of empirical studies related to factors related to academic performance of secondary education worldwide and Tanzania in particular. Empirical review begins with defining important terms used in the study and ends with describing research gap identified. 2.2 Definitions of Relevant Concepts 2.2.1 Secondary School Secondary school in Tanzania refers to post-primary formal education offered to persons who should have successfully completed seven years of primary education and have met requisite entry qualifications (URT, 2002). The objectives of secondary education are: to consolidate and broaden the scope of baseline ideas, knowledge, skills and principles acquired and developed at the primary level. Education and training in Tanzania is undertaken by all ministries but the main one for formal and non-formal education is the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training. 2.2.2 Non-government School Non-government (private) schools, as defined by UNESCO, are schools controlled and managed by non-government organisations such as religious groups, association or enterprises (UNESCO, 2005, cited in Rose, 2007). Private or non-state provision of education may be conducted by a wide variety of actors, which may include ‘NGOs, faith-based organisations, communities and commercial private entrepreneurs, each with different motives for their involvement in education (Rose, 2007). 2.2.3 Private Schools Provider better Education than Public Counterparts
satisfaction (Lamb, et al., 2004; UNESCO, 2010). Teachers showed neutrality with respect to satisfaction with teaching profession, physical working environment, leadership/management, salaries and incentives. Referring to findings of qualitative analysis teachers were generally satisfied with location because most of the schools visited were urban or peri-urban-based as literature has established that teachers are generally reluctant to work in the rural areas (UNESCO, 2005; OECD, 2005; Lewin and Sayed, 2005; Mulkeen et al., 2007). The study also established association between satisfactions with teaching profession in a given environment with socio-demographic attributes in order to gain a general understanding of what type of teaching staff managers can easily retain by maneuvering the environment. There was significant association between satisfaction with teaching profession and socio-demographic attributes, namely, age, sex, education and years of teaching (Table 4.6). No significant association between marital statuses and teaching profession was observed, probably because of sample size and the fact that majority (87.1%) of consulted teachers were married. Table 4.6: Association between Degree of Satisfaction and Socio-Economic Attributes Satisfaction Attribute Chi-square (df, N) Cramer’s V Phi (φ) Teaching profession Salaries Age Sex Education Years of work Marital Status Age Sex Education χ2 (8,101) = 53.21 χ2 (4, 101) = 15.14 χ2 (16,101) = 23.72 χ2 (12, 101) = 27.48 χ2 (4,101) = 4.593 χ2 (12, 101) = 14.318 χ2 (4, 101) = 10.973 χ2 (16, 101) = 33.536 0.419 0.387 0.242 0.301 0.213 0.270 0.330 0.287 0.726 0.387 0.485 0.522 0.213 0.370 0.330 0.575
Table 4.11 shows results on teachers’ satisfaction levels with regard to school managers’ management and leadership ability. Some managers also reported that they needed to have entrepreneurship skills. Table 4.11: Teachers’ Satisfaction Level with Manager’s Management and Leadership Skills Manager’s qualities Mean Mean Ranking Std. Dev Std. Dev Ranking Ability to reward good workers Ability to promote transparency Ability to listen subordinates Ability to communicate with others Ability to hire employees according to competencies Ability to delegate authority and responsibility Ability to inspire workers and workers Ability to promote professional development Ability to consider the views of others Ability to make participatory decision making Ability to promote teamwork and cooperation spirit 3.92 3.27 3.08 3.07 3.03 3.00 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.90 2.55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 0.7960 0.8932 1.0119 0.9562 0.9583 1.0863 1.1503 0.9587 0.9587 0.8674 0.8541 11 8 3 7 6 2 1 4 5 9 10 Results in Table 4.11 shows that teachers were generally not satisfied with managers’ leadership and management abilities. It shows that teachers were moderately satisfied with the way managers reward good-performing workers and promote transparency at the school. They were generally neutrally satisfaction with ability to listen from their subordinates; communicate with others, ability to hire qualified staff, and ability to delegate. The interviewed teachers were not satisfied with managers’ ability to inspire others, promote professional development, consider views of others, make participatory decisions and promote team work spirit. 4.7.1.8 Administrative Strategies used by Schools Managers were asked to describe different strategies they used to enhance school performance. A number of strategies were described by managers. These include
listed in Table 4.13 showed that they are associated with school’s academic performance. Whereas all strategies showed positive association charging low school fees showed a strong association (Cramer’s V = 0.582). Table 4.13: Strategies used by Managers and School Academic Performance Business tactics employed by school managers χ2 (50,2) Crammer’s V Sig. (2 tail) High-cost strategy targeting special market niche Administering entry examinations Isolation of pupils from surrounding community Single sex-schools (girls only or boys only) Compulsory students’ worship services Presence of Boarding services Small number of students in the class (<30 students) ICT training and use at the school Cost leadership (charging average school fees) Vertical integration of academic services Low-cost focusing on market niche Type of subjects taught Market promotion (TV, Radio, websites, etc) 38.542 27.859 24.239 21.251 21.212 21.122 20.867 19.370 16.942 16.184 13.328 13.248 5.159 0.878 0.746 0.696 0.652 0.651 0.65 0.653 0.622 0.582 0.569 0.516 0.515 0.321 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.076 Successful schools were observed to charge high school fees targeting a certain market niche; the administered entry examinations, isolated students from surrounding communities, enrolled single-sex students (girls only or boys only); they instituted compulsory worship services and placed few students in the classroom. These schools were also vertically integrated into pre-nursery to form six or higher. 4.6.1.9 Student Selection Strategy by Pre-Entry Examination With respect to administering pre-entry examination, 26% percent of schools indicated that they administered pre-entry exams and there remaining 74% did not. A
Table 4.22: Ranked Schools Success Factors School success factors Mean Std. Deviation Mean Ranking Availability of Qualified Teachers School Infrastructure (Facilities) Student Selection Strategy (capability) Equipment and materials Administration Strategies (capability) Managers Business Skills (competence) Sex-Bias (Single Vs Co-Education) Religious Environment Students characteristics School Owners Non Teaching Staff Residence School’s Experience Servicescape School Image (reputation) Cost of Education (Fees) Financial Networks/sources Technology Availability Teachers’ Networks/sources Primary School Leavers Parents Loyalty/involvement Community/Parents Involvement Government Policies Competitors 4.7200 4.7000 4.6400 4.6200 4.5200 4.4600 4.4200 4.3800 4.3200 4.3000 4.2600 4.2400 3.7400 3.4400 3.3890 3.0190 3.3710 3.2590 3.2430 3.2340 3.1070 3.0130 3.0110 3.0010 .60744 .46291 .59796 .69664 .73512 .73429 .67279 .72534 .84370 .81441 .82833 .87037 1.15723 .92934 1.12286 1.01200 .96945 .76973 .95455 .93371 1.03300 1.02400 1.01510 1.32350 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 As can be seen in Table 4.22, stakeholders indicated that availability of qualified teachers at the school is the most important internal factor that determines school performance. This result is in agreement with what was found by other researchers (e.g. Rowe and Rowe, 2003; OECD, 2004; Ogbonnaya and Osiki, 2007; Passos, 2009; Akinsolu, 2010; Mizell, 2010; Rothestein, 2010). A study by RAND (2012) found that when it comes to school academic performance which basically depends upon students performance, a teacher is estimated to have two to three times the impact of any other school factor, including services, facilities, and even leadership. From Table 4.22 other factors that scored high are availability of infrastructure,
Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and educational attainment. Children and Youth Services Review; 26, 39- 62. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm’s Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management. Vol 17 (1) 99-120. Barney, J. B. (2007). Resource-Based Theory: Creating and Sustaining Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. Barney, J. B. and Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-Based Theory: Creating and Sustaining Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. 1st Edition, Oxford University Press. UK. 350pp. Barnhart, C. H. (1964) American College Dictionary: Published by Random House Inc. New York, USA. Becker, S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Berg, S. V. (2010). Water Utility Benchmarking: Measurement, Methodologies and Performance Incentives. London: IWA Publishing. Bergmann, H. (1996). Quality of education and the demand for education: Evidence from developing countries. International Review of Education, 42(6): Berrett, A. M., Chawla-Duggan, R., John Lowe, J. and Nikel, J. (2006). The concept of quality in education: a review of the ‘international’ literature on the concept of quality in education Blankenship, J. C. (2004). Competitive advantage through business performance management. Blevins, B. M. (2009). Effects of socioeconomic status on academic performance in Missouri public schools. (Retrieved from on 22nd February, 2014).
Ross, J. A. and Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 179–199. Rothaermel, F. (2012). Strategic management: Concepts and cases. McGraw-Hill Education, USA. 960pp. Rothstein, J. (2010).“Teacher Quality in Educational Production: Tracking, Decay, and Student Achievement” The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 125 (1): pp. 175-214. Rouse, C. E., and Barrow, L. (2006). U.S. elementary and secondary schools: Equalizing opportunity or replicating the status quo? Future of Children. Vol. 16 (2), pp.99-13. Rowe, K. J., Rowe, K.S. (2003). The ‘myth’ of school effectiveness – especially for boys. Paper presented at the 16th International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Sydney Convention Centre, January 5–8. Rugemalira, J. M. (2005). Theoretical and practical challenges in a Tanzanian English Medium Primary School. Africa and Asia, pp. 66-84. Rushton, A. D., Carson, D. J. (1985). “The Marketing of Services-Managing the Intangibles” European Journal of Marketing, Vol.19, pp.19-46. Rushton, A. M., and Carson, D. J. (1985). The marketing of services: Managing the intangibles. European Journal of Marketing, 19(3), pp. 19–40. Rust, R. T., and Oliver, R. L. (Eds.). (1994). Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, London & New Delhi: Sage Publications.
URT, (2006). Basic Education Statistics in Tanzania. Ministry of Education and Vocational Training, Dar es Salaam. URT, (2008). Education Sector Development Programme. Revised Edition. Ministry of Education and Vocational Training, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 79pp. URT, (2010). Medium Term Strategic Plan 2010/11 – 2012/13: Ministry Of Education and Vocational Training, Dar es Salaam. URT. (2010). Medium Term Strategic Plan 2010/11 – 2012/13: Ministry Of Education and Vocational Training, Dar es Salaam; Uwezo, TENMET and Hivos/Twaweza (2011). [Online] Available: http://www.uwezo.net/uploads/files/Uwezo%20Main%20Report.pdf) accessed on 4th July, 2013. Uwezo. (2010). Are our children learning? Annual Learning Assessment Report Tanzania 2010. Dar es Salaam: Uwezo. (2010). What are our children learning? Annual learning assessment report Tanzania 2010. Dar es Salaam: Uwezo. Retrieved on 3rd March, 2011 from . net/uploads/files/Uwezo%20Main%20Report.pdf. van den Berg, C. (1997). Water Privatization and Regulation in England and Wales. Public Policy for the Private Sector (115). Vasavi, A. (2003). Schooling for a New Society? The social and political bases of education Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publishing. Verspoor, A. (2006). Conditions and Factors of Effective Schools in Africa; Paper presented at the ADEA Biennale on Education in Africa, Libreville, Gabon, March 27-31, 2006.
Word Bank and AED, (2005). Recruiting, Retaining, and Retraining Secondary School Teachers and Principals in Sub-Saharan Africa [www.aed.org] accesses on 13 September, 2010. World Bank, (2002). Education Financing in Developing Countries: Level and Sources of Funds. Human Development Group, World Bank Institute. 20pp. World Bank, (2004). Making Services Work for the Poor. World Development Report, Washing DC. World Bank. (2005). Expanding Opportunities and Building Competencies for Young People: A New Agenda for Secondary Education. World Bank, Washington DC: Wößmann, L. (2003). Schooling Resources, Educational Institutions and Student Performance: the International Evidence. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. Vol. 65, (2), 117–170. Wright, A., and Saks, J. B. (2008). The Community Connection: Case Studies in Public Engagement. Alexandria, Virginia: National School Boards Association. Wu, L. (2006). ‘Resources, dynamic capabilities and performance in a dynamic environment: perceptions in Taiwanese IT enterprises’, Information & Management, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.447–454. Yara, P. O. (2010). Class size and students‟ Mathematics Achievement of senior secondary schools in Southwestern Nigeria; The Social Sciences Journal (TSS), 5(2), 108 – 112). Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Third Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
2. What is your age (in years): Tick please: (Under 40 …..), (40 – 50…….), (51 – 60 ……..), (over 60 ……….…) 3. What is your religious affiliation (Muslim …….), (Christian ……..), (other – please mention.) 4. What is your formal education level? Please tick in the blank provided STD VII or less…. Secondary school …, Certificate/Diploma…., Graduate …, Postgraduate …. 5. What is your subject specialization? ……………………………………… 6. What is your monthly income? (Below 100, 000) ….. (101,000 – 1mil)…., (1,001,000 - 2mil) (2,001,000 – 3mil ....), (3,001,000 -4mil …), 4,001,000 ...), (above 5ml …..) 7. What is your experience (years) in teaching...................................................... 8. How many years have you taught at this school? 9. What factors do you consider when choosing school to get employed by? 10. What incentive items do consider important to satisfy your living? 11. Please, indicate your level of agreement about the importance of the following factors in determining school performance. 12. What subjects do you teach at schools? 13. How common are the following students’ vice cases reported at your school (please tick) 1=strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3= neutral, 4 = agree, 5=strongly agree Factors Determining School Performance 1 2 3 4 5
you know your parents monthly income? Yes/……. No ………… Write it/ ………………… Did you sit for entry examination prior to joining forms one? Yes/……….. No/…..…………….. Did you attend English medium primary school? Yes/……………. No /………………………… What is the level of your satisfaction with the following aspects of teaching process? Leaning process aspects 1 2 3 4 5 Teachers presentations Teacher energizing/inspiring the class Freedom to ask questions Teachers interactions with students Freedom to comment on teacher’s suitability Teaching aids used Are you satisfied with adequacy of facilities and teachers at your school Facilities 1 2 3 4 5 Class-rooms Library Laboratory Computer laboratory Computers Books Laboratory materials How many subjects don’t have teachers in your class? Indicate the level of commonality of these student vices at your school 1=very common, 2= common, 3 = neutral, 4 = uncommon, 5 = very uncommon Social vices affecting student participation Level of commonality 1 2 3 4 5