme
Planning and development physical facilities
Discipline of staff
Interview of staff
Nature of punishments
Formulation of school rules
Election/Selection of their leaders
School diet
School uniform
Sports
Students discipline
Clubs
Entertainment
Number of internal Examination
Setting achievement targets
Grading system
Appraising the teachers
Setting academic targets
Nature of assignment
Subject option/selection
226
b) Please specify any other area and give reasons
c) What is your expectation concerning student participation in decision-making
in school
12. a) Indicate the degree to which student participation in decision-making in the
following areas influence their discipline positively. Tick any one of the
numbers 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 that best represents your opinion. The numbers are
weighted as follows:
(5-Extreme high influence) (4-High influence) (3-Moderate influence)
(2-Low influence) (1-No influence)
Specific areas of decision-making 5 4 3 2 1
School budget
School fees
Drawing school hour programme
Planning and development physical facilities
Discipline of staff
Interview of staff
Nature of punishments given to students
Formulation of school rules
Election/Selection of their leaders
School diet
School uniform
Sports
Students discipline
Clubs
Entertainment
Number of internal Examination
Setting achievement targets
Grading system
Appraising the teachers
Achievement of individual and class academic targets
Nature of assignments
Subject option/selection
b) Please specify any other area and give reasons
227
APPENDIX III
Decision-making Interview Guides for the SCDE
The purpose of this interview is to solicit information relating to the student
participation in decision-making in Secondary school. It is hoped that the findings
of the study will help improve student participation in decision-making in
Secondary and enhance students‟ discipline.
Gender: Male ( ) Female ( )
1. a). What is the state of discipline in the schools under your jurisdiction?
b). What are the common types of indiscipline experienced in secondary
schools?
c). Has any school in your area of jurisdiction experienced student
unrests/strikes in the last three years? If the answer is yes, How many?
What were the major causes of student unrest?
d). How would you rate the level of students‟ participation in making decisions
in those schools that had unrests/strikes?
2. What are the actual forms of students‟ participation in decision-making in
secondary schools in your jurisdiction?
a) In which form is the students‟ leadership? Student councils/ Prefects?
b) What are the expected forms of student participation?
3. Extent of students participation in decision-making in secondary schools
a) Which areas of decision-making are student involved in and to what extent?
b) Are students represented in BOM, PA and Staff meeting? Probe for reasons
228
4. Extent to which student participation in decision-making in secondary schools
influence student discipline
a) Does students‟ participation in BOM, PA and Staff meeting influence their
discipline? If yes, kindly explain the ways in which student discipline is
influenced.
b) Does student participation in making decisions in the following
management task areas have any influence on the students‟ discipline?
i) School finances and physical resources
ii) Staff personnel
iii) School curriculum
iv) Student personnel
5. What is your expectation concerning student participation in decision-making
in secondary school?
229
APPENDIX IV
Decision-making Interview Guides for the Parents
Section A: Personal Information
Gender: Male ( ) Female ( )
Class of your son/ daughter currently
1. What is the current state of discipline in this school? (Probe for reasons)
2. Has this school experienced student unrests/strikes in the last three years?
a) If the answer is yes, How many? What were the major causes of student
unrest?
b) How would you rate the extent of students‟ participation in making
decisions in this school?
3. To what extent are students involved in making decisions in secondary
schools?
a) Which areas of decision-making are student involved in and to what extent?
b) Are students represented in Board of Management (BOM), Parents‟
Association (PA) and Staff meeting? Probe for reasons
4. Does student participation in decision-making in secondary schools influence
student discipline? (Probe for reasons)
230
APPENDIX V
Decision-making Focus Group Discussion Guides for the Student
Leaders
The purpose of this FGD is to solicit information relating to the student
participation in decision-making in Secondary school.
1. What is the current state of discipline this school? (probe for reasons)
a) What are the common types of indiscipline cases experienced in this
school?
b) Has this school experienced student unrests/strikes in the last three years? If
yes, How many? What were the major causes of student unrest?
2. What are the actual forms of student participation in decision-making?
a) Which is the form of students‟ leadership? Student councils/ Prefects?
b) Who selected you to be student leader? How were you selected?
3. To what extent are students involved in making decisions in secondary
schools?
a) Which areas of decision-making are you involved in and to what extent?
b) Are other students who are not leaders involved in any decision-making in
school?
c) Are there areas of decision-making that you are not involved in and would
like to be involved?
d) Are students represented in BOM, PA and Staff meeting? Who represent
them? Probe for reasons.
231
4. To what extent does student participation in decision-making in secondary
schools influence student discipline?
a) How does students‟ participation in BOM, PA and Staff meeting influence
their discipline? Probe for reasons.
b) Does student participation in decision-making in the following management
task areas have any influence on discipline?
i) School finances and physical resources
ii) Staff personnel
iii) School curriculum
iv) Student personnel
232
APPENDIX VI
Consent Form for Participation in a Research Study
Description of the research and your participation
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Dinah Kagendo
Alexander from Kenyatta University. The purpose of this study is to solicit
information relating to the student participation in decision-making in Secondary
school and its influence on student discipline. It is hoped that the findings of the
study will help improve student participation in decision-making in Secondary and
enhance students‟ discipline.
You are assured that the responses you give will be treated as confidential and will
be used for the research purposes only. Your identity will not be revealed in any
publication resulting from this study. Your participation in this research study is
voluntary. You may choose not to participate and you may withdraw your consent
to participate at any time. You will not be penalized in any way should you decide
not to participate or to withdraw from this study. There are no anticipated risks to
your participation.
Consent
I have read and have been explained this consent form and given the
opportunity to ask questions. I give my consent to participate in this study.
Participant‟s Name
Signature Date:
A copy of this consent form should be given to you.
233
APPENDIX VII
Introduction Letter
Kagendo Dinah Alexander,
Department of Education Management,
Policy and Curriculum Studies,
Box 43844-0100
Nairobi.
To
I am a post graduate student in the Department of Education Management, Policy
and Curriculum studies in Kenyatta University. I am carrying out a study on
Student Participation in Decision-making in Secondary Schools and its Influence
on Student-discipline in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi City Counties.
The purpose of this study was to determine the extent of student participation in
decision-making in secondary school management with a view to determining its
influence on student discipline in Tharaka-Nithi and Nairobi City counties. I will
be grateful if you answer all the questions in the questionnaires. Your responses
will be treated with utmost confidentiality. Kindly, complete all the sections in the
questionnaire and do not indicate your name anywhere in the questionnaire.
Thank you,
Yours Faithfully
Kagendo Dinah (Researcher).
234
APPENDIX VIII
Research Authorization from Kenyatta University
235
APPENDIX IX
Research Authorization from NACOSTI
236
APPENDIX X
Research Permit
237
APPENDIX XI
Work Plan
SEPT 2013-DEC 2017
Activity Duration in months
Sept-
Dec
2013
Jan-
April 2014
May-
July
2014
Aug-
Sept.
2014
Oct. 201
4
Nov-
Dec 2014
Jan-
Feb 2015
Mar- Dec 2015
Jan- Dec 2016
Sept-
Dec 2017-
Jan-
Sept.
2018
Dec. 2018
Concept paper presentation
Development of the proposal
Draft proposal Refinement
Draft proposal Refinement
Defence of the proposal
Corrections refinement of proposal
Send proposal to overseer
-Apply for the Research permit
from the NACOSTI, Train the
research assistants.
Piloting, Data Collection&
analysis, writing of first thesis draft
Refinement of the Thesis
Thesis Submission for examination
Defence of Thesis and
refinement
Graduate
238
APPENDIX XII
Operational Budget
Item Cost in KShs
1 Proposal development
- Literature review including internet time
- typing and printing 75 pages @ KShs 30
- photocopying 4x84 @ KShs 2
- Binding of proposal 5 copies @ KShs. 70
30,000
2250
672
350
2 Production of research instruments
-Typing 20 pages @ KSh30 each
-Photocopying 3162 pages @ KShs 2
-Pilot study
600
6,324
30,000
3 Data collection
Transport and subsistence
Fuel for the car for 60 days @1500/= per day
Meals during field work @ 1000 per day for 60 days
Boarding for 60 days @ KShs. 1000 per day
90,000
60,000
60,000
4 Hire of research assistant 50,000
5 Data analysis 30,000
6 Preparation of Thesis report
-Typing and printing first 100 pages @ KShs. 30
-second draft 100 pages @ KShs. 25
- third draft 100 pages @ KShs. 25
-.fouth draft 200 pages
3,000
2,500
2,500
5,000
7 Production and Submission 5x100 copies @ KShs. 25 12,500
8 Binding of 4 copies of thesis @ KShs. 500 2,000
9 Preparation of final copies of project report 2,780
-photocopying 6 copies @ Kshs. 556 3,336
1 Incidental costs 50,000
Grand Total 443,812
