FACULTY OF EDUCATION - University Of Nigeria Nsukka Martina Ngozika.pdf · According to Mgbodile ... In his own definition, Ogbonna (2005) ... Ahmed (2003) also identified lack of

1

1

Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name

DN : CN = Webmaster’s name

O = University of Nigeria, Nsukka

OU = Innovation Centre

Ugwoke Oluchi C.

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS

CONSTRAINTS TO EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION OF

PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN OBOLLO-AFOR EDUCATION

OHAGWU, MARTINA NGOZIKA

PG/ME.D/11/58840

i

i


PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN OBOLLO-AFOR EDUCATION ZONE

OF ENUGU STATE.

BY


PG/ME.D/11/58840



UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

APRIL, 2014.

ii

ii

TITLE PAGE


PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN OBOLLO-AFOR EDUCATION ZONE OF

ENUGU STATE

A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA IN

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE

AWARD OF MASTER DEGREE (M.ED) IN CHILDHOOD

EDUCATION.

BY


PG/ME.D/11/58840



UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, NSUKKA

SUPERVISOR: DR. MRS. J.O. CHUKWU

APRIL, 2014.

iii

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page i

Table of Contents ii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

Background of the Study 1

Statement of the Problem 8

Purpose of the Study 9

Significance of the Study 10

Scope of the Study 12

Research Questions 12

Hypotheses 13

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 14

Conceptual Framework 15

Concept of Administration and Educational Administration 15

Concept of Constraints 19

Concept of Primary Education 25

Concept of Effectiveness 27

Concept of Infrastructural Facilities 28

Concept of Supervision 29

Theoretical Framework 33

Human Relations Theory by P. Follet (1933) 33

The Behavioural Science Theory by Chester Barnard (1938) 35

Review of Empirical Studies 37

iv

iv

Summary of Review of Literature 43 [

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHOD 45

Design of the Study 45

Area of the study 45

Population of the study 46

Sample and Sampling Technique 46

Instrument for Data Collection 47

Validation of the Instrument 47

Reliability of the Instrument 48

Method of Data Collection 48

Method of Data Analysis 49

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 50

Summary of Findings 64

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS,

RECOMMENDATIONS, CONCLUSION, SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR

FURTHER STUDIES 67

Discussion of Findings 67

Educational Implications 72

Recommendations 73

Conclusion 73

Suggestions for Further Studies 74

Summary of the Study 75

v

v

REFERENCES 77

Appendices 82

Questionnaire 82

Computation of Reliability Test 89

List of Primary Schools 98

vi

vi

1

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Education is regarded as a veritable instrument for human and social

development. It is not just only an investment on human capital but also a

pre-requisite as well as a correlate for effective life in a society (Edem,

2007). Adepoju & Fabiyi (2007) describe education as a social process in

capacity building and maintenance of society for decades, as well as a

weapon for acquiring skills, relevant knowledge and habits for surviving in

the changing world. Also, Adesina (2011) described education as a force in

economic, intellectual, social and cultural empowerment. He goes on to say

that education has the capacity to bring about character and attitudinal

change, as well as reshape human potential for desired development. This

implies that education is very vital in Nigeria as in other nations from

primary to tertiary institutions.

Primary education is an essential level of education in the Nigerian

education system. The Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN, 2004) described

primary education as the education which children receive at the age of 6-

11years. It is the foundation level of the educational system which runs for

1

2

2

six years and it is aimed at developing basic literacy, numeracy,

communication skills and transmission of the culture of the people to

younger generations. According to Ogbonna (2008), primary education is

the basic level that lays the foundation for educational progress and

development of an individual in the society. As a result, it pre-supposes that

effective and efficient provision of the necessary conditions for proper

teaching and learning be put in place. Such provisions, Ogbonna further

stressed that apart from quality staff and facilities should include conducive

learning environment that guarantees proper administration of primary

schools in the country.

In the Nigerian education system, the head-teacher is the chief

executive of primary schools appointed by states’ Ministries of Education to

oversee the affairs of the day-to-day administration of such schools

(Ogbonnaya, 2004). The head-teacher as administrative head is also a

professional leader. He plans, organizes, directs and coordinates all the

affairs of staff and pupils. The head-teacher is assisted by an assistant head-

teacher in daily school administration while also ensuring that teachers carry

out their instructional delivery at the classroom levels effectively. Nwankwo

3

3

(2005) stated that school supervisory roles in matters of extra curricular

activities, staff and pupils discipline are under their areas of authority.

On the other hand, Nwangwu (2002) explained that Local

Government Education Authority (LGEA) staff also contribute immensely

in the affairs of primary school administration. Local Government Education

Authorities came into existence through Decree 3 of 1991 to manage and

fund primary education in each local government area of the country,

(Nwosu, 2005). Nwosu further stated that, the Decree empowers Local

Government Education Authorities to recruit teachers and non-teaching staff

on grade levels 01-06 into the teaching service in their areas of jurisdiction

as well as payment of their salaries and allowances, submission of accounts

and monthly returns to the state Primary Schools Board, now State Universal

Basic Education Board (SUBEB), raise vouchers for the payment of staff

salaries and allowances, acquisition and distribution of materials and

equipment to all primary schools, undertaking general maintenance of

school buildings and infrastructure and stimulating, promoting and

encouraging community participation in their areas of jurisdiction. The body

helps to interpret government policy, keep primary school teachers

confidential report as well as record of service and pay teachers their salaries

4

4

and allowances among others. All these are in an attempt to ensure effective

running and administration of primary education.

The significance of primary education is also located in the United

Nations Millennium Development Goals declaration – an achievement of

universal access to education by 2015 (Adepoju and Fabiyi 2007). Quadri

(2001) presents the following as the objectives of primary education in

Nigeria: to help the child to develop intellectually, physically, morally,

socially and emotionally; to produce well-qualified citizens that are capable

of going to secondary and tertiary institutions to be trained as professionals

in various services that are essential for the development of the country; and

to assist primary school learners who cannot further their education to

become useful citizens to themselves and community at large.

Nigeria, like other countries of the world, acknowledges that

education is a vital tool for achieving national development. Nwankwo

(2002) observed that education is viewed by all counties of the worlds as a

corner stone for development. It is the basis for acquiring literacy skills,

technological advancement and the ability to harness the natural resources of

the environment. According to Mgbodile (2004), the success of any system

5

5

of education depends on proper planning, funding as well as effective and

efficient administration.

Administration is defined as the process of organizing, directing,

staffing, reviewing as well as coordinating human and material resources

towards the achievement of set goals (Etuk, 2007). Olumide (2001) defined

administration as effective planning and organizing of human and material

resources towards the realization of a stated objective. In his own definition,

Ogbonna (2005) defines administration as the totality of a process which

entails the utilization of human, financial and material resources in

maximizing the realization of goals and objectives. The above implies that

administration involves effective planning, organizing and coordinating of

resources for goal achievement. As applied in this study, administration is

defined as effective planning and coordinating of human and material

resources to ensure smooth running of primary schools.

Effective administration of schools can only be achieved when there

are competent administrators and standard like well trained educators,

adequate infrastructural facilities, adequate funds and other instructional

materials. Ahmed (2003) also identified lack of trained teachers as well as

their poor teaching methods as some of the problems affecting primary

6

6

school administration. Nwangwu (2002) explained that many school head-

teachers lack administrative skills in organizing, planning, coordinating

which help to render ineffective primary education and administration.

Nwangwu further stressed that some of the head-teachers find it difficult to

involve the host communities in the administration of primary schools due to

their poor public relations skills.

The school community relationship is a very important aspect of

school management. The headmaster must endeavour to foster effective

school community relationship as this will be to the benefit of the school.

The school belongs to the community and is situated in the community. It

derives a lot of benefits and support from the community such as the

provision of land for building, the supply of pupils, financial support,

donations including donation of books and other materials. School-

community relationship is an indispensable component of effective

administration in the primary school.

The head-teachers should endeavour to involve the community in the

activities of the school through regular interaction with the P.T.A, giving

information to the parents about the performance of their children, providing

meals for the children and providing material and monetary resources to the

7

7

school. The communities should also cooperate with the head-teachers by

providing other special services such as partnership, networking and

leakages (Alimode and Usom, 2012). However, when the cordial

relationship between the management of the school and the host community

does not exist, it could hamper the smooth administration of the school.

Many primary school authorities lack supervisory skills and find it

difficult to effectively control the staff under them (Ogbonnaya, 2000).

Consequently, extra curriculum activities, maintenance of discipline of both

staff and pupils impact negatively in the administration of primary schools.

Ogbonnaya further posited that LGEA staff through which most

communities participate in the affairs of primary schools show lukewarm

attitude towards primary school administration. The result, he stressed, is

increase in the gap between the primary school heads and community

relations which obviously constitute constraints to effective primary school

administration.

Constraint represents a factor that impedes achievement of goals.

Anyim (2004) defines constraints as major hindrances to effective

achievement of set goals. This implies that constraint is a stumbling block or

an impediment to progress and development. As applied in this study,

8

8

constraints refer to human and material factors that affect effective

administration of primary schools in Obollo-Afor Education Zone of Enugu

State. These constraints may range from lack of qualified and dedicated

teachers insufficient funding to maintain schools and paying teacher’s

salaries, and interference by parents, lack of accommodation for pupils,

indiscipline on the part of teachers and pupils and uncooperative attitude of

LGEA staff (Nwankwo, 2002).

A cursory look at the state of some of the primary schools in the

Education Zone reveals decay in infrastructural facilities and equipment.

Many schools are not equipped with adequate material and human resources.

In some of the schools, the existing facilities and equipment are in

deplorable conditions including dilapidated school buildings. One may

consider the whole system as disturbing. All these affect smooth running of

primary schools. How far the above problems exist and the effective

administration of primary schools in Obollo-Afor Education Zone is the

focus of this study.

9

9

Statement of the Problem

Primary education has been acknowledged as the bedrock and

foundation level of the Nigerian education system. Government, at all levels,

provides basic infrastructures and training for the realization of education

goals of primary education. Unfortunately, this level of education is faced

with a number of administrative constraints in Obollo-Afor Education Zone.

The area is challenged by constant lack of educational amenities as well as

overpopulation of pupils. There is also lack of capable head-teachers,

qualified teaching staff as well as the uncooperative attitudes of the staff of

Local Government Education Authority. All these constitute hindrances to

effective primary school administration in the area.

Against this backdrop, it becomes imperative to carry out an

investigation into what could constitute the constraints to effective

administration of primary schools in the area of the study. This therefore,

makes the current study by the researcher inevitable.

Purpose of the Study

10

10

The main purpose of the study was to determine the constraints to

effective administration of primary schools in Obollo- Afor Education Zone

of Enugu State. Specifically, the study intended to:

1. Determine the extent head-teachers and LGEA staff carried out their

administrative roles in primary schools.

2. Determine the extent financial constraints affected effective

administration of primary schools

3. Determine the extent infrastructural facilities affected effective

administration of primary schools

4. Find out the personnel constraints to effective administration of

primary schools.

5. Find out the extent to which head-teachers relate with the community

for effective administration of primary schools.

Significance of the Study

The findings of the study have both theoretical and practical

significance. Theoretically, the study is anchored on the behavioural science

theory. This theory advocates conducive environment for learning as well as

effective administration in schools. Practically, the findings of the study

11

11

would be beneficial to policy makers, head-teachers, pupils, teachers,

researchers and the society.

The findings would provide policy makers with information that

would guide the formulation of appropriate policies for smooth

administrations of primary schools in the state. It would also raise the

awareness of the policy makers to the constraints facing effective primary

schools administration in the area.

The findings would lead to proper supply of infrastructural facilities

and funding that could help the Head-teachers and LGEA staff to carry out

effective primary school administration. The findings would lead to training

of the school heads and LGEA staff through seminars and conferences to

update their administrative skills for better school organization and

management required for effective teaching and learning in primary schools.

Better equipped schools would promote academic achievement of the

pupils in primary schools. It would help the pupils to enjoy conducive

teaching and learning environment. Adequate provision of facilities and

other instructional materials would help in promoting teacher effectiveness

12

12

for better service delivery. The findings would lead to training and retraining

of teachers needed for their improved methods of teaching skills in schools.

The findings of the study would be beneficial to other researchers

interested in carrying out studies in areas related to this work. It would

provide researchers with not only literature but good empirical framework in

the related field of study.

The findings would benefit the entire society as better administered

and well equipped primary schools would lay a good foundation for the

education progress of the children in schools. It would also lead to better

quality education to the individuals in the society which is the dream of any

nation.

Scope of the Study

The study was delimited to the constraints to effective administration

of primary schools in Obollo-Afor Education Zone of Enugu State. It also

covered the extent head-teachers and LGEA staff carried out their

13

13

administrative roles, the extent financial constraints, the extent

infrastructural facilities, personnel constraints affected effective

administration of primary schools and the extent to which the head-teachers

relate with the community for effective primary school administration in the

zone.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided the study.

1. To what extent do head-teachers and LGEA staff carry out their

administrative roles in primary schools?

2. To what extent do financial constraints affect effective administration

of primary schools?

3. To what extent do infrastructural facilities affect effective

administration of primary schools?

4. What are the personnel constraints to effective administration of

primary schools?

5. To what extent do the head-teachers relate with the community for

effective administration of primary shcool?

14

14

Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were formulated for the study and will

be tested at 0.05 level of significance.

Ho1: There is no significant difference in the mean ratings of head-

teachers and LGEA staff with regard to financial constraints to

effective administration of primary schools.


teachers and LGEA staff with regard to personnel constraints to



teachers and LGEA staff with regards to infrastructural constraints

to effective administration of primary schools.


teachers and LGEA staff with regards to the extent to which head-

teachers relate with the community for effective administration of

primary schools.

15

15

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter presents the review of literature is presented under the

following subheadings: conceptual framework, theoretical framework,

empirical studies and summary.

Conceptual framework

Concept of Administration and Educational administration

Concept of Constraints

Concept of Primary Education

Concept of Effectiveness

Concept of Infrastructural Facilities

Concept of Supervision

Theoretical Framework

The Human Relations Theory

The Behavioural Science Theory

Review of Empirical Studies

Studies on Administrative Constraints

Studies on Financial Constraints

16

16

Summary of Reviewed Literature

Conceptual Framework

Concept of Administration and Educational Administration

Administration is seen by different people in different ways. The

Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN, 2004) in the National Policy on

Education (NPE) defined administration as a function of organization and

structure, proprietorship and control, inspection and supervision. Ezeocha

(1990) defined administration as the process of directing and controlling life

in a social organization. He asserted that administration has to do with

getting things done for the accomplishment of the defined goals and

objectives. Furthermore, he stated that the science of administration is the

system of knowledge whereby man may understand relationships, predict

results and influence outcomes in any situation where men are organized to

work together for a common purpose.

The above implies that administration involves planning and

prediction in the achievement of results. Ogbonna (2004) asserted that

administration consists of the following elements – planning, organizing,

directing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting. Ogbonna stated that

14

17

17

planning involves taking decisions about actions in the future. Organizing is

the setting up of the structures and taking decisions on the actual activities

that will help to achieve the goals. Directing involves making the school

personnel to work while reporting entail ensuring that everything is done in

accordance with the rules while budgeting involves regular statements of

expected income and expenditure. This is the formal financial statement

about resources for carrying out the specific activities in a given period of

time. Ukeje (1992) noted that administration is concerned with applying

rules, procedure policies already determined in a way that allows the

accomplishment of defined common objectives within an organizational

setting. He further said that it is an institutional position held by an

incumbent given the responsibility for offering leadership to a work group in

order to achieve predetermined objective.

Administration involves organizing activities to get things done in

order to achieve group or organizational set goals and objectives. It implies

that administration influences outcomes through coordinating men and

material resources. Furthermore, Ogbonnaya (2005) sees administration in

its totality as a process which entails the Utilization of human and financial

as well as material resources in maximizing the realization of set goals and

18

18

objectives. The researcher views administration as the careful and systematic

arrangement and use of resources (human and material), situations and

opportunities for the achievement of the specific objectives of a given

organization.

Administration is concerned with the performance of executive duties,

the carrying out of policies and decisions to fulfill a purpose and controlling

of the day-to-day running of an organization (Peretomode, 2001). In the

words of Enoh, Bomanjo and Onwuka (2000) administration refers to the

capacity of individuals to co-ordinate the human and material resources in an

organization for the realization of common goals. At this juncture, it is

germane to give several examples of administration and these include

business administration, church administration, and educational

administration, hospital administration, in military institutions or

organization and industrial administration while the interest of this study is

educational administration. Educational administration involves the

application of the available resources in the education sector to achieve the

objectives of education. The cardinal aim of administration in any

organization is that of coordinating the efforts of people towards the

achievement of goals (Mgbodile, 2004). Administration can therefore be

19

19

seen as an aspect of the management process which has often been used in

connection with governmental and non-government profit organizations. It

involves co-ordination and integration of people and material resources to

accomplish organizational objectives. Administration as applied in this study

refers to a method used by head teachers in primary schools in order to

achieve effective school programes. As chief executive, the head-teacher

directs and controls resources in any organization in order to achieve the

desired objectives.

Educational administration involves the activities of planning and

organizing resources for the attainment of the objectives of a school. It also

involves staffing, that is, providing personnel who will assist or contribute to

the achievement of the objectives of education. Ogbonnaya (2003) noted that

educational administration is concerned with procuring and managing the

human and material resources necessary for the support and maintenance of

the institutions and their programmes. Mgbodile (2003) defined educational

administration as the machinery for policy formulation, planning and

funding of education. It is concerned with setting and organizing

programmes and activities aimed at promoting teaching and learning and

helping students acquire worthwhile values, learning and skills. Educational

20

20

administration is the central connecting pillar that supports and carries all the

supporting nods in education. It is the (dynamo) that infuses energy and life

into educational institutions in order to achieve the set objectives.

In his own contribution, Ezeocha (1990) defines educational

administration as a way of coordinating and controlling the scarce resources

to an education institution namely, manpower, finance and capital equipment

so as to achieve desired educational objectives. Educational administration is

simply all about bringing together the efforts of human and material

resources for effective and functional teaching and learning in the school or

any other learning environment. It is essentially a service activity or tool

through which the fundamental objectives of the educational process may be

more fully and efficiently realized. As applied in this study, educational

administration is the application of resources available to primary school

head-teachers and LGEA staff in carrying out programmes and activities of

primary schools.

Concept of Constraints

The word constraint, according to Hornby (2000) is a thing that limits

or restricts strong pressure, tight control, in a manner that is not neutral or

21

21

relaxed. To this point, constraints refer to those things or factors that inhibit

or impede the effectiveness of a particular thing. In the context of Education,

constraint refers to those things or factors that inhibit or impede

effectiveness of Nigeria’s educational system. Ogbonaya (2003) identified a

number of constraints to the implementation of Educational programmes in

Nigeria. Those constraints according to him include financial constraint,

personnel constraint, physical facilities and equipment constraints. Similarly,

Ezeocha (2000) enumerated the constraints to effective administration of

Education in Nigeria as lack of adequate fund, lack of physical facilities,

inadequate number of teaching staff, indiscipline in schools and society at

large, among others. As applied in this study constraints refer to those

factors that actually impede the effective administration of primary

education. This implies that no meaningful effective administration can take

place without first of all taking care of such inhibiting factors. Thus it is to

be noted that success at the primary level would ensure success at other

levels while failure at the primary level will lead to failure at other levels.

Funding has been a typical issue of interest among educational

administrators, policy makers and planners. This is because of the realization

that no educational programme can be effectively implemented without

22

22

adequate funds (Ogbonnaya, 2005). Ehiametalor and Adroumu (2005)

pointed out that in spite of the efforts of the different governments of the

federation to provide funds for education, educational institutions and

primary schools inclusive still lack the necessary funds to implement various

programmes. Nwagwu (2003) noted that the Federal Government allocated

11% of Federal budget to education in 1999, 6.9% in 2001, 5% in 2002, ad

1.8% in the 2003 budget, though it increased to 2.7% and 2.9% in 2006 and

2007 respectively. Indeed, this decreased in allocation shows that the

Federal Government budget for education will certainly not be sufficient to

cater for the public school programmes.

It has been observed that funds provided by the state and Local

Government are not sufficient. To buttress this point, Fagbemi (2006) and

Edem (2007) stated that government allocations are not adequate to run

schools. The non-payment of salaries, poor condition of services, poor

working environment, over population, class size, shortage of teachers, non-

professionalization and poor teachers education are linked to poor funding of

education in Nigeria. Hence, inadequate funding is one of the greatest

factors that have led to the agonies of Nigerian teachers. Achimugu (2000)

reported that the crisis in poor funding could be traced to 1970 when

23

23

spending on education began to wane. Education that was accorded priority

in the 1955-62 plan, period went down 3rd

place in 1962-70, 5th position in

1975-80 plan, 8th

position in 1981 – 85 and 1990-92 rolling plan.

Thus, continual increase in enrolment across all levels of education

without corresponding increase in number of teaching staff brings about

high ratio of students to teachers. It was emphasized by Hallak (2000) that

the quality of the education system depends on the quality of its teachers.

The National policy on Education (FRN, 1998) in aligning with Hallak

stated that no education system quality could rise above the quality of its

teachers. Adeogun (2001) noticed high student teacher-ratio. This is as a

result of non-recruitment of additional teaching staff to meet up with the

increase in the enrolment, which in turn affects the educational standard. The

problem of insufficient qualified personnel is one that transcends all levels

of education in the country. It is however more acute at the lower levels of

education where training is necessary for effective teaching (Enoh, 1990).

Teachers’ adequacy means availability of the right number,

qualification and distribution of teachers. Teachers are vital to the realization

of school goals and objectives. In many cases, poor standard of education

has been blamed on inadequacy of teachers. During the launching of the

24

24

Universal Basic Education (UBE) in Sokoto in 1999 by former president

Olusegun Obasanjo blamed the falling standard of education on acute

shortage of qualified teachers in primary schools. There seems to have been

some efforts on the part of the Federal and State Governments and other

agencies on providing qualified teaching staff for the take off of the Junior

School component of the scheme. However, according to Osokoya (2003)

there still seems to be considerable shortage of manpower teaching

requirements. In addition, a careful examination of the primary school

system in Nigeria reveals the following as some of the problems bedeviling

the system which have been hindering the system from achieving its lofty

goals:

School facilities are the material resources that facilitate effective

teaching and learning in schools. Jaiyeoba and Atanda (2005) posited that

educational facilities are those things which enable a skillful teacher to

achieve a level of instructional effectiveness that far exceeds what is

possible when they are not provided. The state of infrastructural decay in

many secondary schools in Nigeria is a manifestation of poor funding of the

system. Ahmed (2003) revealed that in most of the nation’s primary schools,

teaching and learning takes place under a most unconducive environment,

25

25

lacking the basic materials and thus hindered the fulfillment of educational

objectives.

Teachers are the centre- piece of any educational system. No

education system can rise above the equality of its teachers. Teachers whose

morale is low are not likely to perform as expected in the school system.

According to Ajayi and Oguntoye (2003), the numerous problem permeating

the entire educational system in Nigeria such as cultism, examination

malpractices, drug abuse, indiscipline, persistent poor academic performance

of students in public examinations and many more seem to suggest that

teachers have not been performing their job as expected. Fadipe (2003)

posited that teachers, apart from students/pupils, are the largest most crucial

inputs of an educational system. They influence to a great extent the quality

of the educational output. Teachers’ irregular promotion, low pay package

(when compared to other public workers), societal perception of the job and

many more have dampened the morale of teachers. When teachers are not

motivated, their level of job commitment may be low and the objectives of

the school may not be accomplished.

Effective instructional delivery and maintenance of standards in the

school system are enhanced through regular internal and external

26

26

supervision. Anyodele (2002) argued that primary schools are presently

supervised by two categories of people which include: internal supervisor-

within-the school, supervisors as headmasters/ headmistress, assistant

headmaster and heads of departments; external supervisors-outside-the

school, supervisors as the formally designated officials from the inspectorate

division of the Ministry of Education and the various Area or Zonal

Education Offices. The primary responsibility of inspectors is to see that

high standards are maintained and that schools are run in accordance with

the laid down regulations. While it has been argued that the headmasters

have been discharging their duties as internal supervisors, the external

supervisor (Inspectors from the Ministry of Education), appear non-

functional as they seldom visit schools to monitor the operations in these

schools. This has invariably hinder effective teaching-learning in schools.

The term policy can be explained as statement, which expresses goals,

and the means of achieving them. Policy provides a road-map for actions

tailored towards meeting specific goals. According to Jaiyeoba and Atanda

(2005), education policy represents definite courses of action proposed by

the government in power or an executive authority and adopted as expedient

to the issues and problems of education. Education policies, which may take

27

27

the form of ordinance, code or even an act, have been observed to change

with changes in the political leadership of Nigeria. Principals of schools are

often caught in this web when government changes existing education

policy. The inconsistencies in educational policies have been argued to be

responsible for the poor service delivery in the system.

Concept of Primary Education

Primary education in Nigeria refers to the education which children

receive from the age of 6 years to 11 years plus. It is the foundation level of

the educational system and runs for six years. It is aimed at developing basic

literacy, numeracy, communication skills and transmission of the culture of

the people to younger generations. Nwadiani (2005) explained that primary

education in any nation is the major determinant of the educational progress

and development of such nations, whether developed or developing. This,

according to him is because it is where the foundation for effective, efficient

and functional education in the society is laid.

The role of primary school education therefore cannot be

overemphasized if educational progress of any nation is to be attained.

Nwagwu (2003) posited that to ensure adequate and appropriate foundation

28

28

for future education, primary education should be given priority not only in

terms of quality staffing but also in the provision of required infrastructure

for its effectiveness. This implies that primary education can only ensure

quality and sustain functionality in the society through appropriate funding

and supply of needed equipment and materials. Ojedele (2005) corroborated

the above by emphasizing that supply of facilities and other needed

infrastructural materials as well as adequate funding are necessary for

efficient primary education.

Since the success of primary education correlates with the success of

other levels of education, it becomes imperative that its administration not

only becomes effective but also responsive in meeting the needs of the

people in the society (Fagbemi, 2006). He further stressed that adequate

provision should be made to ensure that qualified and professional

educational personnel man the nation’s primary education level for better

result.

Concept of Effectiveness

The concept of effectiveness has received wide attention in

organizational behaviour Literature. Bernard (2007) defined effectiveness as

29

29

- oriented having to do with the achievement of cooperative and

organizational goals. It indicates how proactive or active, somebody is.

Lexically, Hornby (2004) defines effectiveness as causing or capable of

doing things. An effective organization must have clearly defined goals and

purpose, which bind its members together. Ojedele (2005) defines

effectiveness as the management process, the optimal organization

relationship among five determinant production, efficiency, satisfaction,

adaptiveness and development from some other perspectives. Effectiveness

involves the ability to do something or carry out a programme or ability to

achieve a goal with minimum effort and use of scarce resource that is very

crucial to the rapid development of any economy. As applied in this study,

effectiveness refers to efficient use of available resources by head-teachers

and LGEA officials in ensuring proper primary school administration.

Concept of Infrastructural Facilities

Infrastructural facilities are the resource materials applied in ensuring

effective teaching and learning in schools (Ojedele, 2005). This implies that

such facilities are those things which enable a skillful teacher to achieve a

level of instructional effectiveness. Generally, school facilities include

30

30

school buildings such as classrooms, laboratories, furniture and equipment

ranging from desks, chairs, chalkboards and cupboards, among others.

School facilities ensure effective teaching and learning in school.

Adequate provision of school facilities helps in the achievement of school

goals and objectives. Odinko (2004), states that the first five (5) years of life

are most crucial to the intellectual development of the child. If this is so, it is

very essential that such resources be devoted to the system that develops the

child intellectually. It is necessary for the management to use quality

materials for construction of their facilities because poor facilities will bring

about quick decay of infrastructure which according to Jega (2003) has

resulted to science students graduating without having conducted the

required laboratory experiment. This is not good for the 21st century

education provision.

Indeed, lack of infrastructural facilities or their inadequacy constitutes

major constraints which educational administrators have to grapple with in

the implementation of educational programmes (Ogbonnaya, 2004).

Ogbonnaya further stressed that most educational institutions in Nigeria lack

adequate supply of infrastructural facilities. To ensure effective primary

school administration, it becomes necessary that schools be fully equipped

31

31

with such materials for the realization of the goals of teaching and learning.

For this study, infrastructural facilities are resource materials employed by

teachers to ensure effective teaching and learning in schools.

Concept of Supervision

The word supervision is referred to as the act of taking charge of

people and being responsible for making sure that they do their work

(Longman, 2000). In the context of education, supervision refers to the role

played by an education officer (or supervisor) in being responsible and

making sure that teachers work effectively. In other words, supervision is

concerned with those aspects of school administration aimed at maintaining

the efforts of personnel in line with the goals of administration

(Oboegbulem, 2004). Udoh and Akpan (2001) see supervision as all the

efforts which are directed to ensure and improve the quality of instruction by

working directly with the teachers. These authors are of the view that

supervision endeavours include all the efforts or assistance which is geared

towards improving the quality of instruction as carried out in the teaching

and learning enterprise by dealing directly with those who carry out the job

(teachers).

32

32

Supervision is a teaching and learning process which emphasizes the

relationship between the teachers and the pupils for effective teaching and

learning in schools (Rogers, 2004). Rogers went further to claim that the

reason for working closely with the teacher and the trainee by the supervisor

is to help the teacher to understand and cope with the dynamics of the

teaching edneavours. Eye and Netzer cited in Okoro (2009) see supervision

as that phase of school administration which deals primarily with the

achievement of the appropriate selected instructional expectations of

educational services. By implication, they believe that the ultimate goal of

the school as an organization is the realization of some goals and thus see

supervision as all the administrative efforts in general school administration

geared towards the realization of those selected instructional expectations or

outcomes.

In the same vein, Akubue (2003) also maintains that supervision

involves all assistance given to the instructor which goes a long way to

improve his knowledge base and which improves instruction and leads to the

instructors’ professional growth. By this seemingly broad definition by

Akubue, anybody or group of people who assist the instructor to improve in

his instructional services directly or indirectly or whoever assists the

33

33

instructor by stimulating his professional growth qualifies to be a supervisor.

Ogbonnaya (2003) further echoed that it is obvious that successes of any

good educational policy or plan depend to a great extent on the efficiency of

the supervisory machinery. The primary objectives of supervision are to

enhance the quality of instruction in schools. The learner is the focus of

attention in the process of supervision. Supervision ensures that the teacher

teaches in such a way that the child understands so that he acquires the

abilities, skills and attitudes stated in the objectives of instruction.

Thus, the supervisory aspect of administration is responsible for

maintaining punctuality and discipline as well as facilitating change from

outdated pattern of work to modern techniques. However, Akubue (2003:8)

enumerated the following roles supervision plays in the effective

administration of primary schools. They include ensuring that teachers do

their assigned work effectively, ensuring that teachers are capable of

carrying out their teaching responsibilities, ensuring that new teachers

receive training to enable them function effectively on the job, providing

technical assistance to teachers when required such as in the preparation and

use of instructional materials and ensuring that discipline is maintained in

the classroom. Others, according to him include suggesting ways of

34

34

improving the performance of incompetent teachers, determining whether a

teacher should be transferred, promoted demoted retired or dismissed for

negligence and lack of productivity and providing professional information

to teachers who need it, among others.

Supervision can be carried out by different stakeholders or their

representatives. For example, the supervisor may be a teacher based within

or outside the school or he could be from the office of the Local Government

Education Authority or he could be a person working on behalf of the

community. This is because in most of the primary schools, the pupils are

drawn from the local communities so the communities may be concerned

about the quality of teaching going on in the schools. For this reason, they

may obtain permission to get involved in monitoring the quality of teaching

in the schools. Therefore, proper supervision not only helps to ensure

effective teaching and learning in schools, it also provides the enabling

environment for effective primary school administration for the school

authorities. Supervision is used in this study as efforts of the primary school

heads to ensure proper teaching and effective school administration.

35

35

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical frame work of this study addresses administrative

theories that relate to the topic under study.

Human Relations Theory

The foremost proponent of this school of thought was Mary Packer

Follett (1938). This is based on the amount of respect, regard and

relationship within the system that the manager has with the people that will

enhance the success of the system. Individual’s social and economic

influences are taken into consideration.

The human relations theory is developed in reaction against formal

tradition of the classical management movement. To this group, the

fundamental problem in any organization is developing and maintaining

dynamic and harmonious relationships. The group believes that managing

any organization involves getting things done through people and therefore,

management should be centered on interpersonal relations. The group also

emphasized motivation for effective management. Teacher’s motivation can

be achieved through non-monetary incentives such as recognition of their

personal values, encouraging their sense of achievement, making teaching

36

36

job challenging and interesting. An important issue in school management is

building a dynamic interpersonal relationship. This can be achieved through

delegating functions to teachers and developing interest in teachers’ welfare,

maintaining open policy with the staff and the students. The school

organization is a complex social group and therefore requires effective

handling of its activities. The commission is in the most advantageous

position to provide the needed leadership with the cooperation of the

principals.

In spite of the democratic nature of the human relations theory, it has

been criticized as being too sentimental on the workers and detrimental to

the achievement of the goals of the enterprise. The above criticism led to the

development of other models of management theories. The human relations

theory is relevant to this study. The theory emphasizes getting things done

through proper use of funds, human and material resources. Adequate

personnel facilities, funds and equipment are to be provided to the

commission by the government. These will enhance human relationship

between the communities and the primary schools head-teachers as well as

LGEA in carrying out the administrative functions in primary schools. Since

the performance of the administrative functions of primary schools involves

37

37

establishment of good working relationships between the primary school

heads, if applied by the head-teachers and LGEA officials, it will enhance

the effective administration of primary school in the state.

The Behavioural Science Theory

This theory was propounded by Chester Barnard in 1938. It is seen as

the synthesis of the scientific management and human relations theories.

Chester Barnard was of the view that administrative practices should be

linked to human behaviours as much as possible. The behavioural approach

sees management as primarily a study of group behavioural patterns. The

term “organization” in this text means system or pattern or group

relationship.

The man element includes the worker’s physical, intellectual, and

emotional competences as well as his patterns of behaviour. It considers the

worker’s personality. The job element comprises the job content and the

processes of carrying it out. It involves the task to be performed as well as

the methods for executing it. The social setting element lays emphasis on the

environment and the necessary facilities and condition to make it conducive.

The behaviorists believe that increased productivity could only be achieved

38

38

in an organization when there is a balance or proper integration of the three

elements.

The importance of the behavioral science theory is that managers

should be knowledgeable, open and resourceful in the management of both

human and material inputs in the realization of school goals. School goals

and objectives are achieved through proper application of managerial

functions of the commission in the secondary school. This theory lends itself

to resources and human management and is therefore relevant to the study.

The human behaviour is a basis for achieving good organizational

management. To the theorist, effectiveness refers to the extent to which the

set organizational goals are achieved with the available resources. Therefore,

an organization which is able to accomplish its set goals without waste of

available resources is considered to be effective. On the other hand,

efficiency refers to how well a worker performs in the achievement of set

objectives. The ability to perform depends on how a worker is satisfied with

his work. The implications of this theory is that managers should be

knowledgeable, open, resourceful in management of both human and

material inputs in the achievement of organization objectives. The

behavioural science theory emphasizes the integration of human and

39

39

organizational needs for goal achievement. This theory also requires

conducive education environment for achievement of goals in the school

system.

The theory is very relevant to this study since school goals and

objectives determine the nature of the school environment which has

tremendous impact on the staff and pupils. The success of primary school

administration depends on the effective performance of the head-teachers,

the staff and the LGEA officials. The State Ministry of Education, through

the government requires this level of interaction to ensure effective

provision of inputs for effective administration of primary schools in the

state.

Review of Empirical Studies

Studies on Administrative Constraints

A review of related research carried out in the area of the study was

done. Nwankwo (2005) carried out a study on the challenges to effective

primary school administration in Abakiliki Education Zone of Ebonyi State.

The design for the study was a descriptive survey. The population comprised

920 head-teachers and LGEA officials in the zone. The sample size was 600

40

40

respondents. Questionnaire was the instrument for data collection. The

questionnaire was face-validated by three experts while Cronbach Alpha

reliability coefficient was employed to obtain an internal estimate of 0.88 for

the entire instrument. Four research questions and two null hypotheses

guided the study. The study used a four point rating. The data collected from

the research question were analyzed using mean and standard deviation

while t-test was used in testing the hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance.

The findings revealed that poor supply of equipment and facilities by

ministry of education commission hampered the administration of primary

school. The findings also show that there was a communication gap between

the primary school heads and officials of LGEA in the administration of

primary school plant facilities in the education zone. This study is related to

the current study as it treated challenges in the primary school system in the

zone which is the focus of the current study in Obollo-Afor Education Zone.

Similarly, Okonkwo (2003) carried out a study on constraints to

effective administration of primary schools in Owerri education zone of Imo

State. He made use of descriptive research design. The population for the

study comprised all the head-teachers (220) in the schools from the zone. No

sampling was carried out. Questionnaire was the main instrument for data

41

41

collection. Five research questions guided the study. The data collected were

analyzed using mean and simple percentage.

The findings revealed that inadequate funds affected effective

administration of primary schools. The result also showed that primary

schools in the area lacked supply of adequate facilities and equipment

needed for effective teaching and learning in the school. Since the above

work focused on financial constraints to effective administration, it is seen to

be relevant to the current study that discusses constraints to effective

administration of schools.

Ibe (2004) also conducted a research on the constraints to the planning

of education programme by primary school teachers in Umuahia Education

Zone of Abia State. The study made use of descriptive survey design. The

entire population of the head-teachers (250) in the zone was used for the

study. Questionnaire was the main instrument for data collection. Four

research questions guided the study. Mean and standard deviation were

employed to answer the research questions for the study.

The findings revealed that poor leadership skills by the head-teachers

as well as unqualified teaching staff affected adversely the administration of

42

42

primary schools in the area. The findings also revealed that lack of facilities

and equipment constituted a problem to effective administration of primary

schools. The reviewed work discussed one of the major variables in

administration of schools which is central to effective administration of

schools hence, its relationship with the current study.

Okwu (2002) carried out a study on constraints to the administration

of primary schools in Port Harcourt Local Government Education Authority

of Rivers State. The researcher used all the 22 staff of the Local Government

Education Authority and 71 headmasters of Port Harcourt Local

Government Education Authority bringing the total to 93 respondents as the

population of the study. There was no sampling because of the small nature

of the population size. Questionnaire was the main instrument used for data

collection. Mean score was used in answering the research questions while t-

test statistics was used to test the null hypotheses. The results indicated that:

the State Primary Education Board did not empower the Local Government

Education Authority and the headmasters to generate funds internally for the

smooth administration of primary schools. The result also indicated that the

Local Government Education Authorities were not provided with enough

funds to procure infrastructural facilities needed in schools. This work is

43

43

also related to the current study as it studies constraints or problems

affecting primary school administration.

Njoku (1996) carried out a study on the constraints in the

administration of Federal Government Colleges in the Northern States of

Nigeria. The population for the study was 16 male principals and 17 female

principals bringing the total to 23. Stratified random sampling technique was

used for selecting 22 principals from 22 unity schools. Questionnaire was

the main instrument used for data collection. Mean scores were used to

answer the research questions while t-test statistic was used to test the null

hypotheses. The findings revealed that the staff claims were not promptly

paid and that non-availability of physical facilities created problems in the

administration of the unity schools. This work that was centered on

constraints to school administration in colleges is relevant to the current

study. The present work is focused on constraints to effective school

administration and is therefore seen to be on the same issues bordering

administration of schools.

Ogbonna (1998) carried out a study on the constraints to the

administration of Women Education centers in Enugu State. The population

for the study comprised all the principals, teachers and Ministry of

44

44

Education Centers in zone. There were 5 Women Education Centers in the

zone with total staff strength of sixty (60). No sampling technique was

carried out from the population, instead the entire population was used for

the study due to the smallness of the population. Questionnaire was the

instrument used to collect data for the study. Mean Scores were used to

answer the research questions while t-test statistic was used to test the null

hypotheses. The results indicated that lack of funds for the management of

the centres; as well as insufficient infrastructural facilities to the centres.

Since the work investigated financial and infrastructural constraints to the

administration of women education centres in Enugu State, it is seen to have

direct relationship with the current study which in itself focuses on the

constraints to effective primary school administration involving also funding

and infrastructural facilities.

Studies on Financial Constraints

Anyim (2004) carried out a study on the constraints to financial

management in Secondary Schools in Afikpo Education zone of Ebonyi

State. The population for this study comprised all the principals and bursars

in the zone including the six (6) finance officers of the zonal board.

Principals were 40 and bursars 30. No sampling technique was done due to

45

45

the fewness or smallness of the population. The instrument used to collect

data for this was the questionnaire, and mean score was used to answer the

research questions, t-test statistic was used to test the null hypothesis. The

major findings of this study include: lack of training of principals’ financial

management and absence of trained support staff as well as inadequate fund.

The study discussed constraints to financial management in schools that is

one of the major variables involved in the present study. Hence, the work is

very much relevant to the present study that is on constraints to effective

school administration.

Summary of Review of Literature

The review covered conceptual, theoretical and empirical studies. The

conceptual framework focused on definitions of administration which is the

coordination of available human and material resources by primary school

head-teachers and LGEA officials for the achievement of effective running

of primary school. Primary education is explained as education provided for

children between 6 to 11 years. Constraints are defined as inhibiting factors

to the achievement of effective administration of primary schools while

effectiveness refers to efficient use of available resources by head-teachers

and LGEA staff in ensuring proper primary school administration while

46

46

infrastructural facilities refers to materials employed by teachers to ensure

effective teaching and learning in schools. Supervision is explained as a

method applied in helping teachers to achieve high quality instructional

delivery in schools.

The theoretical framework of the study focused on the discussion of

two relevant theories. They are the Human Relations and Behavioural

Science theories that lay emphasis on conducive working and learning

environment for the achievement of set goals. The theories also emphasize

interaction between individuals and their environment as the determinant of

human behaviours.

The last part of the review involved discussion on the related

empirical studies. The review works focused on constraints as well as

problems affecting effective school administration. Many works exist on

constraints and problems of school administration but none of them

addressed the constraints to effective administration of primary schools in

Obollo-Afor Education Zone. It therefore, became imperative to carry out

this study in the area to address and fill the gap in the Education Zone of

Enugu State.

47

47

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter presents the procedure adopted in carrying out this study

under the following subheadings: design of the study, area of the study,

population of the study sample and sampling technique, instrument for data

collection, validation of the instrument, reliability of the instrument, method

of data collection and method of data analysis.

Design of the Study

The design for the study was a descriptive survey. A descriptive

survey according to Ali (2006) is concerned with describing events as they

are without any manipulation of what is being observed. The design was

considered appropriate because it enabled the researcher to identify the

characteristics of the population objectively.

Area of the Study

This study was carried out in Obollo-Afor Education Zone of Enugu

State. The zone comprises of three local government areas namely; Igbo Eze

South, Igbo Eze North, and Udenu with Obollor-Afor as the coordinative

45

48

48

headquarters. The people are agrarian in nature with many traders and civil

servants. They also have keen interest in education. The choice of the area

for the study was informed by the researcher’s motivation and interest to

improve the quality of primary school administration to enhance effective

teaching and learning in the area.

Population of the Study

The population of this study comprised 933 head-teachers and Local

Government Education Authority staff (LGEA). Available record from the

zonal office of the L.G.E.A indicates that there are 233 head-teachers in 233

public primary schools in the three local government areas of the zone and a

total of 600 LGEA staff across the three local government areas. Source

LGEA Zonal Office Obollo-Afor 2013/2014 session.

Sample and Sampling Technique

The sample size of the study was 477 respondents. This figure

consisted of 137 head-teachers and 340 LGEA staff selected from 233 head-

teachers and 600 LGEA staff using simple random sampling technique

respectively.

49

49

Instrument for Data Collection

The instrument for data collection was a researcher designed

instrument titled “Constraints to Effective Administration of Primary School

Questionnaire (CEAPQ)”. The instrument comprised two sections A and B.

Section A provided demographic data of the respondents while section B

contained the request for the respondents to complete the questionnaire with

27 items arranged into four clusters A, B, C and D. Cluster A provided

information on the extent head-teachers and LGEA staff carried out their

administrative roles. Cluster B provided information on the extent financial

constraints affect administration of primary school. Cluster C provided

information on the extent lack of infrastructural facilities affect

administration of primary school while cluster D provided information on

the personnel constraints to affect administration of primary school.

Clusters A, B, C, and D are on a-4 point rating of Very Great Extent (VGE)

3.49-4, Great Extent (GE) 2.50-3.49, Low Extent (LE) 1.50-2.49 and Very

Low Extent (VLE) 0.50-1.49 on limit of real numbers while cluster D is

rated on Strongly Agree (SA), Agree (A), Disagree (D) and Strongly

Disagree (SD) on a criterion reference respectively.

Validation of the Instrument

50

50

The instrument was subjected to face validation by three experts, one

expert in Childhood Education Unit and one from Education Administration

and Planning Unit of the Department of Educational Foundations and one in

Measurement and Evaluation, all in the Faculty of Education, University of

Nigeria, Nsukka. The experts were requested to ascertain the

appropriateness of the instrument in relation to the purpose, research

questions and hypotheses formulated from the study. Their comments were

fully incorporated in the final production of the questionnaire for the study.

Reliability of the Instrument

To ascertain the reliability of the instrument a trial test was carried

out. The questionnaire was administered to 10 head-teachers and 10LGEA

staff in Enugu Education Zone outside the study area. Cronbach Alpha

computation method was applied in obtaining the following reliability

estimates 0.72, 0.85, 0.88 and 0.86, for clusters A, B, C and D respectively

while 0.82 was obtained as the reliability estimate value for the entire

instrument. These estimates were considered high enough to adjudge the

instrument reliable for the study.

Method of Data Collection

51

51

Direct method was used by the researcher and her two assistants to

administer and collect the questionnaire from the respondents after

completion. The assistants were instructed on how to distribute and ensure

proper collection of the instrument from the respondents. The idea is to

ensure proper completion as well as a high return rate of the instrument for

the study.

Method of Data Analysis

Mean and standard deviation were used in answering the research

questions posed for the study. A mean range of 2.50-3.49 and above is the

acceptance level using limit of real numbers for clusters A, B, and C

respectively while a mean range of 2.50 and above is the acceptance level

for cluster D. Any means below the accepted levels were rejected while t-

test statistics was used in testing the stated hypotheses at 0.05 level of

significance.

52

52

53

53

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

In this chapter, the researcher presents the result of data collected in

the field for this study. The data analysis was based on the four research

questions and the two null hypotheses that guided the study. Results were

presented in tables according to each research question and hypothesis.

Research Question One: To what extent do Head-teachers and LGEA

staff carry out their administrative roles in primary schools?

Table 1: Mean Ratings of Head-teachers and LGEA Staff on the extent they

carried out their Administrative Roles in Primary Schools.

S/N Items Head-teachers

n = 137

LGEA staff

n = 340

X SD Decision X

SD Decision

1. Disbursement of funds provided to it from both

federal and state resources

3.70 0.45 VGE 2.90 0.68 GE

2. Promotion of teaching and non-teaching staff 3.59 0.49 GE 2.80 0.66 GE

3. Posting and reposting of teachers 3.40 0.63 GE 3.30 0.71 GE

4. Providing guidelines on the establishment of new

school

3.15 0.65 GE 2.85 0.64 GE

5. Recruitment of teaching and non teaching staff 3.60 0.48 GE 3.10 0.69 GE

6. Making recommendation to the Board on how

teachers should be disciplined

3.62 0.55 GE 2.99 0.70 GE

7. Acquisition and distribution of materials and

equipment to all primary schools in its areas of

jurisdiction

3.12 0.41 GE 3.45 0.74 GE

8. Approval of training and retraining of teachers. 3.06 0.63 GE 3.08 0.65 GE

9. Retirement of teaching and non teaching staff 2.90 0.65 GE 3.23 0.72 GE

54

54

10. Dismissal of teaching and non teaching staff 3.29 0.56 GE 3.06 0.68 GE

Grand Mean 3.24 GE 3.07 GE

Table 1 showed that all the items (1-10) under the extent Head-

teachers and LGEA staff carry out their administrative roles in primary

schools have their mean scores for the Head-teachers from 2.90-3.70. For

the LGEA staff, all the items (1-10) also have their mean scores range from

2.80-3.45. These sets of scores on the items indicate that the head-teachers

and the LGEA staff agreed that they carry out their administrative roles in

primary schools. Both groups agreed that LGEA do these through

disbursement of funds provided to it, promotion of teaching and non-

teaching staff, posting of teachers, and providing guideline on the

establishment of new schools. Other areas they administer primary schools

include recruitment of staff, recommending disciplinary measures to the

Board, acquisition and distribution of materials and equipment to schools,

approval of training and retraining of teachers, retiring teachers and non-

teaching staff as well as through dismissal of teaching and non-teaching staff

in primary schools. This is also supported by their grand mean scores of 3.24

and 3.07 respectively.

50

55

55

Research Question Two: To what extent did financial constraints affect

effective administration of primary schools?

Table 2: Mean Ratings of Head-teachers and LGEA Staff on the

extent Financial Constraints affected Effective administration of Primary

Schools.


n = 137

LGEA staff

n = 340

X SD Decision X SD Decision

11. Lack of funds hinders effective

implementation of programmes in

primary schools.

3.38 0.64 GE 3.40 0.54 GE

12. Staff salaries are not paid regularly 3.20 0.51 GE 2.71 0.71 GE

13. Effective supervisions are not carried

out in the primary schools due to lack

of funds

2.97 0.56 GE 3.28 0.66 GE

14. Seminars are not organized for

teachers due to lack of funds

3.33 0.49 GE 3.23 0.56 GE

15. Workshops are organized for teachers 3.07 0.56 GE 3.09 0.53 GE

16. Adequate funds are not provided for

the necessary facilities and equipment

in primary schools.

3.41 0.61 GE 2.79 0.61 GE

56

56


The result of data presented in table 2 indicated that all the listed

items 11-16 on the extent financial constraints affect effective administration

of primary schools for the Head-teachers have their mean values ranging

from 2.99 to 3.41. For the LGEA staff, the items also have their mean values

ranging from 2.71 to 3.40. The two sets of mean values from the items show

that the Head-teachers and the LGEA staff to a great extent agreed that

financial constraints affected effective administration of primary schools.

The identified effects include hindering effective implementation of

programmes of primary schools, irregular payment of salaries of staff, poor

supervision of primary schools and inability to organize seminars for

teachers. Financial constraints also lead to inability to organize workshops

for primary school teachers; it leads to inadequate provision of facilities and

equipment to primary schools. This is also supported by the grand mean

values of the Head-teachers, 3.22 and the LGEA staff 3.08 respectively.

57

57

Research Question Three: To what extent do infrastructural facilities affect effective


Table 3: Mean Ratings of Head-teachers and LGEA Staff on the extent Infrastructural

Facilities affect Effective administration of Primary Schools.


n = 137

LGEA staff

n = 340

X SD Decision X

SD Decision

17. Unavailability of school facilities result in

overcrowding of pupils thereby making if difficult

for teaching and learning to take place

3.22 0.63 GE 3.01 0.64 GE

18. Quality textbooks are scares in many primary

schools and these affect pupils readability

3.07 0.71 GE 3.21 0.55 GE

19. Infrastructural facilities provided by the government

to schools are usually sub-standard

2.84 0.62 GE 2.76 0.51 GE

20. There are dilapidated school buildings in some

primary schools which impede teaching and

learning

2.92 0.57 GE 2.95 0.53 GE

21. Facilities needed in schools to facilitate learning are

not provided adequately

3.11 0.61 GE 2.87 0.62 GE


The findings from table 3 showed that all the items 17-21 under the

extent infrastructural facilities affect effective administration of primary

schools for the Head-teachers have their mean scores ranging from 2.84 to

3.22. The result also showed that for the LGEA staff, the same items have

their mean scores from 2.76 to 3.21. These results on the items reveal that

the Head-teachers and the LGEA staff agree to a great extent that

infrastructural facilities affect effective administration of primary schools.

The respondents agreed that lack of facilities results in overcrowding of

58

58

pupils that affect effective teaching and learning, scarcity of quality

textbooks in schools, and provision of sub-standard facilities to schools by

the government. Inadequate infrastructural facilities also leads to poor

maintenance of school buildings which result to dilapidation that affect

proper teaching and learning by teachers and pupils. The Head-teachers and

LGEA staff through their grand means of 3.03 and 2.96 respectively on the

extent poor infrastructural facilities affected effective primary school

administration.

59

59

Research Question Four: What are the personnel constraints to the

effective administration of primary schools?

Table 4: Mean Ratings of Head-teachers and LGEA Staff on the Personnel

Constraints to Effective administration of Primary Schools.


n = 137

LGEA staff

n = 340


22. Academic development of pupils is

affected by lack of qualified teachers

in primary school.

3.30 0.69 GE 3.12 0.62 GE

23. It leads to recruitment of unqualified

staff in schools

3.22 0.61 GE 2.85 0.59 GE

24. It leads to poor teaching and learning

of pupils in schools

3.40 0.53 GE 2.79 0.58 GE

25. It results to indiscipline among the

pupils

3.10 0.66 GE 3.20 0.69 GE

26. It leads to poor supervision of schools 2.75 0.57 GE 2.90 0.56 GE

27. It encourages falling standard of

education in primary schools.

2.94 0.55 GE 3.02 0.61 GE


The result in Table 4 revealed that items 22.27 under the personnel

constraints to effective administration of primary schools for the Head-

teachers have their mean scores ranging from 2.75 to 3.40. The result also

60

60

revealed that the same items for the LGEA staff have their means from 2.79

to 3.20. The head-teachers and the LGEA staff agree that personnel

constraints such as lack of qualify teachers, indiscipline, poor supervision of

school and poor quality teaching standard affected effective administration

of primary school in the area. The grand mean scores of the Head-teachers

and LGEA staff of 3.11 and 2.98 respectively also support this view.

Research Question five: To what extent did the head-teachers relate

with the community for effective administration of primary schools?

61

61

Table 5: Mean Ratings of Head-teachers and LGEA Staff on the extent to

which head-teachers relate with the community for Effective administration

of Primary Schools.


n = 137

LGEA staff

n = 340


28 Head-teachers enlighten the

community on the purpose of the

school.

3.20 0.62 GE 3.03 0.63 GE

29 Head-teachers inform the community

of the conditions of the school.

3.01 0.65 GE 2.98 0.70 GE

30 Head-teachers coordinate school

activities with the community.

2.86 0.71 GE 2.70 0.72 GE

31 Head-teachers pay regular interactive

visits to parents.

2.76 0.73 GE 2.90 0.79 GE

32 The head-teachers regularly meet the

Parents Teachers Association.

2.92 0.76 GE 3.00 0.65 GE

33. Head-teachers inform parents on their

children’s academic performance

regularly.

3.10 0.64 GE 3.05 0.63 GE

34 Head-teachers maintain good

relationship with the community.

2.80 0.69 GE 2.96 0.69 GE

35 Parents are involved in planning the

development of the school.

3.12 0.64 GE 2.98 0.72 GE

36 PTA helps to provide special services

to the school when needed.

3.00 0.61 GE 2.75 0.75 GE

37 Head-teachers allow the school to

serve as venue for community

meetings.

2.85 0.70 GE 2.95 0.69 GE


62

62

The findings from table 5 showed that all the items 28 to 37 under the

extent to which head-teachers relate with the community for effective

primary school administration for the Head-Teachers have their mean scores

ranging from 2.76 to 3.20. The result also showed that for the LGEA staff

the same items have their mean scores ranging from 2.75 to 3.03. These

results on the items reveal that the Head-Teachers and the LGEA staff to a

great extent agreed that Head-Teachers related with the community for

effective primary school administration. They agreed that Head-Teachers

enlighten the community on the school purpose, conditions of the schools,

coordinate school activities with the community, pay regular visits to parents

and regularly meet with the PTA. Other areas include that Head-Teachers

regularly inform parents of their children’s academic performance,

maintaining good relationship with the community, involving the parents in

planning the development of the school, PTA helping to provide special

services to the school when needed and by Head-Teachers allowing the

school to serve as venue for community meetings. This agreement was also

reflected in their grand mean scores of 2.98 and 2.96 for the Head-Teachers

and LGEA staff respectively.

63

63


teachers and LGEA staff with regard to financial constraints to


Table 6: t-test Analysis of Head-teachers and LGEA Staff with regard to

Financial Constraints to Effective administration of Primary Schools.

n =477

S/N Group N X SD df Level

of

sign.

t-cal

value

t-table

value

Decision

1 Head-teachers 137 3.01 0.68

475 0.05 1.78 1.96 Accepted

2 LGEA staff 340 2.98 0.66

Result shown in table 5 indicated that the table t-value of 1.96 at 475

degree of freedom (df) and 0.05 level of significance is greater than the

calculated t-value of 1.78. Since the t-calculated value of 1.78 is less than

the t-table value of 1.96, the null hypothesis of no significance difference is

accepted. This implies that there is no significant difference in the mean

scores of the Head-teachers and the LGEA staff with regard to financial

constraints to effective administration of primary schools.

64

64


teachers and LGEA staff with regard to personnel constraints to


Table 7: t-test Analysis of the Mean Ratings of Head-teachers and LGEA

Staff with regard to Personnel Constraints to Effective administration of

Primary Schools.


of

sign.

t-cal

value

t-

table

value

Decision


475 0.05 1.65 1.96 Accepted

2 LGEA staff 340 3.12 0.75

Data analysis in table 6 indicated that the calculated t-value of 1.65 is

less than the table t-value of 1.96 at 475 degree of freedom (df) and 0.05

level of significance. The result shows that the second hypothesis of no

significant difference of the study is accepted. This means that there is no

significant difference in the mean ratings of the Head-teachers and LGEA

staff with regard to the personnel constraints to effective administration of

primary schools.

65

65


teachers and LGEA staff with regards to infrastructural

constraints to effective administration of primary schools.


Staff with regard infrastructural constraints to Effective administration of

Primary Schools.


of

sign.

t-cal

value

t-

table

value

Decision


475 0.05 1.57 1.96 Accepted

2 LGEA staff 340 2.98 0.70

Data analysis in table 7 indicated that the calculated t-value of 1.57 is

less than the table t-value of 1.96 at 475 degree of freedom (df) and 0.05

level of significance. The result shows that the third hypothesis of no

significant difference of the study is also accepted. This means that there is

no significant difference in the mean ratings of the Head-teachers and LGEA

staff with regard to infrastructural constraints to effective administration of

primary schools.

66

66


teachers and LGEA staff with regards to the extent to which

head- teachers relate with the community for effective

administration of primary schools.


Staff with regard infrastructural constraints to Effective administration of

Primary Schools.


of

sign.

t-cal

value

t-

table

value

Decision


475 0.05 1.67 1.96 Accepted

2 LGEA staff 340 2.92 0.69

Data in table 9 indicated the calculated t-value of 1.67 is less than the

table t-value of 1.96 at 475 degree of freedom (df) and 0.05 level of

significance. The result shows that the fourth hypothesis of no significant

difference of the study is accepted. This implies that there was no significant

difference between the mean ratings of head-teachers and the LGEA staff

with regard to the extent to which head-teachers relate with the community

for effective primary school administration in the area.

67

67

Summary of Findings

1. The findings on research question one (table 1) indicate that the

respondents agreed to a great extent that Head-teachers and LGEA

staff carry out their administrative roles in primary schools. This they

do through ensuring disbursement of funds provided by the federal

and state resources, promotion of teaching and non-teaching staff,

posting and reposting of staff, recruitment of staff and recommending

disciplinary measures on the staff to the Board. Other roles include

acquisition and distribution of materials to schools, approval of

training of teachers, retirement of staff as well as their dismissal.

2. The findings on research question two (table 2) indicate that Head-

teachers and LGEA staff are in agreement to a great extent on the

extent financial constraints affect effective administration of primary

schools. Financial constraints hinder effective programme

implementation in schools, result to irregular payment of staff

salaries, poor supervision of schools and non-organization of

seminars for the teachers effective performance. Financial constraints

also result to lack of workshop organization for teachers and

inadequate provision of facilities and equipment in primary schools.

68

68

3. The findings on research question three (table 3) showed that both

Head-teachers and LGEA staff agreed to a great extent that

infrastructural facilities affect effective administration of primary

schools. Unavailability of such facilities result to poor

accommodation of pupils that affect effective teaching and learning,

lack of quality textbooks in many schools, and supply of sub-standard

facilities to schools. Other effects include poor maintenance of school

buildings and inadequacy of facilities and equipment needed for

effective learning in schools.

4. The result on research question four (table 4) indicates that Head-

teachers and LGEA staff agreed that lack of qualified teachers,

indiscipline among pupils, poor supervision of schools and poor

quality teaching affected effective administration of primary schools

in the zone.

5. The results on research question five (table 5) indicated that the

Head-Teachers and LGEA staff agreed to a great extent that head-

teachers relate with the community through enlightening them on the

purpose of the school, informing the community of the conditions of

the school, coordinating school activities with the community, paying

69

69

regular visits to parents and having regular PTA meetings. Other

areas they related include head-teachers informing parents of their

children’s academic performance, having good relationship with the

community, involving the community in planning the development of

the school, PTAs helping to provide special services to the school and

by allowing the school to serve as venue for community meetings.

6. The result of t-test analysis also show that there were no significant

differences between the Head-teachers and LGEA staff with regard to

how they carried out their administrative roles, financial constraints to

effective administration, the extent infrastructural facilities affected

administration, personnel constraints affected administration and the

extent to which head-teachers related with the communities for

effective primary school administration, hence, the four stated

hypotheses of no significant differences for the study were accepted.

70

70

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,

CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES

This chapter presents and discusses the findings of the study as they

relate to the research questions and the hypotheses, educational implications,

recommendations, conclusion, summary and suggestions for further studies.

Discussion of Findings

Extent Head-teachers and LGEA Staff carry out their Administrative

Roles in Primary Schools.

The findings on this research question indicated that Head-teachers

and LGEA staff to a great extent are in agreement that they carry out their

administrative roles in primary schools by disbursing funds provided by the

federal and state to schools, promoting teaching and non-teaching staff,

posting of staff and providing guidelines on establishment of schools. These

findings agree with the opinions of Nwankwo (2005) Nwangwu (2002) and

Ogbonnaya (2004) that Head-teachers and LGEA officials discipline staff,

pay their salaries and help in disbursing funds to schools. The findings also

revealed that they recruit teachers, acquire and distribute facilities equipment

67

71

71

to schools, train and retrain staff, retire staff as well as dismiss teaching and

non-teaching staff. The above findings are also in line with the view of

Akabue (2003) that they train and retrain teachers, promote, demote and

dismiss teachers as part of their administrative roles in primary schools.

Hence, it is seen that Head-teachers and LGEA staff actually carry out their

assigned administrative roles in primary schools to promote effective

teaching and learning.

Extent Financial Constraints Affect Effective Administration of

Primary Schools

The findings of this research question showed that Head-teachers and

LGEA staff are in agreement to a great extent that lack of funds, irregular

payment of staff salaries resulting to lack of teachers’ support, ineffective

supervision of school and inadequate provision of facilities and equipment

due to lack of fund affected effective administration of primary school in the

zone. The findings are supportive of that of Okonkwo (2003) that poor

funding affects administration of primary schools and that of Okwu (2002)

that lack of funds affect LGEA in the performance of its administrative roles

in primary schools. The findings also agree with those of Njoku (1996) that

financial constraints contribute in delay in the payment of the teachers’

72

72

salaries that result to inadequate provision of facilities and equipment in

schools as well as inability to organize workshops for the teachers’

professional growth and effectiveness in service delivery. The findings agree

with those of Anyim (2004) that lack of funds affects training and retraining

of teachers through workshops as well as proper supply of facilities and

equipment to schools. This problem of poor funding has to be squarely

addressed to ensure effective and solid background for primary schools

across the nation.

The Extent Infrastructural Facilities Affect Effective Administration of

Primary Schools

The results from this research question indicated that both Head-

teachers and LGEA staff agree to a great extent that infrastructural facilities

affect effective administration of primary schools. The unavailability of

required facilities and equipment result to poor accommodation of the pupils

and effective teaching and learning in schools. It also leads to supply of sub-

standard textbooks to schools leading to poor academic performance of

pupils. The results are supportive of those of Nwankwo (2005) and Ogbonna

(1998) that lack of facilities lead to poor teaching and learning as well as

result to use of sub-standard equipment in schools. Other effects of lack of

73

73

infrastructural facilities include poor buildings leading to dilapidation that

impede teaching and learning. The findings agree with the view of Mgbo

(2003) that lack of infrastructural facilities not only result to poor teaching

and learning but also puts pressure on the existing ones used by teachers to

ensure proper teaching in schools.

Personnel Constraints to Effective Administration of Primary Schools

The findings on this research questions revealed that Head-teachers

and LGEA staff are supportive to a great extent on the personnel constraints

to effective administration of primary schools. They agree that lack of

personnel leads to poor academic development of pupils in schools,

recruitment of unqualified teaching staff and results to poor teaching and

learning in schools. The above findings agree with those of Ibe (2004) that

lack of qualified staff results to poor teaching and learning as well as poor

academic performance of the pupils in schools. The results are also in

support of the findings of Aruma (2002) and Tahir (2003) that personnel

constraints result to poor supervision of schools as well as employment of

unqualified staff in the system. Other identified effects of personnel

constraints to effective administration of primary schools were indiscipline

among the pupils as well as falling standard of education at the level. The

74

74

findings are supportive of the view of Ojedele (2005) that inadequate and

unqualified staff helps to lower the standard of education in many countries.

Extent to which head teachers relates with the community for effective

primary school administration

The findings on this research question revealed that head-teachers and

LGEAs staff agreed to a great extent that head-teachers related with the

community for effective primary school administration by providing the

community with the purpose of the school, informing the community the

conditions of the school, coordinating school activities with the community

and paying regular visits to parents. They also related by having regular PTA

meeting with the parents, informing parents of their children’s academic

performance, relating well with the community members, involving the

parents in planning development of the school, PTA helping to provide

special services to the school and the head-teacher allowing the school to

serve as venue for community meetings.

Additionally, the mean responses of the respondents were individually

identified and subjected to t-test analysis. The findings revealed that the

respondents are in agreement on the financial, personnel and infrastructural

75

75

constraints to effective administration of primary schools. Based on the

above, the four formulated hypotheses for the study were accepted, implying

that there were no significant differences in the mean ratings of Head-

teachers and LGEA staff with regard to financial, personnel, infrastructural

facilities and the extent to which head-teachers related with the community

for effective primary school administration in the zone.

Educational Implications

The findings of this study have major implications for the federal

government as well as all the stakeholders in education generally. The

government and other stakeholders should corporate in funding and

provision of infrastructural facilities and training of more teachers to ensure

effective administration of primary school. Since primary education is the

bedrock upon which other levels of education establish firm foundation for

quality and functionality in the society. As a result, no nation can afford to

play with this level of education. It requires not only adequate quality and

quantity of personnel but also adequacy and availability of provision of

infrastructural facilities, equipment and above all proper funding to ensure

good foundation and operational efficiency. Fagbemi (2006) observed that

since the success of primary education correlates with the success of other

76

76

levels of education, it becomes imperative that its administration not only

becomes effective, but also responsive in meeting the needs of the people in

the society.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations

were made.

1. All agencies including private and Non-Governmental Organizations

(NGOs) should join hands in providing funds and infrastructural

facilities for effective primary school administration.

2. Primary school Head-teachers and LGEA are to be provided with the

needed facilities and equipment including adequate funding to

perform their roles effectively.

3. More teachers need to be trained while in-service training should be

granted to serving teachers with pay to improve on their professional

training in universities.

Conclusions

77

77

Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were

made. Head-teachers and LGEA staff to a great extent carried out their

administrative roles in primary schools. Lack of funds, irregular payment of

teachers’ salaries and inadequate facilities affected administration of primary

school in the area. The findings also shows that poor provision of

infrastructural facilities affected poor accommodation for pupils, proper

teaching by teachers, quality textbooks resulting to ineffective primary

school administration. The result also indicated that lack of teachers,

ineffective supervision of schools and indiscipline affected primary school

administration. While the result also revealed that head-teachers and LGEA

staff agreed to a great extent that head-teacher related well with the

community for effective primary school administration.

Hence, for Head-teachers and LGEA staff to carry out their assigned

administrative roles effectively, they require adequate provision of the

necessary logistics to be able to discharge their duties efficiently.

Infrastructures are to be available and adequate, so also are quality and

quantity of qualified staff as well as appropriate financial backing.

Therefore, all have to join hands with the Federal Government to ensure

effective and efficient primary school level of education in the country.

78

78

Suggestions for Further Studies

Based on the findings of the study the following are suggested for

further researches.

1. Community involvement in the administration of primary school in

Enugu State.

2. Strategies for strengthening effective funding of primary education in

Nigeria.

Summary of the Study

The study was carried out in Obollo-Afor Education Zone of Enugu

State to determine the constraints to effective administration of primary

schools. The study adopted a descriptive survey research design. The

population comprised 933 Head-teachers and LGEA staff in the zone while

the sample size was 477 respondents selected through randomization.

Questionnaire was the instrument for data collection and was face-validated

by experts. Four research questions and three null hypotheses were

formulated to guide this study. The data collected were analyzed using mean

and standard deviation while t-test statistical tool was used in testing the

stated hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. The findings showed that

79

79

Head-teachers and LGEA staff carried out their administrative roles of

disbursement of funds, promotion of teachers, recruitment, dismissal,

retirement, posting and acquisition and distribution of materials to schools

among others. The findings also showed that lack of funds, infrastructural

facilities qualified teachers to a great extent affected effective primary

school administration. The findings of the t-test analysis also show that there

were no significant differences in the mean ratings of head-teachers and

LGEA staff with regard to financial, personnel infrastructural facilities and

the extent to which head-teachers related with the community for effective

administration of primary schools. The researcher among others

recommended the cooperation of all stakeholders to ensure effective

provision for and administration of primary schools in the country.

80

80

REFERENCES

Achimugu, L. (2000). The agonies of Nigerian teachers, NUT, friend or foe.

Port Harcourt: Bavan Press.

Adeogun, A. A. (2001). An evaluation of resource provision and utilization

in Lagos State public secondary schools. JOASEM 1(1), 113-122.

Aderounm, W., O. & Ehiametalor, E. T. (2005). Introduction to

administration of schools in Nigeria. Ibadan: Evans Brothers Limited.

Adesina, S. (2011). Concepts and issues in advance education

administration. International Journal of Education Planning and

Administration 1(3), 136-138.

Ahmed, T. M. (2003). Education and national development in Nigeria.

Journal of Curriculum Studies 3(6) 101-106.

Ajayi, & J. Fadipe (2003). Skills improvement programme for effective

performance of teachers in Nigerian schools(eds). A publication of

national institute for educational Planning and Administration

(NIEPA), Ondo. 128-143.

Akubue, A.U.(2003). Supervision of instruction for higher degree students.

Unpublished lecture note, Department of Educational Foundations,

University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Ali, A. (2006). Fundamentals of research in education. Awka: Meks

Publishers (Nig.).

Anyim,D. O. (2004).Constraints to financial management in secondary

schools in Afikpo education zone of Ebonyi State. Unpublished M.Ed.

Thesis, Department of Educational Foundations, University of

Nigeria, Nsukka.

Ayodele, J. B. (2002). The perception of secondary school teachers on the

impact of external supervision. Journal of Educational Foundations

and Management. 2(1): 35 – 42.

Bernard, B. O. (2007). Organizational psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

81

81

Dictionary of Business Management (2005).

Edem, D. A. (2007). Introduction to educational administration in Nigeria.

(Rev. ed.). Ibadan: Spetrum Books Ltd.

Enoh, A. O.; Bamaja, B. B.; & Onwuka, J. O. (1990). A handbook of

education foundations. Jos: Challenge Press.

Enyi, D. (2004). The administrative process. In Mgbodile T, (Ed.) (2004)

Fundamentals of educational administration and planning. Enugu:

Magnet Publishers.

Etuk, S.E., (2007). Provision and management of facilities in primary and

secondary school. International Journal of Education Planning

Administration 1(3), 136.

Ezeocha, P. A. (2000). Educational Administration and planning. Nsukka:

Optimal computers.

Ezeocha, P.A. (1990). Educational administration and planning Enugu:

Capital Computer Solution Ltd.

Fabiyi, E. (2007). Educational planning and national development in

Nigeria. Ibadan: Joja Publishers.

Fabiyi, T.U. (2007). Primary school administration and effectiveness in

classroom organization. Nigeria Journal of Empirical Studies in

Psychology and Education 1(3) 91-98.

Fadipe, J. O. (2003).Quality control in education: the teacher factor. In G.O.

Akpa, S.U. Udoh and E.O. Fagbamiye (eds) Deregulating the

provision and management of education in Nigeria. Jos: M.P. Ginac

Concpet Ltd. 98-103.

Fagbemi, A.O.(2002). Management by objectives Badagry: Ascon

Management Series.

Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004). National policy on education (4th

Edition). Lagos: NERDC.

Federal Republic of Nigeria, (1998). National policy on education. Lagos:

Government Press.

82

82

Hallack, J.(2000). Luccesby in the future: selling educational priorities in

developing world. Paris: Hep and Pergamon Press.

Hornby, A. S. (2000). Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English,

(6th

Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ibe, N. (2004).Constraints to planning of educational programmes by

principals in Umuahia education zone, Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis,

Department of Educational Foundations, University of Nigeria,

Nsukka.

Jaiyeoba, A.O & Atanda, A. I (2005).Quality sustenance in Nigerian

educational system: challenges to government. In G. O. Akpa, S. U.

Udoh and E. O. Fagbamiye (eds) Deregulating the provision and

management of education in Nigeria. Jos: M. P. Ginac Concept Ltd.

98 – 103.

Jega, A. M. (2003). Education democracy and national integration in

Nigeria in the 21st century retrieved from file “A. /democracy and

educational dev. Files/htm.

Mgbodile T. O. (2004). Fundamentals in educational administration and

planning. Enugu: Magnet Business Enterprises.

Mgbodile, T. O. (2003). Advanced educational administration. Unpublished

Lecture note, Department of Educational Foundations, University of

Nigeria, Nsukka.

Nwadiani, M. (2005).Issues and problems in educational planning and

implementation in Nigeria. Lagos: Joja Research Publication

Nwagwu, N. A. (2000). Funding and financial management in Nigeria

tertiary institutions in E.A.C. Okeke: Improving effectiveness of

today’s tertiary institutions. Nsukka: Institute of Education.

Nwankwo, A.C. (2005). Challenges and constraints to effective secondary

school administrative in Abakiliki Education Zone of Ebonyi State.

Unpublished Thesis. Abia State University, Uturu.

Nwankwo, J. I. (2002). Educational administration, theory and practice.

New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.

83

83

Odinko, M. N. (2004). Home environmental correlates of alphabet

identification and picture reading skills among pre-school aged 3-4

years in Nigeria in Agbo J. (ed.). Journal of Early Childhood

Association of Nigeria, 1(2):3-7.of Studies in Education. 10:35-46.

Ogbonna F. C. (2005). A handbook of educational administration. Jos:

Techsource Publishing Limited.

Ogbonna M. N. (2008). Constraints to the administration of women

education centers in Enugu State. Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis,

Department of Educational Foundations, University of Nigeria,

Nsukka.

Ogbonnaya N. O. (2003). Principles and applications of educational

policies in Nigeria. Nsukka: University Trust Publishers.

Ogbonnaya N. O. (2004). Foundations of education finance. Nsukka:

Haliman Publishers.

Ogbonnaya, N. O. (2000). “Planning practices of secondary school

principals in Enugu State”. Journal of Empirical Studies in

Psychology in Education, 2(1).

Ojedele, P. K. (2003). “Facilities provision and management for the

successful implementation of the Universal Basic Education (UBE)

Programme in Nigeria”. A paper presented at the annual national

conference of NAEAP held at University of Ibadan, 29th – 31

st Oct.,

2003.

Okonkwo, O. (2003). Constraints to effective administration of secondary

schools in Orlu Education Zones of Imo State. Unpublished M.Ed

Thesis University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Okwu, H. C. (2002). Constraints to the administration of primary schools in

Port Harcourt Local Government Education Authority of River State.

Unpublished M.Ed. Thesis, Department of Educational Foundations,

University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Olujide, A. (2001). Educational administration: Onitsha: Lincel Publishers.

84

84

Onwuka, A. O. U. (2000). The investment implications of creating friendly

environment for the Nigerian child in Agbo J. (ed.). Journal of Early

Childhood Association of Nigeria, 1(2): 6-19.

Osokoya, S. (2003). MBO and performance appraisal: A mixture that is not

a solution, Personnel Journal, 1(12) 4 -5.

Peretomode, V.T. (2006). Educational administration: Applied concepts and

theoretical perspectives. Lagos: Joja Publications Limited.

Quadri, P.C. (2001). Improving classroom effectiveness and management.

Journal of Educational Research 2(6) 201-205.

Rogers, N. (2004). Client centred therapy. Bostani: Houghton, Miffin.

Udoh, S. U. Akpa, G. O. (1990). Theory and practice of educational

administration in Nigeria. Jos: Faculty of Education, University of

Jos.

Ukeje, B. O. (2002). Educational administration. Enugu, Nigeria: Fourth

Dimension Publishing Co. Ltd.

85

85

Department of Educational Foundations

University of Nigeria, Nsukka

4th

November, 2013.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am a postgraduate student in the Department of Education

Foundations, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. I am currently undertaking a

research project titled “Constraints to Effective Administration of Primary

Schools in Obollo-Afor Education Zone of Enugu state.”

Your candid response in this questionnaire is hereby solicited to help

me carry out the research work successfully. All information supplied shall

be confidential and will be surely used for the research purpose.

Thanks for your anticipated co-operation.

Yours faithfully,

Ohagwu, Martina Ngozika

Reg No: 2011/58840

86

86

QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE CONSTRAINT TO EFFECTIVE

ADMINISTRATION OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN OBOLLO-AFFOR

EDUCATION ZONE OF ENUGU – STATE

SECTION A PERSONAL DATA

STATUS: HEAD TEACHER L.G. E A Staff

SECTION B

INSTRUCTION: For each item, please tick ( ) in the option that mostly

applies to you

Key:

Very Great Extent (VGE) Strongly Agree (SA)

Great Extent (GE) Agree (A)

Little Extent (LE) Disagree (D)

Very Little Extent (VLE) Strongly Disagree (SD)

87

87

CLUSTER A: To what extent did head-teachers and LGEA staff carry out

their administrative roles in primary schools?

S/N Extent do head-teachers and LGEA staff

carry out their administrative roles

VGE GE LE VLE

1. Disbursement of funds provided to it from both

federal and state resources

2. Promotion of teaching and non-teaching staff

3. Posting and reposting of teachers

4. Providing guidelines on the establishment of

new school

5. Recruitment of teaching and non teaching staff

6. Making recommendation to the Board on how

teachers should be disciplined

7. Acquisition and distribution of materials and

equipment to all primary schools in its areas of

jurisdiction

8. Approval of training and retraining of teachers.

9. Retirement of teaching and non teaching staff

10. Dismissal of teaching and non teaching staff

88

88

CLUSTER B: To what extent did financial constraints affect effective


S/N Extent do financial constraints affect effective

administration

VGE GE LE VLE

11. Lack of funds hinders effective implementation of

programmes in primary schools.

12. Staff salaries are not paid regularly, so teachers’ support

are lacked

13. Effective supervisions are not carried out in the primary

schools due to lack of funds

14. Seminars are not organized for teachers due to lack of

funds

15. Workshops are organized for teachers

16. Adequate funds are not provided for the necessary

facilities and equipment in primary schools.

89

89

CLUSTER C: To what extent did infrastructural facilities affect effective


S/N Extent infrastructural facilities affect

effective administration

VGE GE LE VLE

17. Unavailability of school facilities result in

overcrowding of pupils thereby making if

difficult for teaching and learning to take

place

18. Quality textbooks are scarce in many

primary schools and these affect pupils

readability

19. Infrastructural facilities provided by the

government to schools are usually sub-

standard

20. There are dilapidated school buildings in

some primary schools which impede

teaching and learning

21. Facilities needed in schools to facilitate

learning are not provided adequately

90

90

CLUSTER D: What are the personnel constraints to the effective


S/N Personnel constraints to the effective

administration

SA A D SD

22. Academic development of pupils is affected

by lack of qualified teachers in primary

school.

23. It leads to recruitment of unqualified staff in

schools

24. It leads to poor teaching and learning of

pupils in schools

25. It results to indiscipline among the pupils

26. It leads to poor supervision of schools

27. It encourages falling standard of education

in primary schools.

91

91

Cluster E: To what extent did the head-teachers relate with the community

for effective administration of primary schools?

S/N Extent the head-teachers relate with the

community for effective administration

VGE GE LE VLE

28 Head-teachers enlighten the community on the purpose

of the school.

29 Head-teachers inform the community of the conditions

of the school.

30 Head-teachers coordinate school activities with the

community.

31 Head-teachers pay regular interactive visits to parents.

32 The head-teachers regularly meet the Parents Teachers

Association.

33. Head-teachers inform parents on their children’s

academic performance regularly.

34 Head-teachers maintain good relationship with the

community.

35 Parents are involved in planning the development of the

school.

36 PTA helps to provide special services to the school

when needed.

37 Head-teachers allow the school to serve as venue for

community meetings.

92

92

RELIABILITY

/VARIABLES = Items1 Item2 Item3 Item4 Item5 Item6 Item7 Item8 Item9 Item10

/SCALE (‘ALL VARIABLES’) ALL

/MODEL= ALPHA

/STATISTICS = DESCRIPTIVE

/SUMMARY = MEANS

Reliability

(DataSet 1) c: \Documents and Settings\DR. UCHE ASOGWA\My Documents\NEW IJEOMA. sav

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach’s

Alpha

Cronbach’s

Alpha Based

on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.725 .713 10

N %

Case Valid

Excludeda

Total

20

0

20

100.0

.0

100.0

93

93

Item Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

Item1

Item2

Item3

Item4

Item5

Item6

Item7

Item8

Item9

Item10

3.7000

3.4000

2.4500

2.4000

2.9500

3.5500

3.6500

3.3500

1.3000

2.8500

.57124

75394

1.27630

1.42902

1.09904

.75915

.67082

.87509

.57124

.93330

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Summary Item Statistics

Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Range

Maximum/

Minimum

Variance

N of Items

Item Means 2.960 1.300 3.700 2.400 2.846 .562 10

RELIABILITY

/VARIABLES = Items11 Item12 Item13 Item14 Item15 Item16 Item17 Item18 Item19

Item20


/MODEL= ALPHA


/SUMMARY = MEANS

Reliability


94

94





Cronbach’s

Alpha

Cronbach’s

Alpha Based

on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.858 .851 10

Item Statistics


Item11

Item12

Item13

Item14

Item15

Item16

Item17

Item18

Item19

Item20

2.6500

2.9000

3.3500

3.4500

2.6500

2.8500

2.9000

2.6500

3.4500

3.4000

.98809

.96791

.81273

.68633

.87509

.98809

.78807

1.03999

.82558

.94032

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

N %

Case Valid

Excludeda

Total

20

0

20

100.0

.0

100.0

95

95

96

96


Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Range

Maximum/

Minimum

Variance

N of Items

Item Means 3.025 2.650 3.450 .800 1.302 .121 10

RELIABILITY


Item30


/MODEL= ALPHA


/SUMMARY = MEANS

Reliability






Cronbach’s

Alpha

Cronbach’s

Alpha Based

on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.884 .881 10

N %

Case Valid

Excludeda

Total

20

0

20

100.0

.0

100.0

97

97

Item Statistics


Item21

Item22

Item23

Item24

Item25

Item26

Item27

Item28

Item29

Item30

2.3500

2.1000

3.0500

3.4000

2.3500

3.1500

2.9000

2.8000

2.7000

2.4000

1.13671

1.076115

.60481

.75394

.87509

.36635

.78807

1.05631

1.30182

1.14248

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20


Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Range

Maximum/

Minimum

Variance

N of Items

Item Means 2.720 2.100 3.400 1.300 1.619 .173 10

RELIABILITY


Item40


/MODEL= ALPHA


/SUMMARY = MEANS

Reliability


98

98




Cronbach’s

Alpha

Cronbach’s

Alpha Based

on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.864 .869 10

Item Statistics


Item31

Item32

Item33

Item34

Item35

Item36

Item37

Item38

Item39

Item40

3.1500

3.5000

3.3500

3.2500

3.4500

2.2500

2.9000

3.7000

3.6500

3.4000

.98809

.88852

.74516

.91047

.88704

.96655

1.02084

.80131

.67082

.75394

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20


N %

Case Valid

Excludeda

Total

20

0

20

100.0

.0

100.0


99

99

Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Range

Maximum/

Minimum

Variance

N of Items

Item Means 3.260 2.250 3.700 1.450 1.644 .181 10

100

100

RELIABILITY

/VARIABLES = Items1 Item2 Item3 Item4 Item5 Item6 Item7 Item8 Item9 Item10 Items11

Item12 Item13 Item14 Item15 Item16 Item17 Item18 Item19 Item20 Items21 Item22

Item23 Item24 Item25 Item26 Item27 Item28 Item29 Item30 Items31 Item32 Item33 Item34

Item35 Item36 Item37 Item38 Item39 Item40


/MODEL= ALPHA


/SUMMARY = MEANS.

Reliability






Cronbach’s

Alpha

Cronbach’s

Alpha Based

on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.883 .862 40

N %

Case Valid

Excludeda

Total

20

0

20

100.0

.0

100.0

101

101

Item Statistics


Item1

Item2

Item3

Item4

Item5

Item6

Item7

Item8

Item9

Item10

Item11

Item12

Item13

Item14

Item15

3.7000

3.4000

2.4500

2.4000

2.9500

3.5500

3.6500

3.3500

1.3000

2.8500

2.6500

2.9000

3.3500

3.4500

2.6500

.57124

75394

1.27630

1.42902

1.09904

.75915

.67082

.87509

.57124

.93330

.98809

.96791

.81273

.68633

.87509

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Item16

Item17

Item18

Item19

Item20

Item21

Item22

Item23

Item24

Item25

Item26

Item27

2.8500

2.9000

2.6500

3.4500

3.4000

2.3500

2.1000

3.0500

3.4000

2.3500

3.1500

2.9000

.98809

.78807

1.03999

.82558

.94032

1.13671

1.076115

.60481

.75394

.87509

.36635

.78807

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

102

102

Item28

Item29

Item30

Item31

Item32

Item33

Item34

Item35

Item36

Item37

Item38

Item39

Item40

2.8000

2.7000

2.4000

3.1500

3.5000

3.3500

3.2500

3.4500

2.2500

2.9000

3.7000

3.6500

3.4000

1.05631

1.30182

1.14248

.98809

.88852

.74516

.91047

.88704

.96655

1.02084

.80131

.67082

.75394

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20


Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Range

Maximum/

Minimum

Variance

N of Items

Item Means 2.991 1.300 3.700 2.400 2.846 .277 40

103

103

LIST OF SCHOOLS IN IGBO-EZE SOUTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EDUCATION AUTHORITY

S/NO NAME OF SCHOOLS

1. Central School Iheaka

2. Community Primary School, Ovoko-Ulo

3. Community Primary School, Ovoko-Agu

4. Community Primary School, Ekoyi Iheaka

5. Central School, Ovoko

6. Community Primary School Ajuona-Ovoko

7. Community Primary School, Ovoko-Iheaka

8. Community Primary School, Mkpunase Ovoko

9. Community Primary School, Umuwzeavuru

10. Community Primary School, Ugo-Iheaka

11. Union Primary School, UMUJIOHA-Ovoko

12. Community Primary School I Iheaka

13. Community Primary School, Ulunya-Ovoko

14. Community Primary School II Iheaka

15. Community Primary School I Uhunowere

16. Central School Isiagu Ibagwa-Aka

17. Community Primary School Eburumiri Ibagwa-Aka

18. Community Primary School I Ibagwa-Aka

19. TSI Ibagwa-Aka

104

104

20. Community Primary School II Uhunowere

21. Modern Primary School Ezzi Iheakpu-Awka

22. Community Primary School Aguogbara Ibagwa

23. Urban Primary School Ibagwa-Aka

24. Central School Ibagwa-Aka

25. Township School III, Ibagwa-Aka

26. Community Primary School Iheakpu-Awka

27. Community Primary School Isiagu Ibagwa-Aka

28. Community Primary School II Ibagwa-Aka

29. Awka N’obara Primary School I Iheakpu-Awka

30. APS II Iheakpu-Awka

31. Township School II Ibagwa-Aka

32. Community Primary School Imilike Ibagwa-Aka

33. MFCS Okwaa Itchi

34. Community Primary School II Itchi

35. Community Primary School Itechi-Agu

36. Community Primary School, Nkalagu-Obupka

37. Eluoha Primary School Nkalagu Obukpa

38. Community Primary School I Unadu

39. Community Primary School II Unadu

40. Community Primary School II Alor-Agu

41. Community Primary School I, Alor-Agu

42. Community Primary School Itchi

105

105

43. Community Primary School I Itechi

44. Union Primary School, Ichi Ohe

106

106

LIST OF SCHOOLS IN UDENU LOCAL GOVERNMENT

EDUCATION AUTHORITY


1. C/S Amalla

2. I.P.S Amalla

3. C/S Obollo-Afor

4. Central II Obollo-Afor

5. Amalla Obollo P/S

6. Hillside Primary School Iheakpu I

7. A.P.S Obollo Afor Amutenyi

8. Iheakpu Primary School Iheakpu

9. Hillside Primary School II

10. Ogwu Primary School O/Afor

11. Ogene Primary School milike

12. Amalla Orba Primary School

13. C.P.S Agu Orba

14. Amaukwu Primary School

15. Ohebe Primary School

16. Union Primary School Iohor

17. Agudele Primary School C.P.S Agudele

18. Egbu Primary School

19. Ekwuesue Primary School

107

107

20. C/S Ezimo Uno

21. Union Primary School Ama Orba

22. Union Primary School II Ohom

23. Nkwo Orba Primary School II

24. Ofumonu Primary School

25. C.P.S Imilike ani

26. Central School Imilike Enu

27. C. P. S Imilike Agu

28. C.P S. Ezimo Uno

29. C. P. S Ibagwa Ezimo

30. C.P.S Ezimo Agu

31. C. P. S Ogbodo Aba

32. C. P. S Udunedem

33. C. P. S Umundu Primary School

34. C. P. S Imilike Ani

35. U.P.S Ibagwa

36. C.P.S II Ezimo Agu

37. I.P.S Umundu

38. Ohullo Primary School

39. Nkwo orba Primary School II

40. Central School Ibenda

41. C.C.S Obollo-Eke

42. Iheakpu Primary School

108

108

43. Okpaligbo Primary School

44. Ogwu Primary School Obi

45. Ada Central School

46. Ada People’s Primary School

47 Olenyi Primary School

48. Umuosogwu Primary School

49. C. P. S Umuitodo

50. Agudele Ada Primary School

51. Central School Umuosigide

52. Premia Primary School Odobido

53. Umuegali Primary School

54. Odenigbo Ada Primary School

55. Riverside Primary School

56. Ogbeile Ohulor Primary School

57. Cross River Primary School

58. Central School Obollo Eke

59. Hill Side Primary School II Iheakpu

60. Union Primary School Amutenyi

61. Union Primary School II Obollo-Afor

62. Nkaiagu Primary School Amalla

63. Ulon Obollo Primary School

64. Buniamanyi Primary School Orba

65. Central school Orba

109

109

66. Nkwo Orba Primary School

67. C. P. S Umuitodo

68. Central School umuosigidi

69. Premier Primary School Obollo Eke

70. Umuegali Primary School Amalla

71. Nkwo Orba Primary School I

72. Buniamanyi Primary School Orba

LIST OF SCHOOLS IN IGBO-EZE NORTH LOCAL

GOVERNMENT EDUCATION AUTHORITY


1. Central School Onicha Enugu Ezike

2. Central School Umuida

3. Community Primary School Ugwu Attama

4. Migrant Farmer’s Children’s School

5. Community Primary School Nkpor Agu Umuipa

6. Union Primary School Onicha Enugu Ezike

7. Central Primary School Ogrute

8. Community Primary School Ogrute

9. Community Primary School I Gogoko

10. Umuaji Primary School Umuida

110

110

11. Township School I Ogrute

12. C.P.S Mkpamute Ulo

13. C.P.S Aguogbara Isiugwu

14. Community Primary School Umuo Ruagu

15. C.P.S Umuodumogwu Aguibeje

16. Community Primary School Owerre eze

17. Community Primary School III Igogoro

18. Central School Igogoro

19. Community primary School Iyionu

20. Central School Aguibeje Enugu Ezike

21. C. P School Ukwuiwui Ogrute

22. Community Primary School Agara umuida

23. C.P.S Ezillo Igbo eze north central

24. Mobel Primary School Igogoro

25. Ahebi Primary School umuida

26. C.P.S Mkpamuje Ulo

27. Central School Igogoro

28. Township I Ogrute

29. Central School Aguibeje Enugu Ezike

30. Umuaji Primary School umuida

31. Migrant Farmers Children’s School Akpatulu Umuida

32. Township School II Ogrute Enugu Ezike

33. C.P.S Ugwu Eze Mkpume Aguibeje

111

111

34. C.P.S Okata

35. Community Primary School I Igogoro

36. Community Primary School Isiugwu

37. Umuadogwa Primary School Umuida

38. Migrant Farmers Children’s School Igogoro

39. Ogewe Primary School Umuida

40. C.P.S II Igogoro

41. Community Primary School Ikpamodo

42. Community Primary School Ugbaike

43. Community Primary School Amaube Igbo Enugu Ezike North

44 Community Primary School Umuachi

45. Central Primary School Amaja

46. Community Primary School Amaja

47. Community Primary School Ikpuiga

48. Community Primary School Okpo

49. Umuoma Primary School Okpo

50. Union Primary School Amachalla

51. Community Primary School Ikpuiga

52. Community Primary School Igbeleozo

53. Ezzodo community primary School II Uda

54. Community Primary School Umuogbo Inyi

55. C.P.S Amachalla Igbo Eze North

56. C.P.S Okpowo Okpo

112

112

57. Akpa Inyi primary school Inyi

58. Umura Primary School Ugbaike

59. Community primary school ugbaike

60. Community primary school uroshi

61. M.F.C.S Umnadon Owo Enugu Ezike

62. M.F.C.S Nkalagu Inyi Enugu Ezike

63. C.P.S Eha-inyi

64. C.P.S Ama-orba Inyi

65. C.P.S Uroshi

66. C.P.S Igbelle

67. M.F.C.S Okagbu Amachala

68. M.F.C.S Amaeze Ugbaike

69. Ezzodo C.P.S III Uda

70. C.P.S Ugwu Amufie

71. U.P.S Olido

72. C.P.S Olido

73. Central School Amachala

74. Union primary school Amachala

75. C.P.S Ekposhi

76. C.P.S Ofueke Amufie

77. C.P.S I Amachalla

78. C.P.S Adokpe Ette

79. C.P.S Achanya Ette

113

113

80 Central Primary School Umuagama

81 Union Primary School Umuonu

82 C.P.S Umuopu,

83. Community Primary School Imufu

84 M.F.C.S Ikeje Ette

85. C.P.S Umuogbo Agu

86. U. P.S umuagama, Igbo Eze North West

87. C.P.S Mboshi Aji

88. Community Primary School Umuodeje

89. C.P.S Ufodo

90. C.P.S Anodaba Ette

91. C.P.S Umuagada Ette

92. M.F.C.S Ugwuohe Umuasama

93. N.N S Iyaya Ette

94. Central School Aji

95. Community Primary School Umuebe Agu Ette

96. C.P.S Ayishi Ette

97. C.P.S Umuogbo-Agu

98. M.F.C.S Adum Umuogbo Agu

99. C.P.S Ette Ulo

100. Union Primary School Okukpa Imufu

101 M.F.C.S Umuopu

102 Community Primary School Imufu

114

114

103 Union Primary School umuonehe Aji

104 Umura Primary School ugbike

105 C.P.S ugwueze umuopu

106 Central School Ette

107 Community Primary School umuopu umueze

108 Community Primary School Achanya Ette

109 C.P.S Ogador Ette

110 C.P.S Mkpoyi Umuogboagu

111 Union Primary School umuagama

112 Central School umuagama

113 Community Primary School umuagama

114 Community Primary School umuogbo –ulo

115 Township School Aji

116 C.P.S Ofante Umuogbogu

117 C.P.S Adupi Ette

115

115

DATA ANALYSIS

PRINT OUT OF THE RESULT OF DATA ANALYSIS

Research Question One

Case Summaries

Items

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Mean

Head-

teachers

Mean

N

SD

3.70

137

0.45

3.59

137

0.49

3.40

137

0.63

3.15

137

0.65

3.60

137

0.48

3.62

137

0.55

3.12

137

0.41

3.06

137

0.63

2.90

137

0.65

3.29

137

0.56

3.24

Education

Authority

Staff

Mean

N

SD

2.90

340

0.68

2.80

340

0.66

3.30

340

0.71

2.85

340

0.64

3.10

340

0.69

2.99

340

0.70

3.45

340

0.74

3.08

340

0.65

3.23

340

0.72

3.06

340

0.68

3.07

Research Question Two

Case Summaries

Items

11 12 13 14 15 16 Total

Mean

Head-

teachers

Mean

N

SD

3.38

137

0.64

3.20

137

0.51

2.97

137

0.56

3.33

137

0.49

3.07

137

0.56

3.41

137

0.61

3.22

Education

Authority

Staff

Mean

N

SD

3.40

340

0.54

2.71

340

0.71

3.28

340

0.66

3.23

340

0.56

3.09

340

0.53

2.79

340

0.61

3.08

1

1

Research Question Three

Case Summaries

Items

17 18 19 20 21 Total

Mean

Head-

teachers

Mean

N

SD

3.22

137

0.63

3.07

137

0.71

2.84

137

0.62

2.92

137

0.57

3.11

137

0.61

3.03

Education

Authority

Staff

Mean

N

SD

3.01

340

0.64

3.21

340

0.55

2.76

340

0.51

2.95

340

0.53

2.87

340

0.62

2.96

Research Question Four

Case Summaries

Items

22 23 24 25 26 27 Total

Mean

Head-

teachers

Mean

N

SD

3.30

137

0.69

3.22

137

0.61

3.40

137

0.53

3.10

137

0.66

2.75

137

0.57

2.94

137

0.55

3.11

Education

Authority

Staff

Mean

N

SD

3.12

340

0.62

2.85

340

0.59

2.79

340

0.58

3.20

340

0.69

2.90

340

0.56

3.02

340

0.61

2.98

2

2

Research Question Five

Case Summaries

Items

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Total

Mean

Head-

teachers

Mean

N

SD

3.20

137

0.62

3.01

137

0.65

2.86

137

0.71

2.76

137

0.73

2.92

137

0.76

3.10

137

0.64

2.80

137

0.69

3.12

137

0.64

3.00

137

0.61

2.85

137

0.71

2.98

Education

Authority

Staff

Mean

N

SD

3.03

340

0.63

2.98

340

0.70

2.70

340

0.72

2.90

340

0.79

3.00

340

0.65

3.05

340

0.63

2.96

340

0.69

2.98

340

0.72

2.75

340

0.75

2.95

340

0.69

2.96

3

3

HYPOTHESES TESTING

Hypothesis One (Ho1)


of sign.

t-cal

value

t-table

value


475 0.05 1.78 1.96

2 LGEA staff 340 2.98 0.65

Hypothesis Two (Ho2)


of sign.

t-cal

value

t-table

value


475 0.05 1.65 1.96

2 LGEA staff 340 3.12 0.75

Hypothesis Three (Ho3)


of sign.

t-cal

value

t-table

value


475 0.05 1.57 1.96

2 LGEA staff 340 2.98 0.70