COLLEGE OF LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE INSTITUTE OF LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE Teachers’ Involvement in Decision Making in Some Selected Primary Schools of Dega Woreda

COLLEGE OF LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
INSTITUTE OF LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE

Teachers’ Involvement in Decision Making in Some Selected Primary Schools of Dega Woreda, Buno Bedele Zone, Southwest Ethiopia.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

By
Alemnesh Birhanu Obsa
ECSU1600736

Advisor: Mrs. Alemayehu Seberu

A Thesis Submitted to the Institute of Leadership and Good Governance Masters Program, Ethiopian Civil Service University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of a Masters Degree in Institute of Leadership and Good Governance

June, 2018
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
DECLARATIONS
I Alemnesh Birhanu, I.D. number ECSU1600736, do here by declare that this thesis is my original work and that it has not been submitted partially; or in full, by any other person for an award of degree in any other university/institution.

Submitted by:
Full Name
Signature
Date
Approved by:
This Thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval as University college supervisor.
Name of Advisor
Signature
Date ______

APPROVAL
The undersigned certify that they have read and here by recommend to Ethiopian Civil Service University and Institute of Leadership and Good governance to accept the thesis submitted by Alemnesh Birhanu and entitled Investigation on Teachers Involvement in Decision Making in Primary Schools of Dega Woreda, Buno Bedele Zone, Southwest Ethiopia, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of a Master’s Degree in Institute of leadership and good governance.
Submitted by:
Full Name: Alemnesh Birhanu Obsa Signature ____Date ______
Approved by:
Name of Advisor _____ Signature ____Date
Name of Supervisor _____ Signature ____Date
Name of Internal Examiner Signature ____Date__________
Name of External Examiner Signature ____Date__________
Name of Head of Department Signature ____Date__________

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First of all I would like to thank the Almighty; he has blessed me on his mercy throughout my life. I would like to express sincere appreciation to all individuals and institutions that have contributed towards the completion of this study. Thanks are due to my university advisors; Mr. Alemayehu Seberu (Mr.), who is provided me guidance, encouragement, and constructive comments in a most friendly, organized and timely manner throughout the study. Giving such chance and funding support by the Ethiopian Civil Service University is gratefully acknowledged.
I would like to thank Dega Woreda Administrative office and Education office for their permission, helping with the logistics of data collection and cooperation to use available data from schools for the study; Thanks for making my fieldwork memorable, enjoyable and painless.
Sincere appreciation goes to the teachers, and school leaders, who have spared their precious time to be interviewed.
Finally, I would like to thank my family, friends and relatives for their unfailing support, love, patience and encouragement and moral support. To all of you and many I have not mentioned by name, thanks and may the Almighty God bless you abundantly.

TABLE OF CONTENT
Contents Page
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS vi
List of tables vii
List of figures viii
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTER ONE 1
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 2
1.3 Objective of the Study 4
1.3.1 General Objective 4
1.3.2 Specific Objectives 4
1.4 Research Questions 4
1.5 Significance of the Study 4
1.6 Scope of the Study 5
1.7 Limitations of the Study 6
1.8 Organization of the Study 6
CHAPTER TWO 7
2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 7
2.1 Introduction 7
2.2 Key Concepts and Operational Definitions 7
2.3 Theoretical and Empirical Literature Review 7
2.3.1 Decision Making in Education 7
2.3.2 Rationale for Teachers’ Participation in School Decision Making 9
2.3.3 Types of Decision making 10
2.3.4 Areas of Teachers’ Involvement in Decision Making 12
2.3.5 Factors Affecting Teachers’ Participation in Decision Making 15
2.3.6 Extent of Teachers Involvement in Decision–Making 20
2.3.7 Roles of Principals in Creating Participatory Decision Making 21
2.4 Conceptual Framework of the Study 24
CHAPTER THREE 25
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 25
3.1 Description of Study Area 25
Source: Depicted from map of the country by using GIS. 26
3.2 Research Design 26
3.3 Sources of Data 27
3.4 Population, Sample and Sampling Techniques 27
3.5 Methods of Data Collection 29
3.5.1 Questionnaire 29
3.5.2 Interview 29
3.5.3 Document analysis 30
3.6 Data collection procedures 30
3.7 Methods of Data Analysis 30
3.8 Ethical Consideration 31
CHAPTER FOUR 32
4 ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA 32
4.1 Introduction 32
4.2 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents 32
4.3 The Extent of Teachers’ Involvement in Decision Making 35
4.4 Factors Affecting Teachers Participation in Decision Making 45
4.5 The Extent of School Leaders Facilitate the way for the Teachers to involve in School Decision Making 50
CHAPTER FIVE 57
5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 57
5.1 Introduction 57
5.2 Summary 57
5.3 Conclusion 59
5.4 Recommendation 60
REFERENCES 1

Appendix
Questionnaires

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
MoE Ministry of Education
OREB Oromia Regional Education Bureaus
PDM Participatory Decision Making
PTA Parent Teacher Association
SIP School Improvement Program
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
WEO Woreda Education Offices
m.a.s.l meter above sea level

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Summary of population, sample and sampling techniques 28
Table 2 Distribution of Respondent by gender, Age, qualification, Area of qualification, work experience, additional responsibility and service year as leader of the respondents 33
Table 3 Extent of Teachers’ Involvement in School Planning Related Activities 36
Table 4 Teacher’s Involvement in Decisions Concerning curriculum and Instruction 37
Table 5 Teacher’s Involvement in Decisions Concerning School policy, rules regulation 39
Table 6 Teacher’s Involvement in Decisions Concerning School Budgeting and Income Generation 41
Table 7 Teacher’s Involvement in Decisions Concerning Student Affaire and Disciplinary 43
Table 8 Teacher’s Involvement in Decisions Concerning School Building 44
Table 9 Respondent Views of Factors Affecting Teachers’ Involvement in Decision-Making 45
Table 10 the extent of School Leaders Able to Facilitate the Environment for More Teacher Involvement 52

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework of the Study 24
Figure 2 Location Map of the study area 26

ABSTRACT
This study aims at analyzing teachers’ involvement in decision making in primary schools of Dega woreda of Buno Bedele zone in Southwest Ethiopia. The Specific objectives of the study were to assess whether or not teachers are involving in school decision making , to identify school activities those involve teachers’ in decision making, to sort out factors affecting teachers’ involvement in decision making and to examine the extent to which the school leaders facilitates the way for teachers’ involvement. Both primary and secondary data sources were used. Primary data was collected from randomly sampled 91teachers, 8 principals, 6 vice principals, and 5 cluster supervisor. Secondary data was collected from schools office documents like minutes of meeting document and decision document. Data gathered through questionnaire were analyzed using percentage, weighted mean standard deviation and independent sample t-test. Data obtained through interview and document analysis were qualitatively analyzed. The result revealed that the teachers’ involvement in all areas of school decision-making of primary schools in general was not satisfactory; and they involved most in issues related to curriculum and instructions and least in school building. School leaders /Principals, vice principals and cluster supervisors/ in encouraging teachers’ involvement in school decision-making was found to be ineffective. Absence of participatory and democratic school leadership, lack of trust between teachers and principals, lack of training and support, and absence of financial incentives were some of the factors that were found to have hindered teachers’ involvement in school decision-making It was thus concluded that teachers role in school decision-making not have been given due emphases in this study. This is likely to affect the overall activities of school in general and teaching learning process in particular. Finally, the study called for the need to facilitate condition in which trained principals in school administrative will be assigned, providing extrinsic reward to teachers with exemplary performance in their profession, establishing a collaborative relationship among teachers, treating and motivating all teachers equally and the school leaders should communicate and give clear information on the issues related with school planning, income generation and school budget and school building to develop the sense of transparency in between teachers and school leaders were also some of the major recommendations forwarded in order to improve teachers’ involvement in school decision-making.

Key word: decision making, teachers, school leaders, teachers’ involvement and primary schools
CHAPTER ONE
1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter deals with background of the research, statement of the problem, objective of the study, research question, significance, scope, limitation of the study, definition of key terms and organization of the study.
1.1 Background of the Study
Decision making is a process of identifying and selecting among various alternatives so as to seek solutions to a particular problem in work place (Kothari, C., 2004). This definition indicates that decision making often requires a problem that precedes the alternative courses of action to be taken in the process of solving a specific problem.
In order to attain educational objectives, teachers must be given legitimate right and opportunity to involve in school decision making in a democratic ways because teachers are important human resources in schools (Mokoena, 2011; Wadesago, 2011).However, the real situations in primary schools show that while some teachers have greater involvement, others involvement in decision making is minimal (Blumenfeld, 2006). Thus, educational administrators are expected to identify the capabilities and interests of teachers and each staff member so as to foster their involvement in school decision making (Drah, 2011).
Teachers’ involvement in decision making processes leads to real school improvement in general and increased academic achievement of students in particular (Wadesago, 2012). Among other things, teachers’ involvement in the school management and decision making helps to reduces inequalities among teachers, foster change management, boost up teachers’ performance and students learning by making teachers more accountable to their profession (Bayaga, 2013; Jung, 2014; Wadesango, 2012).
Despite its various advantages mentioned above, different global and local authors identified factors obscuring the implementation of teachers’ involvement in school decision making processes. For example, the study by Mokoena (2011) found that principals play hindrance role in exercising participatory decision making in the school. Similarly, their participation varies cross experience and sex (Olorunsola & Olayemi, 2011). According to Kiprop & Kandie, 2012; Wadesago, 2012 teachers involvement in school decision making was low and below the expected level that is resulting in low staff morale.
In Ethiopia, different local studies have been conducted to investigate teachers’ involvement indecision making. The study by Workneh (2012) revealed that though attempt to strengthen participatory decision making and administration was at good progress in the schools, stakeholders were not empowered to take part in decision making processes. Thus, the proposed study is aimed to examine teachers’ involvement in decision making in some selected primary school of Dega woreda Buno Bedele Zone Oromia Region.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Education system involves various decision making processes in order to address different issues related to educational problems. The decision making in school system may revolves around collection of scarce teaching-learning resources, the enrolment of students, mobilization of community, allocation of resources, introduction of the new curriculum, student and staff discipline, staff training and methods of improving pedagogy and educational research so as to improve teachers’ commitment and students’ performance (Okumbe,1998).
Both external and internal dynamics together with the needs to meet an ever-evolving global economy of the contemporary world is imposing strong pressure on schools to implement their mandate with required competency (Moran, 2009).These need improving the quality and effectiveness of the schools through mobilizing resources that requires timely and relevant decisions made by involving teachers and other stakeholders. However, it is supposed those principals’ leadership behavior and style, communication, motivation and teachers related factors are likely to hinder teachers’ involvement in decision making.
Even though the Ethiopian Education and Training Policy gives authority for principals to engage stakeholders in school decision making (MoE, 1994), some principals consider themselves as the only knowledgeable and make decisions centrally (Balcha, 2012). As a result they govern the schools alone and hardly involve teachers in school management. Participatory decision making was not practiced because of autocratic type of leadership and teachers were not interested in decision made by school leaders (Hatcher, 2005). Despite teachers not expected to involve in every decision, there is various decision making involving teachers at the schools from which teachers have been marginalized. Thus the study by Balcha (2012) affirms that teachers have low perception on decision made and less likely to gain quality leadership.
As reported by Bender (2005) because of different communication barriers occurred between principals and teachers, stakeholders were deprived of decision making rights in the school. If there is no teachers’ involvement in school decision making, achieving quality education and school goals might be at risk (Wadesango, 2012). Due to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, teachers move away from participatory decision making activities (Kiprop ; Kandic, 2012). The school principals and vice principals should understand the staff and bear in mind factors enhancing or weakening teachers’ motivation because motivation is the engine to implement every activity. But teachers were working with a minimum effort and involvement in decision making at school level.
The rationale behind conducting the study on teachers’ involvement in decision making are firstly, limited local studies conducted on the topic, secondly the limited study conducted focus on secondary schools by neglecting primary school teachers involvement in decision making; thirdly, to see whether or not what is written on previously done works is similar with the findings in the study are; fourthly to get understanding whether or not teachers in the schools under the study are involving teachers in school decision making so as to know the implementation of decentralization of school management in Ethiopian context; lastly to verify the rumor a researcher came across while teaching in the study area before some three years back regarding decision making.
Inspired by the above facts, the purpose of this study is to assess teachers’ involvement in decision making in some selected primary schools in Dega Woreda Buno Bedele Zone of Oromia National Regional State.
1.3 Objective of the Study
1.3.1 General Objective
This study was aimed at assessing teachers’ involvement in decision making process in some selected primary schools of Dega Woreda.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of the study are:
• To know whether or not teachers are involving in school decision making processes in study area.
• To identify school activities those involve teachers’ in decision making in study area.
• To sort out factors affecting teachers’ involvement in decision making at the schools under consideration.
• To examine the extent to which the school leaders facilitates the way for teachers’ involvement in school decision making process in the study area.
1.4 Research Questions
Based on the above statements of the problem, specifically the study was answer the following basic research questions.
• Are teachers involved in decision making processes in some selected primary schools of Dega Woreda?
• What school activities involve teachers’ in decision making?
• What factors affect teachers’ involvement in school decision making?
• To what extent school leaders facilitate for teachers’ involvement in school decision making?
1.5 Significance of the Study
The finding of the study was supposed to benefit different stakeholders working in education sector management in different ways.
Policy makers: the findings will help policy makers and planners to facilitate strategies in producing school leaders that are skillful in the implementation of participatory decision making and seeking solution for changing of the existing system.
Citizens: it will serve as a basis for decision making for the target line office by providing useful information on the extent and areas of involvement in relation to teachers’ involvement in school decision making.
Principals, Teachers, Supervisors and Parent Teachers Association: it may also give important and timely information to principals, teachers, supervisors, Parent Teachers Association and educational officer in the woreda under the study concerning the existing system and practices of teachers’ involvement in school decision making processes. It may make principals, teachers, supervisors, Parent Teacher Association and students of the target area and the society at large more profitable by exposing factors affecting teachers’ involvement in school decision making processes.
Finally, the study will serve as a good basis for forthcoming researchers who have a strong desire to carry out a research on this or related topics in Dega woreda or elsewhere by indicating problem in the research area of the study.
1.6 Scope of the Study
Assessing the practices and related problems of decision making in educational institutions at different levels is very important. But this is difficult due to various resource related constraints and geographical settings. Because of these problems, the study was delimited to assess primary school teachers’ involvement in decision making in Dega woreda, Buno Bedele Zone of Oromia National Regional State. The study encompasses 10 primary schools located in the aforementioned woreda using primary and secondary sources of data. As it is impossible to study all decision making issues, this study was delimited to decisions related to the involvement in school improvement domains, school activities planning, budgeting and income generation, students’ affair and school discipline. The study was conducted from November, 2017 – June, 2018.
1.7 Limitations of the Study
This study was not become to end without drawbacks. Some factors which was limit the researcher in conducting this study was lack of experience in conducting this kind of study. However, this limitation was overcome by providing more time on reading and finding different review related materials. The other factor was misinterpretation of the study by some respondents and therefore they were unwilling to take part in providing information. However, the researcher was gone to these subjects repeatedly and made a maximum effort to get relevant data. In spite of this shortcoming the study was completed as necessary as possible.
1.8 Organization of the Study
The study was organized into five sections. The first section holds the introductory part of the study which consists of background of the research, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research questions, significance, scope of the study and ethical consideration. The second section deals with comprehensive review of the literature pertinent to the research. The third section discusses about the data collection methods, procedures, instrumentation, and data analysis techniques. The collected data from the subject of the study was carefully analyzed and interpreted under the fourth section. The fifth section summarizes the research’s summary, conclusions drawn and recommendations that were made on the basis of findings of the study.
Reference and appendix including questionnaire, interview format and other related materials was part of the document.

CHAPTER TWO
2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a review of the related literature on various aspect of teachers’ involvement in school decision making process. It includes concepts, types, process, areas and rationale for teachers’ involvement in decision-making. In the review the factors that affect teachers’ involvement in school decision-making also included.
2.2 Key Concepts and Operational Definitions
2.3
Decision Making: is the process of identifying and choosing alternatives based on the values and preferences of the decision maker, not only to identify these alternatives but to choose the one that best fits with our goals, objectives, desires and values.
Participatory decision making: The act of sharing decision making with others to achieve school goals (Tibebu, 2011)
School leaders: individuals (Principals, vice principals, supervisor, unit leaders and department heads) who have power and responsibility to make decisions in the schools
Primary Schools: First and second cycle primary school (grade 1-8) according to the current Ethiopian Educational Training Policy.
Teacher empowerment: the power or opportunity that teachers ought to have, sensed by teachers themselves, and endorsed by school stakeholders (Lightfoot, 1996)
Teachers’ Involvement: – is a participative process that uses the entire capacity of teachers and design to encourage increased commitment to organizations success (Robbins, 2003, p.62).
2.3 Theoretical and Empirical Literature Review
2.3.1 Decision Making in Education
According to Coleman (2005), decision–making as the process of specifying the nature of particular problem and selecting among available alternatives in order to solve the problem. This definition of decision making indicates that a problem precedes any decision and that there must be a number of alternative courses of action from which an optimum course was selected. In the same way, Law and Glover (2003) have stated as the decision making may be view as the process by which individuals or groups select a course of action from among alternatives to produce a desired result.
Okumbe (1998) reveal that, decisions are a composite of values, facts, and assumptions. Each or all of these may be subject to change from time to time. Decision making, therefore, is not a onetime activity but rather a continuing activity. The author also stated that, decision involve policies (the definition of objectives), resources (people, money materials, and authority), and means of execution (integration and synthesis).
According to White (1992), the value content of this type of decision is concerned, the school principal should identify two major values; policy decision that seek purposive action; executing decision that seek coordination’s of action. Decision making is considered to be the very heart of administration and leadership. In different functions of managerial process: planning, organizing, staffing, directing, reporting, and budgeting are where managers make decisions. As schools are organization principals who lead schools have to made decisions at every managerial processes in the organization. But, in researchers view the decision making processes at every managerial functions of the schools are not practical Coleman (2005). Coleman’s suggestion is also supported by (Jonse R. and George M, 2009) since they stated as decision making is applied in any of the organizational activities. According to Griffith (1979), decision making is conscious choice from among a well-defined set of often competing alternatives. A leader in any organization has to make the right decision at the right time. This shows that in the school system the ability of decision making is useful to the principal in his/her instructional leadership. Therefore the school principal, to make effective decisions and to secure acceptance he/she must involve the staff members in decision making.
To summarize, the definition, decision making is a sequential process ending in a single decision or series of decisions (choices) which stimulate or forced to some actions. Every successful organization must make decisions that enable the organization to achieve its goal and which meet the critical needs of members of the organization because decision making is cumulative and consultative process. Decisions are made daily in school about the conduct of work, the distribution of resources, and short term goals. Decision makings often have to decide on what is to be done, who to do it, and when and where is to be done.
2.3.2 Rationale for Teachers’ Participation in School Decision Making
According to Algoush (2010), teacher participation in decision–making has been advanced for a variety of reason. Most often, participation is thought to enhance communication among teachers and administrators and improve the quality of educational decision making. It also thought that participation may contribute to the quality of teachers work life. Similarly, Somech (2010), teachers have an opportunity to be involved in and to exert influence on decision making processes, their participation is believed to increase willingness to implement them in class, hence to promote educational productivity.
Participative decision making has been identified as an important contributor to successful educational management. It is not only facilitating implementation of decision but also leads teacher to feel respected and empowered (Wadesango, 2012). Moreover, as indicated by Gardian & Rathore (2010), teacher’s participation in school decision making builds trust, helps teachers acquires new skills, increase school effectiveness and strengthens staff morale, commitment and team work.
The findings of Algoush (2010) similarly found that, five major benefits of impact of increased decision making authority on teacher work life: improve teacher moral, better informed teachers, improve teacher communication within and across school, improve student motivation and increased incentives that serve to attract and retain quality teachers. According to Pashiardis (1994), the participation of teachers in decision making was perceived as forgoing links between administrators and teachers. The important decision making in educational organizations has been recognized as a key function required by administrators. In school where a clear commitment in students learning is apparent, participatory decision making by the teachers is crucial to the overall effective operation of the school. Participative management ensures that members in organization take ownership of the decision, and are willing to defend decision take through collaborative means (Mangunda, 2003). This means that participative management results in a great sense of commitment and ownership of decisions. In most cases the responsibility for obtain school objectives depends on teachers. To summarize this, where teachers are adequately involved in decision making process, there would be commitment and adequate support with the principal and realization of school goal was easy, apathy, and opposition within the school was minimized
2.3.3 Types of Decision Making
According to Griffith (1959:234-235) decisions can be classified into either of the two categories; individual and group decisions, personal and organizational decisions, programmed and non-programmed decisions, intermediary, appellate and creative decisions, rational and non-rational decisions.
In the same way, Core (in Morphet, 1982:124) classified decisions by type as “Routinely occurring decisions, Adaptive decisions involving adjustments of existing policies, and innovative decisions involving the establishment of new policies and goals.”
According to Barnard’s (in Halpin, 1967) decisions can be underway when “cases originated from superiors, cases referred for decisions by subordinates, and cases originating in the initiative of the executive concerned.” He referred these statements as “intermediary, appellate, and creative decisions.”
2.3.3.1 Programmed and Non- Programmed Decisions
According to some writers such as Gray (1984), Agarwal (1982), Ivancevich (1990), Tanner (1981) and Davis (1981) have widely adopted distinction suggested by Herbert Simon (1987) who has distinguished two types of decisions known as programmed and non-programmed decisions.
Decisions can be observed in all types of organization. That is, decisions are programmed to the extent that they are routine and repetitive which are made within the framework of procedures developed for handling the situation occur whereas non-programmed decisions are novel and unconstructed (Simon,1987).
In regards of this, the study made on decisions reveals that the management of most organizations makes use of a number of programmed decisions in their daily activities. Programmed decisions require more organizational resources while non-programmed decisions need proper way of handling and identification of the problem since it may require the basis for allocating great amount of organizational resources. Similarly, Knezevich (1969:62) said that, “In the process of non-programmed decisions, solving new or unique kinds of problems depends on the decision makers’ intelligence, adaptation or problem-oriented behavior.”
In general, programmed decisions are made effective through different kinds of procedures and rules that can be applied to distinctly different types of problems, whereas non-programmed decisions should be handled by general problem solving processes, judgment, and creativity.
2.3.3.2 Individual and Group Decisions
In larger organizations one man decision is uncommon indeed it is very hard to make decision that can be implemented to achieve the organizational goals. However, individual decision can be made in the context of routine decision where specific rules, procedures and available alternatives are well understood. Based on a number of people involved, decision making process can be classified in to two. One man decisions are individual decisions. In most cases, one man decisions are made rarely in small organizations in the context of routine decisions which start with policies made at high levels. Group decisions are characterized by the participation of many people. As he pointed out in large organizations, nearly all employees in the organizational structure participate to achieve the desired decisions (Griffith, 1959).
2.3.3.3 Personal and Organizational Decisions
According to (Griffith, 1959), personal decisions are decisions which are concerned with individuals to attain his goals that are not delegated to others. On the other hand organizational decisions are decisions aimed at organizational goals that can be delegated to others. The current literature on this aspect for instance stresses the effect of personal decisions for attaining organizational goals. In other words, since organizational goal attainment can be facilitated by personal decisions, it might not be easy to separate personal decision from organizational decisions.
2.3.3.4 Intermediary, Appellate and Creativity
According to Halpin (1967), intermediary decision is very common in most organizations. It arises as a result of orders, commands and polices that are originated from the superior to subordinates .The making of these decisions requires a great deal of human relation skill since the decisions are essentially of an implementing nature that call for a change in behavior of individuals who are being told to implement the decisions (Hoy, 1987), (Gorton, 1987), (Davis, 1981). In other words it is not in a position to assume how to get people to accept the decision.
On the other hand appellate decisions made when subordinates refer cases to their superiors for decisions. It indicates the incapability of an individual to make decision after authority is delegated to him/ her. For instance, if disputes occur between two or more individuals or groups in the school, it may create a certain setback upon the school climate which might be difficult for the principal to solve it. Then he may refer the case to his superior in order to settle the disputes.
As indicated by Griffith (1959) “Creative decisions require considerable imagination and interpersonal skill in their implementation”. It is indicated that creative decision cannot be delegated due to its nature thought is shared sometimes. In other way, Morphet (1982), showed the other type of decisions which are originated on the basis of the initiative of the decision makers are known as creative decisions. It involves the development of new policies, goals, or making of major changes in the existing policies, goals and programs that can be made wisely but not speedily.
2.3.4 Areas of Teachers’ Involvement in Decision Making
For the purpose of this sub-topic, the researcher had identified certain potential decisional areas for teachers to participate and reviewed separately.
2.3.4.1 Teachers Participation in School Improvement Program
According to Algoush (2010), teachers are the core human resources in the school for the attainment of school improvement goals: students’ behavior and learning outcome improvement. They are the real source to weaken or strengthen students learning and changing. So, the true school improvement key is in the hands of teachers. School improvement guideline underline that teachers have to participate in planning, implementation and evaluation processes (Somech, 2010). So, this part mainly focuses on four school domains and their elements: Learning and teaching; favorable learning condition and environment; school leadership and management and community participation by revising teachers’ participation in them.
2.3.4.2 Participation in School Activities’ Planning
The study result of Howes (2000) suggested that, planning is one of the four principal tasks of management focusing on identifying and selecting appropriate goals. Jones and George (2009) supported this idea the process to decide in advance what is to be done; how and when it was done; and who is responsible for following up and evaluating the achievement of the pre-planned programs in schools. It is an essential feature of every successful organization .In the case of schools, planning is one of the basic school activities that teachers should involve and be concerned with during implementation.
According to Adaire (2010), the participation of teachers in school activities planning promotes teachers’ commitment to the school policies, rules and regulations and increases their motivation to implement them as well .Concerning the importance of participative planning (West, 2002) suggested, Participation can increase the creativity, and information available for planning, and increase the understanding, acceptance and commitment of people of final plans. Thus, teachers’ participation in school planning aids the school administrators (principals and PTA) to direct their efforts towards the school goal.
2.3.4.3 School Budget and Income Generation
Brain & Kinight (1993) founded that, financial management in education is concerned with the cost of education sources of income to meet the educational costs and the spending of income in order to achieve the educational objectives. Budget preparation is not only the sole responsibility of school principals and vice principals, rather it needs teachers and staff participation. And the above cited author states that, consulting the staff will not only assure superintendent of securing of much needed information, but also contribute to employee morale and status (Balcha, 2012).
Jung (2014) stated that, major source for schools internal income were farmlands, parents’ contribution, school clubs activities, evening classes and rent of classrooms for different activities etc. The location of schools determines the type of incomes. The income from farmland is for rural schools while incomes from evening classes and rent of classrooms are for urban schools. The community contribution is for all schools regardless of the location of the schools. So, teachers need to participate in school income generation by generating idea and actively participating in different issues that could be source of income for school. Because their genuine participation facilitate sources of income and make implementation practical.
2.3.4.4 Students’ Affair and Discipline
According to MoE (2004), Students are the very reason for the establishment and existence of the school and Students’ personnel management is a crucial aspect of human resource management. The rationale why to investigate students’ affair and school discipline is that: create an orderly and healthy school environment; brings about total behavioral change of the student; build positive values within students; increase students’ involvement in management. The study of (Thomas, 2002) showed that, most students at the primary school were at the adolescent stage because of this they are easily malleable. They can be affected by peers and real situation in and out of school environment. As a result they can show some disciplinary problem. Students that exhibit problem not only hinder themselves but negatively affect the learning of other students as well. Same students show a disciplinary problem and that affect the learning and teaching Conditions of the school.
Similarly, the study of (Alemayehu, 2012) indicated that, learning is often hampered or even prevented because of students misbehaving in the class and school compound. In order to tackle such situations, schools have to provide different services. Among the various student personnel services, the ones that are relevant and applicable to our school situation may include: library services, guidance and counseling services, records and file care services. According to Supaporn (2000), teachers play a major role in decreasing inappropriate behavior through the employment of effective instructional activities.
Rehel (2012) stated that, students born with different talents and have innate ideas and interests that appear in different opportunities. Co-curriculum program is one opportunity for students to demonstrate their talent in the school. Co-curricular activity is a program or out-of-class activity, supervised and/or financed by the school, which provides curriculum-related learning and character building experiences that contribute for the total development of learners.
2.3.5 Factors Affecting Teachers’ Participation in Decision Making
Under this sub-topic the researcher reviewed major factors that may influence teachers’ participation in school decision making. The factors that reviewed were behavior and styles of leadership, delegation of authority and responsibility, communication, motivation and teachers related factors respectively.
2.3.5.1 Leadership Related Factors
The study by Supaporn (2000) recommend principals to encourage teachers in decision making processes because the success or failure in managing the school is highly depends upon the level of teachers’ involvement in decision making. The principal is believed to be well equipped in exercising the right authorities and principles of leadership within the school environment. Thus, leadership style of the principal is one factor that may either encourage or discourage teachers’ participation in school decision making affairs.
Northouse (2010) stated that, leadership factors are behaviors of leadership and styles of leadership that should be considered by the school leaders.
2.3.5.1.1 Behaviors of Leadership
The studies of Farris (1998) identified two specific kinds of leadership behaviors: task-oriented behaviors and relations-oriented behaviors. Task-oriented leaders are primarily concerned with reaching goals. They help their employees accomplish their goals by defining roles, establishing goals and methods of evaluations, giving directions, setting time lines, and showing how the goals are to be achieved. As a rule, task-oriented leaders use a one-way communication method to clarify what needs to be done, which is responsible for doing it, and how it needs to be done. According to Northouse (2010), task-oriented leaders coordinate, plan, and schedule work-related activities. They provide their employees with the necessary motivation, equipment, supplies, and technical assistance for completing the task. Relations-oriented leaders, on the other hand, are more concerned with developing close, interpersonal relationships. They involve a two-way communication method to show social and emotional support while helping their employees feel comfortable about themselves, their co-workers, and their situations.
According to Yukl (2006), they provide their employees with enough information to do the job, they allow individual autonomy in work, and they show appreciation. Northouse (2010) showed that, good leader in order to inspire and serve his staff members; he must possess a high quality of leadership skills that they come from the knowledge, experience and understanding of people and human relationships. The findings of Blasé (1993) indicated, many research noted that school principals can highly influence their teachers if they focused on the following management strategies: staff development, communication about school norms, power sharing and manipulation of symbols to foster cooperative relationships with teachers. Moreover, Johnson in Blasé (1993) showed that, equitable distribution of resources, assignment of administrative responsibility, expertise, personal example, and expressed personal interest are some of the actions and behaviors of principals’ that have favorable impacts on teachers.
2.3.5.1.2 Leadership Styles
According to MoE (2004), leadership at school level depends on a number of factors. Some of the most important factors influencing the choice of particular type of leadership style depend on the following factors: the leadership personality, the nature of the task, the type of people involved in the task, the expectation of the group, the relationship between the leader and the other members of the group, the nature and culture of the organization.
Mbamba (1992) indicated that, leadership styles are classified into democratic, autocratic and laissez-faire styles. From the author’s point of view, democratic style of leadership is more preferred to autocratic and laissez-faire styles of leadership. This is due to democratic leadership style give high consideration or subordinates (teachers) in solving school problems together with school leaders. The autocratic leadership style, however; most of the time focuses on that school leaders are the most dominant one in determining and making decision for solving school problems. Laissez-faire leadership style is also not recommended in solving school problems. This is because of the rules and regulations which do not allow teachers in solving school problems.
In general, as many people agreed, from these three categories of leadership styles, a democratic style of leadership is better than the other two styles. This is due to the fact that democratic leadership styles allow subordinates to participate in any decisions of the organization. Therefore, school principals and vice principals have to know which style of leadership is more suitable to their school environment. Moreover, they also need to have necessary knowledge and skills about leadership styles more participating teachers in school decision making issues (Wodasengo, 2012).
2.3.5.2 Delegation of Authority and Responsibility
According to Canwell (2004), delegation is the process by which school managers such as principals and vice principals transfer part of their authority to subordinates (teachers) for the performance of certain tasks and responsibilities of their schools. The role of the secondary school principal is very crucial in meeting the objectives of the education in the school. However, the role of the principal has become more complex that the principal needs to share the responsibilities with others in the school through delegation. While delegation involved empowerment of employees as stated above, certain factors should be taken into consideration such as defining the delegated task, capacity, and interest of the person to be delegated the task. Delegation usually began with the identification of an individual suitable to perform a particular task. The person needed to be prepared, and above all, given the authority in order to carry out the job properly. Further, delegation required the leader to support and monitor progress, and once the tasks were completed, to acknowledge that the job was completed successfully (Sutherland, 2004).
The study of Eyre and Pettinger (1999) told that, delegation of responsibility to teachers and other staff in the school relieves the principal from many pressures of work. In the same case Missik (2004) suggested that, if delegation of responsibility was not effective it could lead to work overload, delayed or inaccurate decisions, stress, mistrust, resentment, and low morale among the staff. It was also apparent that, without effective delegation by school administrators, cases of inefficiency, disharmony, and a poor working environment could result. Despite the importance of delegation of responsibility in schools, there were still barriers that affected the effectiveness of delegation. There was, therefore, need to establish whether principals were not willing to delegate certain responsibilities, and find out constraints to delegation of responsibility.
As it observed from the above idea, delegation enables schools to take full advantages of staff members for their goal achievement. In other words, if staff members are well delegated, they will develop the intention of full participation in school affairs. In relation to this Wodasengo (2012) indicated that delegation builds morale, develops and uncovers potential, and hence increases the quality of the work tone.
2.3.5.3 Communication among Principals and Teachers
According to Jonse R. & George M, 2009, communication is the sharing of information between two or more individuals or groups to reach a common understanding. Good communication is essential for increasing efficiency, quality, responsiveness, and innovation. Communication occurs in various forms ranging from face to face conversation to written messages to the more subtle forms involving facial expression and body movements.
Bender (2005) indicated communication as, the process by which information is transferred from one source to another source and is made meaningful to the involved sources. Caldwell and Brian (2005) showed that, in organization, there should be effective communication in keeping effective participation of staff members. This can be achieved through creating good coordination and cooperation between managers and staff members by building their moral.
Inline of this, Cheng (2008) elaborated that to make decision there must be a good communication, cooperation, coordination between school principals, vice principals and teachers. If this is so, there is trust and respect among them. Otherwise the reverse was true, unless the staff members feel secure in communicating certain information and feel that what they are communicating was taken seriously, they are not like to increase their communication. Therefore, without effective communication among principals and teachers participatory decision making is ineffective.
2.3.5.4 Motivation of Teachers
According to Jonse & George (2009), motivation is psychological forces that determine the directions of a person’s behavior in an organization, a person’s level of effort, and a person’s level of persistence. Motivation refers to reasons that underlie behavior that is characterized by willingness and volition. Intrinsic motivation is animated by personal enjoyment, interest, or pleasure, whereas extrinsic motivation is governed by reinforcement contingencies (Emily, 2011). Motivation involves a constellation of closely related beliefs, perceptions, values, interests, and actions. The use of rewards may either encourage or diminish motivation, depending on the type of rewards and the context in which they are given. Where teachers are given an opportunity to participate in decision making, indications are that they experience high morale ( Mokoena’s ,2011) .
Kiprop and Kandic (2012) study result stated that, many factors influence teachers and other staff members’ level of motivation at work. The factors include school climate, lack of recognition, and head teachers skill in handling decisions, communication, how the past decisions have been handled, and nature of task, fear, alienation, teacher expertise and victimization. Therefore, the school principals and vice principals should not only have some knowledge of the staff but should also bear in mind all factors which can enhance or weaken motivation as it is the engine of activity implementation.
Anderson (2002) stated that, a reason for teachers’ participation in decision making is meaningful for teachers’ empowerment. In supporting to this, factors positively affecting motivation of teachers are: income status, importance in the society, incentives and rewards on showing good results (Muhammad, 2011). In accordingly, as it increases the morale of individuals motivation is important for both organization and individual. So, school administrators must consider the importance of motivation in the school environment in order to motivate teachers towards the achievement of predetermined goal.
2.3.5.5 Factors Related to Teachers
According to Johnse & George (1994), there are two barriers to teachers’ decision making at school level. At the outset, the first barrier was teachers’ capacity for their involvement. Organization theory of high-participative management, teachers needed to be empowered by four basic elements comprised of power, knowledge, information, and reward. It was necessary for a teacher to have all of the four critical elements as participating in decision making concerning school management (Lichtenstein et al., 1991).
White (1992) recommended that, teachers empowered needed to understand both the knowledge with regard to decentralized school governance and the information about the operation and outcome of school policies. This revealed the need for teachers’ training about their participation in school budget, curriculum, and staffing decisions.
According to Kirby and Peggy (2001), as empowered with authority of decision making, teachers had to change their beliefs and attitudes toward their roles outside the classroom and learnt how to think in new ways regarding what was possible. In spite of this, it was not easy for teachers to adapt themselves to the new or strange circumstance which they were not familiar with at all. Some may felt that they did not prepare well for the acceptance of the new roles to join in the groups of making decisions. In other hand, Howes (2000), complain that schools would increase their workload by means of their involvement in decision making instead of incorporating it into their work. These two misunderstandings indicated the lack of the appropriate belief and attitude toward involvement in teachers’ mind, which needed the retraining and in-service activities for teachers to construct new attitudes and roles fundamental to the new style of decision-making (Jung, 2014)
Howes (2000) stated other limitations to teachers’ decision making, such as the school political pressure, the lack of time, the vagueness of shared decision making models, the discord between teachers and administrators. Nevertheless, the two barriers discussed above represented the very readiness of teachers as the authority of decision making was transferred to them.
2.3.6 Extent of Teachers Involvement in Decision–Making
The perception of teachers to school management practices are linked with the extent in which teachers involve in decision making. Based on the extent of teachers’ participations in school decision–making practically vary from one school to another regarding on the issue or problems under consideration. Chanman-Tak et al, (1997) indicated that under certain situation, there is a zone of indifference in each individual teacher within which orders are accepted without serious question of the authority. Otherwise, participation in decision–making may not important if the issue appears irrelevant to teachers. Teachers may accept the outcomes or orders from the decision without resistance or objection.
According to Owens, R.G. (1998), if issue or problems are located in teacher “zone of indifference’, participation was less effective. Individuals or groups are usually intending to participate in the process of decision-making wherever they feel that the degree of teachers’ participation is directly related to how well certain pre-requisite conditions are met. Some of this involvement pre-requisite occurs in the participants while others exist in the environment. So, the knowledge, skills, attitude of the teachers and the school climate affect the extent of teachers’ participation in decision making processes.
As studies suggests in many cases, the extent to which teachers’ participation can be influenced by certain prerequisites. Davis, K. and Newstorm, A. (1994) studies suggested that, time to participate before action is required, the potential benefits of participation should be greater than its cost, the subject of participants must be relevant and interesting to the employees, The participants must be able to mutually communicate, so as to exchange idea, neither party should feel that its position is threatened by participation and participation for deciding a course of action must be within the area of job freedom. Therefore, the way an individual involves in school decision making process may influence the extent of participation, and the move his/her participation is direct, the higher his power to influence the issue under taking account
2.3.7 Roles of Principals in Creating Participatory Decision Making

School principals have roles to be performed by them in relation to participatory decision making at school level. The major ones are: empower teachers to participate in making decisions, enhance participation in decision making and follow implementation and provide feedback.
2.3.7.1 Empower Teachers to Participate in Making Decisions
According to Cheng (2008), the rationale for teachers’ participation in school decision making is to facilitate better decisions, because those closest to the students know best how to improve their schools and are in the best position to make and carryout decisions .The decision making of school staffing, curriculum, or resource allocation etc had been conventionally made by school principals or members of administrative managerial teams. Similarly, Jung (2014) revealed that, teachers were usually excluded by school administrators in the process of decision making and not endowed with the obligation to implement school policies. Merely informed of the results of decisions made, teachers might not clearly understand why or how those decisions were made. As they seldom had opportunities to be involved in these crucial matters, their isolation within classroom might bring about the alienation or misunderstanding between them and school.

Wynne (2007) state that, if teachers are not empowered and supported as professionals, schools would not be able to sustain significant change. With the advent of teacher empowerment, teachers was expected to be given authority to be the ones having access to decision making about school significant matters. If Teachers empowered by principals through different means, there was increment of teachers’ commitment to schools (Caldwell and Brain, 2005). School principals would encourage teachers to participate in school activities outside the classroom, such as textbook selection, curriculum development, learning assessment, student placement, personnel staffing, or professional development.
According to Kiprop and Kandic (2012), teacher empowerment could include extrinsic power and intrinsic power. The extrinsic power concerned with the phenomenon that teachers had the status of affirmation, the knowledge they need, and the process of participatory decision making. The intrinsic power was involved with teachers’ attitude and confidence in displaying their capacity of mastering their own work, and the representation of intrinsic power counts on teachers’ own self-determination and sense of self-efficacy a lot. It is clear that, the role of a teacher should transform into an active participant from a passive practitioner by the practice of teacher empowerment.
2.3.7.2 Enhance participation in decision making
Latham and Pinder (2005) indicated, School administration at all levels along the hierarchy, makes decision. The decision may ultimately negatively or positively influence the schools members. For any group of stakeholders to participate in decision-making processes they need a facilitator, who will enable them to meaningfully participate and also help to motivate them to be part of the decision making process. As a result, the school principals should facilitate the process of decision making and the communication of those decisions to the members of the organization to attain the school goal and to enlarge the moral of teachers and other staffs.
Wadasengo (2011) argued that, school principals who make decision on important school issue without adequate information do not facilitate to the attainment of organizational goals and frequently lower the morale of members of the organization. Effective leadership select the appropriate decisions set and permit the optimal participation for followers. This is to say that instead of making decisions without sufficient and tangible information, it is not necessary for school principals to facilitate environment which is conducive and enhance participation of teachers through consultation, stimulation, and affection. Decision making is an important managerial process in which many decisions made by member of the groups (Tibebu, 2011).
2.3.7.3 Evaluate Decision Effectiveness and Provide Feedback
According to Desta (2010), the school principals are the first line personnel who are in charge of the decision needing educational activities of the school. Principals of the school are the major actors to follow and provide timely and constructive feedback on what is going on in relation to decision passed in the school. He/she has to identify what going in the school during decision making, its implementation and its evaluation trend to provide feedback. Principals should give constant feedback to the teachers. If teachers participation in decision making supervised and feedback is provided; they feel valued, makes them visible and noticed and helps improve their teaching skills (Lathman, 2005).

2.4 Research Gaps

2.5 Conceptual Framework of the Study

Decision Making Role Of Principal’s Teacher’s Involvement In Decision making
In Education

Extraneous Variables

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study
Source: Developed by Researcher, 2017

CHAPTER THREE
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This section provides a comprehensive research design and methodology of this research. It comprises description of the study area, research design, sources of data, population, sample size and sampling techniques, instrument of data collection, procedure of data collection and methods of data analysis.
3.1 Description of Study Area
This study was carried out in Dega woreda Buno Bedele Zone, Oromia Region, southwestern part of Ethiopia. It is located at 760 96′ E and 410 68’N, which is 68 km West of Bedele town the capital of Buno Bedele Zone and 548 km west of Addis Ababa. The Woreda is bounded by Alige Sachi woreda, Illu Aba Bora Zone in the west, Bedele woreda in the east, Mako Woreda in the north and Cora woreda in the south. The altitude of the area ranges between 1600 and 2300 m.a.s.l. Average annual rainfall of the study area is 2000mm, with mean annual temperatures ranging from 180c to 200c. Based on agro-climatic zones, the Woreda can be divided into three broad climatic zones, namely highland areas of high land 2200-2,300 m.a.s.l, which accounts for 23.5% of the total land, mid-high land is between 1800-2200 m.a.s.l, which accounts for 65% of the total land and lowland areas of lowland is between 1600-1800 m.a.s.l, which accounts for 11.5% of the total land areas of the Woreda. The total area of Dega woreda is 46,202 ha out of which 16,069.24 ha is cultivated land, 10,812ha is Uncultivated land, 1732.01 ha is grazing land, 4849.75 ha forest land, 2602 ha is coffee land,765 ha is wet land, 326 ha is irrigation land ; 9,046 ha is water bodies. According to the Administrative information Desk of the woreda (2017), the population size of Dega woreda is 58,246. Out of this 28,874 are males and 29,372 are females. Among this 49,591 (85.15%) live in the rural areas and the rest 8652(14.85%) in the towns. Administratively, the Woreda is divided into 17 kebeles of which 16 are rural kebeles and one is urban kebele.

Location Map of the study area

Figure 2 : Location Map of the study area
Source: Depicted from map of the country by using GIS.
More than 85% of the economy of the Woreda is based on agriculture which means rain fed agriculture and also animal rising is a predominant activity which called crop-livestock mixed farming system. The major crops in the woreda were maize, teff, sorghum, barley, wheat, pea, bean, coffee and other. In Dega woreda there are 58,816 cattle, 23,381 sheep, 14,285 goats, 22,464 poultry, 2,147 horse, 2,564 donkeys, 996 mules, ; 65,710 beehives (Dega woreda Agriculture and Natural Resource office, 2017).
3.2 Research Design
Descriptive survey design was employed to carry out the study because, it helps the researcher to find or gather relevant and pertinent data in detail. Both qualitative and quantitative research approach and survey research strategy was employed in order to triangulate data across different sources (Frankel ; Wallen, 2004). As research approach, both qualitative and quantitative approaches are to provide precise summaries and comparisons. The combination of these two approaches was used to overcome the limitations of using only one of the approaches and to increase the validity of cross checking of the information.
3.3 Sources of Data
The sources of data for this study were primary and secondary sources of data. For the study, the primary data sources was school leaders (principals, vice principals, department heads, unit leaders), teachers, and cluster supervisors. To supplement primary sources of data, secondary sources of data like minutes of staff meeting, education budget, supervision records and reports related to teachers’ participation in decision making in 2017 academic year was consulted.
3.4 Population, Sample and Sampling Techniques
In 2017/2018 academic year there are 23 primary schools which are clustered in 5 clusters in Dega Woreda. They consist of a total of 270 teachers; out of which 148 and 122 were male and females respectively. It also consists of total of 23 principals, 9 vice principals and 5 cluster supervisors. Accordingly, sample school, teacher, principals, vice principals and cluster supervisors were selected as follows: from each clusters, 30% of the total primary schools of the study area were the target of this research based on the argument of Cooper and Schinder (2008) (as cited in who argued that, for any valid and reliable study to be carried; its sample shouldn’t be less than 30% of its population. Eight schools were included from the 5 clusters in the study (namely: Dega primary, Dega 02, Senaga Wuchale,Senaga Harawe, Sotalo Ado, Haro Yajo, Dima Jila and Dukache Kusaye primary school).
Teachers
On Sample Size Gay (1996, p. 125) suggested general rules similar to Suskie’s for determining the sample size. For small populations (N 0.05 which revealed that there no statistically significant difference between the responses of respondents at (t- value = -0.572). This indicated that teachers and leaders agreed on the lack of trust and positive relationship between them was the major factors for teachers’ involvement in school decision making.
In such away, for item 3 in the above table, the mean scores were rated 3.05 (SD=1.566) above average for teachers and 2.16 (SD=1.259) below the average for school leaders. These result indicated that lack of motivation by principal to involve teachers /ignorance is relatively affect teachers’ involvement in school decision-making. To see whether there was a significant difference or not between two groups of respondents’ response independent t-test was computed. The result revealed that, since p value is 0.030 and t-value is 2.700 which is less than the chosen significance level ? = 0.05 for item 3. The findings concluded that there is difference in opinion between the teachers and school leader’s respondents.
In such away, for item 4 in the above table, the mean scores were rated 2.33 (SD=1.528) below average for teachers and 3.37 (SD=1.739) are above mean by school leaders. These result indicated that teachers teachers belief that decision making is not their responsibility but the responsibility of school principals relatively affect teachers’ involvement in school decision-making. To see whether there was a significant difference or not between two groups of respondents’ response independent t-test was computed. The result revealed that, since p value is 0.327 which is greater than the chosen significance level ? = 0.05 for item 4. The findings concluded that there is no difference in opinion between the teachers and school leader’s respondents rather both groups agreed on the issue.
For items 5 in the above table, the mean scores were showed 3.23 (SD= 1.513) and 3.32 (SD=1.668) teachers and school leaders, respectively. The mean scores rated were found to be below the average for teachers and above school leaders. This indicated that both groups of respondents were agreed that lack of available resource (like time, information, materials, etc) is the factor that hindered teachers’ involvement in school decision making. The result revealed that, the p value is 0.258 which is greater than the chosen significance level ? = 0.05 (t value = -0.219, p. value 0.258). The findings concluded that there is no difference in opinion between the teachers and school leader’s respondents rather than both agreed on the issue. This revealed that both teachers and school leaders agreed on the factors.

For item 6 in the table (11), the mean scores were rated 3.20 (SD=1.536) and 2.05 (SD=1.268) for teachers and school leaders respectively. To see whether there was a significant difference or not between two groups of respondents’ response independent t-test was computed. The result revealed that, since p value is 0.027 (t- value =3.444) which is less than the chosen significance level ? = 0.05 for item 6. The findings concluded that there is difference in opinion between the teachers and school leader’s respondents. This revealed that teachers agreed on the autocratic leadership style of principals as a factor that hinder teachers’ involvement in school decision making but and school leaders disagree.
For item 7 in the table (11), the mean scores were rated 2.52 (SD=1.573) and 3.05 (SD=1.580) for teachers and school leaders respectively. To see whether there was a significant difference or not between two groups of respondents’ response independent t-test was computed. The result revealed that, since p value is 0.909 (t-value = -1.350) which is greater than the chosen significance level ? = 0.05 for item 7. The findings concluded that there is no difference in opinion between the teachers and school leader’s respondents rather than both agreed on the issue. This revealed that both teachers and school leaders agreed on the fear of taking risks by teachers themselves as a factor for teachers’ involvement in school decision making.

As shown in table (11), the mean score for item 8 were 2.66(SD=1.634) and 2.00(SD=1.333) for teachers and school leaders respectively. The result revealed that, the p value is 0.002 which is less than the chosen significance level ? = 0.05 (t value = -0.219, p. value 0.258). The findings revealed that there is difference in opinion between the teachers and school leader’s respondents for this factor.
Generally, the researcher concluded that teachers and school leaders agreed on the factors that stated in table 4 as the major factors that affect teachers’ involvement in school decision making. In supporting this idea, McEwan (2001) has stated that “… teachers feel uncomfortable sharing decisions believing that they are administrative prerogative” (p. 101).
In addition to these, respondents were asked to give other factors, if any, which can prevent the involvement of teachers in school decision making which have not been mentioned in the questionnaire. The following are some of the major points raised by respondents.
? Lack of financial incentives. This indicates that there is a poor rewarding system to teachers. However, Davis and Newstorm (1989) put that employee participation is more successful where employees feel they have a valid contributions to make, it will be valued by the organization, and they will be rewarded for it.
? High rate of principals turn over, especially those who have good managerial skill. Regarding this, the interview conducted with school leaders also reveals that quick turn over of school principals to office has a negative impact on the leadership effectiveness at school level. Supporting this finding, MoE, (2010) reported that turn over at woreda level is more serious problem than that of any other level.
? Lack of treating all teachers equally regardless of their sex, religion and ethnicity.
? Low social respect given to teachers by the society
? Lack of commitment and reluctance of teachers to participate in school decision making.
? Lack of proper supervision
? Principals based to his/her closeness.
? Lack of using human power properly.
? Low attention given to teachers by government officials.
? Lack of written school rules and regulations at school level
? Lack of secularism.
? Most of the teachers do not concern for school problems.
? Announcing ideas for informal groups under school leaders before discussing on the issue with teachers.
? Unwillingness of giving recognition towards motivating and rewarding teachers according to their effort by concerned leaders or administrative body.
? Lack of transparency and barriers of communication between teachers and principals.
? Lack of school leadership skill of principals.
? Doubt of teachers about the decisions they involve.
4.5 The Extent of School Leaders Facilitate the way for the Teachers to involve in School Decision Making
According to Desalegn et al., (2014) the principal is widely believed to be pivotal in the successful operation of participative decision-making system in schools. For this purpose, 16 variables (roles) which are practiced by effective and successful school leaders and were taken from literature. If properly practiced by school leaders, these factors can promote teachers involvement. And if they are not properly practiced, they could deter teacher involvement in all areas of decision-making. To this manner, the respondents were asked to respond their opinion on a five scale ranging from very low to very high. The data obtained from respondents for each items were summarized and presented in table 12 below:

Table 12 : The Extent of School Leaders Able to Facilitate the Environment for More Teacher Involvement
No Items Response N Mean SD P -value t-value
1 Provision of freedom to express their opinion Teachers 91 2.86 1.450 .456 -2.144
School leaders 19 3.63 1.342
Total 110 2.99 1.456
2 Sharing responsibility Teachers 91 2.98 1.437 .820 -2.398
School leaders 19 3.84 1.385
Total 110 3.13 1.460
3 Establishing and maintaining good interpersonal relationship Teachers 91 2.99 1.394 .534 -1.070
School leaders 19 3.37 1.461
Total 110 3.05 1.407
4 Provision of information /communicating information/ Teachers 91 2.70 1.346 .943 -2.114
School leaders 19 3.42 1.346
Total 110 2.83 1.367
5 Accepting decision made independently by teachers Teachers 91 2.91 1.380 .517 -.252
School leaders 19 3.00 1.414
Total 110 2.93 1.379
6 Allowing teachers to have greater voice Teachers 91 2.85 1.299 .276 -2.030
School leaders 19 3.53 1.467
Total 110 2.96 1.347
7 Proving support and establishing environment of trust Teachers 91 2.81 1.374 .495 -2.185
School leaders 19 3.58 1.465
Total 110 2.95 1.413
8 Giving recognition to teachers idea Teachers 91 2.92 1.335 .774 -1.172
School leaders 19 3.32 1.293
Total 110 2.99 1.331
9 Facilitating criticism when unusual idea come forth from the group Teachers 91 2.79 1.379 .740 -2.416
School leaders 19 3.63 1.383
Total 110 2.94 1.410
10 Explaining transparently what is expected from teachers Teachers 91 3.41 1.358 .159 -2.576
School leaders 19 4.26 1.098
Total 110 3.55 1.352
11 Allowing and encouraging team work and group activities Teachers 91 3.44 1.293 .535 -1.082
School leaders 19 3.79 1.228
Total 110 3.50 1.283
12 Allowing to elect department heads ; unit leader Teachers 91 4.15 1.095 .383 -.384
School leaders 19 4.26 1.284
Total 110 4.17 1.124
13 Encourages teachers to participate Teachers 91 2.75 1.387 .756 -2.782
School leaders 19 3.74 1.522
Total 110 2.92 1.453
14 Aware teachers the point of discussion Teachers 91 3.79 1.207 .419 -.496
School leaders 19 3.95 1.433
Total 110 3.82 1.243
15
Trigger teachers to forward ideas Teachers 91 2.80 1.424 .036 -3.726
School leaders 19 3.89 1.100
Total 110 2.99 1.430
16 Support teachers to develop sense of ownership Teachers 91 2.81 1.445 .209 -2.431
School leaders 19 3.68 1.293
Total 110 2.96 1.452
Source: Computed By Researcher from Respondent Response, 2018

In table 12, teachers and school leaders response on item 1 were the mean score 2.86(SD=1.450) and 3.63(SD=1.342) respectively. The result were less than average mean for teachers and above average mean for school leaders. This indicate that teachers claimed for low extent of school leaders roles have been played whereas, school leaders claimed for high extent of their roles have been played in providing of freedom to express their opinion. In order to check whether there is statically significance difference between the opinions of the two groups of respondents, independent sample t- test was employed. The result indicated that, the t-value calculated for items 1 is less than t-value at a=0.05 level significance (t-value = -2.144). This implies that there is no statistically significance difference between the opinions of the two groups of respondents.
Regarding item 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 the mean score were rated below average mean for teachers and above average mean for school leaders. The mean score for the above eight items were 2.70(SD=1.346) to 2.99(SD=1.394) for teachers and 3.00 (SD=1.414) to 3.84(SD=1.385) for school leaders respectively. The result described that, teachers claim for low extent of school leaders roles have been played.
Whereas,Schoolleadersclaimed for high extent of their roles have been played in sharing responsibility, establishing and maintaining good interpersonal relationship, provision of information , accepting decision made independently by teachers, allowing teachers to have greater voice,proving support and establishing environment of trust, giving recognition to teachers idea, and facilitating criticism when unusual idea come forth from the group. In order to check whether there is statically significance difference between the opinions of the two groups of respondents, the mean values of the responses of the two groups of the respondents were thus the t-value calculated for item 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 is less than t-value at a=0.05 level significance (p value ; less than the chosen significance level ? = 0.05).
This implies that there is no statistically significance difference between the opinions of the two groups of respondents. These imply that the school leaders are not working in enhancing sense of feeling to accept decisions made by teachers made independently ; in providing support to teachers to have greater voice; in giving due recognition to teachers’ ideas; and also the school leaders are not working in developing to bring about sense of ownership among teachers adequately.
In the same manner, as shown in table 12 above, the respondents response on item 10, 11, 12,13, 14and16 that is:explaining transparently what is expected from teachers, allowing and encouraging team work and group activities, allowing to elect department heads & unit leader, encourages teachers to participate , aware teachers the point of discussion in school decision making and support teachers to develop sense of ownership were rated agreed with mean score of 3.41(SD=1.358), 3.44(SD=1.293), 4.15(SD=1.095) , 2.75(SD=1.387), 3.79(SD=1.207) and 2.81(SD=1.445) for teachers and 4.26(SD=1.098), 3.79(SD=1.228), 4.26(SD=1.284), 3.74(SD=1.522), 3.95(SD=1.433) and 2.96(SD= 1.293) for school leaders respectively. This indicated that principals were capable to teacher so as to involve teachers in school decision making. The t-test value also indicated that, the calculated t-value is less than the table value at a=0.05 level significance and p value is greater than the chosen significance level ? = 0.05. The result tells, there is no a significant difference between the responses of the two groups.
As shown in Table (12), the mean score for item 15 were 2.80(SD=1.424) and 3.89(SD=1.100) for teachers and school leaders respectively. The result revealed that, the p value is 0.036 which is less than the chosen significance level ? = 0.05 (t value = -3.726, p-value 0.036). The findings revealed that there is difference in opinion between the teachers and school leader’s respondents for trigger teachers to forward ideas item. In supporting of the study, Desalegn et al., (2014), stated as the principal is widely believed to be pivotal in the successful operation of participative decision-making system in schools.

CHAPTER FIVE
5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter contains summary, conclusion and recommendation of the study. In this section first, a summary of the study and the major findings were made. Second, depending on the findings conclusions were drawn. Lastly, recommendations were made on the basis of the findings of the study.
5.2 Summary
This study is aimed at analyzing teachers’ involvement in decision making in primary schools of Dega district of Buno Bedele zone Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Specific objectives of the study are to assess whether or not teachers are involving in school decision making processes in study area, to identify school activities those involve teachers’ in decision making in the study area, to sort out factors affecting teachers’ involvement in decision making at the schools under consideration and to examine the extent to which the school leaders facilitates the way for teachers’ involvement in school in decision making. The study was carried out on eight primary schools that were selected randomly. Both primary and secondary data sources were used to analyze the teachers’ involvement in decision making. Primary data was collected from randomly with probability population to size sampled 91 teachers, 8 principals, 6 vice principals, and 5 cluster supervisors. A total of 110 usable questionnaires were provided and collected as the basic data for the study. Similarly seven of semi structured interview questions were for interviewing 8 principals, 6 vice principals and 5 cluster supervisor. Secondary data was collected form respective studies office. The analysis is made using descriptive statistics such as percentage, frequency distribution, weighted mean, and t-test and by using SPSS 20 software. Depending on the result of the analysis made, the following major findings were obtained.

• Personal information of the respondents and the result of interview have revealed that, there was a wide proportional variation between males and females of the sample population, and only one female principal, no female vice principal and no female cluster supervisor in the sample school. With regard to their age, majority of teachers, and school leaders were within the range of youth age. With regard to areas of specialization, all teachers, and school leaders were from different academic disciplines such as natural science, social science, mathematics, language, and other disciplines like HPE. Thus, the study revealed that most of the school leaders of primary schools of the woreda were not trained as educational leaders. This indicate that lack of relevant qualification might have deterred the principals from involving teachers in the decision making process of various school activities.
• The extent of teachers’ involvement in budget and income generation and school policy, rules and regulation effort were found to be low. However, teachers’ involvement in school planning; school curriculum and instruction, student affairs and disciplinary were found to be relatively high whereas the involvement of teachers in school building was below the medium range. This indicates that teachers’ involvement in school decision-making was below the satisfactory point. The analysis of this study indicated school curriculum and instruction is the areas in which teachers participated most as decision-makers. In contrast, school building was the area in which teachers participated least as decision makers.
• Concerning the factors affecting teachers’ involvement in decision making the analysis of this study revealed that the following factors as major challenges to teachers’ low involvement in school decision making; lack of motivation by principal to involve teachers/ignorance, autocratic leadership style of principals and lack of available resources. Moreover, the analysis of open-ended question indicated
• Despite the potential benefit of teachers’ involvement in school decision making, the concern given by school leaders in facilitating the environment and encouraging teachers to be involved in school decision making was not as such satisfactory, in general. That is school leaders effort in providing freedom to teachers in expressing their opinions, sharing responsibility, establishing and maintaining good interpersonal relation-ship, provision of information, accepting decision made independently by teachers, allowing teachers to have greater voice, providing support and establishing environment of trust, giving recognition to teachers ideas and facilitating criticism when unusual ideas come forth from the groups, encouraging teachers to participate, aware teachers the point of discussion, triggering teachers to forward ideas and supporting teachers to develop senseof ownership were found to be low. However, the sample schools teachers were explaining transparently what is expected from them, allowing and encouraging team work and group activities, and allowing electing department heads and unit-leader and some of the school principals carried out to increase their involvement in sample school.
5.3 Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the data and the findings of the study, the following major conclusions are derived in relation to basic questions of the study:
From the finding obtained in this study, it was found that, the involvement of teachers in budget and income generation; and school policy, rule and regulation effort were found to be below average. However, teachers’ involvement in school planning; implementing school curriculum and instruction; and decision concerning students’ affairs and discipline were found to be relatively high but teachers’ involvement in school building is near to the medium range. In general, the final analysis of the result, however, reflected that, the extent of teachers’ involvement in school decision-making found to be minimal in the sample school. This implies that, less attention was given to teachers’ contribution in making decisions. Moreover, this affects the overall activities of school in general and teaching-learning process in particular.
Teachers have dual role to play. One is their role in instruction and their other role is in participating in school management and decision-making. The study also indicated that teachers participated most in implementing students’ affairs and discipline problems. However, from this finding obtained, it can be concluded that, there might be misperception in identifying teachers’ roles and responsibilities by both teachers, and school leaders; that is, they might considered the role and responsibility of teachers as teaching and learning activities only, and other activities of the school as the role and responsibilities of the management of the school.
Regarding factors that affect teachers’ involvement in school decision-making, the study has reported that most of the factors that hinder teachers’ involvement in school decision-making are related to poor management role of the school leaders. This is because most of principals were not qualified and/or took training in fields related with school leadership and management. As a result, they have failed to involve teachers in school decision making through various management functions such as delegation, communication, motivation and so on. From this finding, it was concluded that the school principals might lack necessary leadership skill, knowledge, and attitude to attract teachers toward school decision-making.
5.4 Recommendation

Therefore, depending on the result of the findings and conclusion made the recommendations below has been given for future teachers’ involvement in decision making in primary schools in the study area.

? Teachers need to be actively involved in decision making in their schools to encourage, motivate and utilize their wide range of experience and personal characteristics, and capability. In order to promote teachers involvement in school decision making, the school leaders ought to:
? Provide meaningful encouragement as well economic incentives to teachers with exemplary performance both in their teaching activity and in their involvement.
? Provide proper orientation on the right, duties and responsibilities of individual teachers in each areas of decision-making and involve them to bring a change in teaching learning process and other related issues of school activities.

? Establish a collaborative relationship among teachers in which they can share their ideas and learn from each other concerning their professions to bring an attractive environment and promote teaching learning.
? Provide training to teachers in the form of workshop, seminar and so on, so as teacher become competent, and skilful to participate in the areas that concern them and make the school efficient and effective in achieving the objectives of the schools.
? In one way or another, teachers’ involvement in school decision-making depends largely on school leaders’ ability and interest to divide and delegate tasks to teachers, train and involve them in all areas of decisions that affect them. In order to carry out these tasks effectively and efficiently, school leaders should be equipped with the appropriate knowledge, skills and attitude. As indicated in the finding of the study, however, most of the school leaders of primary schools of the woreda do not have training related with school leadership and management and failed to involve teachers. To improve these problems the woreda and Zone Education Offices in collaboration with Oromia Education Bureau and even Ministry of Education, need to recommend that principals training in educational leadership currently started by the government with summer program will be encouraged by Universities, as long term solution. As immediate solution, for the existing school leaders basic training on school leadership and management will be given.
? As can be ascertained from information obtained from school leaders, teachers and educational office officials, most of the time some teachers prefer trying to influence or make recommendations on what has been done by principals and other rather than, especially those who have more experience, involving themselves in the issues. So the researcher recommended that rather than commenting at a distance, they have to involve both physically and mentally in school decision-making and contribute their part.
? As shown in the findings of the study, absence of participative and democratic leadership style was mentioned as one of the constraints in involving teachers in school decision making. To improve this problem, the school leaders have to:
? Treat all teachers equally regardless of their sex, experience, academic qualification, religion and ethnicity.
? Practice various leadership styles depending up on teachers needs, experiences, maturity level along with the organizational objectives.
? Experience has value behind principals’ administrative success in administrative position. Hence, reducing the turnover experienced principals may help address the shortage of principals qualified in the field of educational administration. So, it advisable that the woreda’s Education Office assign individuals for principal ship position based by taking such factors as experience, work performance and academic qualification.
? School principals and PTAs are strongly advised to involve teachers in preparing school plan so that teachers can have a say on the overall school plan.
? The school leaders /principals and PTAs need to communicate, involve and give clear information to teachers on the issues related with income generation and school budget and school building to develop the sense of transparency between teachers and school leaders.

REFERENCES
Abulie, A. (2013). An assessment of the roles and challenges of primary school cluster supervisors in Metekel Zone(Doctoral dissertation, Jimma University, Institute of Education and Professional Development Studies).
Algoush, K. S. (2010). Assessment of the Relationship between Involvements Decision Making Process and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction. Open University, Malaysia.
Anderson, K. (2002). Why Teachers Participate in Decision-Making and the third continuum. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 23(4), 134.
Bender, Y. (2005). The tactful Teacher: Effective communication with parents, colleagues, and administrators. Nomad Press.
Blase, J. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 142-163.
Bogdan, R. C., &Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative Research in Education.an Introduction to Theory AndMethods.
BOWERS, J., TANNENBAUM, S., SALAS, E., & VOLPE, C. (1995). Defining Competencies and Establishing Team Training Requ?rement. Team Effectivenesss, and Decision-Making, In Organizations, San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass Publ, 259-265.
Brain, R., &Kinight, J. (1993). Financial Management for School: The thinking Manger’s guide.
Brown, D. P.(1999). Curriculum and Instruction: An introduction to methods of teaching. MacMillan Publishers.
Caldwell, B. J. (2005). School-based Management (Vol. 3). Perth, Australia: International Institute for Educational Planning.
Chan, M. T., Ching, Y. C., ; Cheng, Y. C. (1997). Teacher Participation in Decision Making: The Case of SMI Schools in Hong Kong. Chinese University Education Journal, 25(2), 17-42.
Chi Keung, C. (2008).The Effect of Shared Decision-Making on the Improvement in Teachers’ Job Development. New horizons in Education, 56(3), 31-46.
Christenson, S. L. (2004). The Family-School Partnership: An opportunity to promote the learning competence of all students. School Psychology Review, 33(1), 83.
Coleman, M. (2005).Teachers’ Participation in School Decision Making in Secondary Schools, Oxford university press
Davis, K. and Newstorm A. (1994).Assessment of the Relationship between Involvements Decision Making Process and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction. Open University, Malaysia.
Diriba, B. (2012). An investigation of Teachers’ Participation in School Decision making process: The case of selected Secondary schools of Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State(Doctoral dissertation, MA Thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya).
Drah, S. T. (2011). Teacher Participation in Decision Making Process in Senior High and Technical Schools in the Kwaebibirem district in the Eastern region of Ghana (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cape Coast).
Durham, C. C., Knight, D., ; Locke, E. A. (1997).Effects of leader role, team-set goal difficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72(2), 203-231.
Evans, L. (1998). The effects of senior management teams on teacher morale and job satisfaction: A case study of Rockville county primary school. Educational Management ; Administration, 26(4), 417-428.
Farris, G. F. (1988). Technical leadership: Much discussed but little understood. Research-Technology Management, 31(2), 12-16.
Felipe Barrera-Osorio ( 2008).Decentralized Decision-making in Schools: The theory and evidence on school-based management.World Bank Publications.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., ; Hyun, H. H. (2003). How to Design and Evaluate Research in education (Vol. 7). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gardia, A., ;Rathore, H. C. S. (2010). Teacher Participation in the Decision?making Process: reality and repercussions in Indian higher education. Compare, 40(5), 659-671.
Gemechu, D. (2014). The Practices Of Teachers’ Involvement in Decision-Making in Government Secondary schools of Jimma Town (Doctoral dissertation, Jimma University, Institute of Education and Professional Development Studies).
Howes, C. (2000). Social?emotional Classroom climate in Child care, child?teacher relationships and children’s second grade peer relations. Social development, 9(2), 191-204.
Hussien, J. K. (2015). Teachers’ Participation in School Decision Making in Secondary Schools of Arsi Zone (Doctoral dissertation, Haramaya University).
Hussien, J. K., &Tasisa, W. (2015). Teachers’ Participation in School Decision Making in Secondary Schools of ArsiZone(Doctoral dissertation, Haramaya University).
Jonse R. and George M. (2009). Management: Text And Cases. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
Jung, L. Y. (2014). Teachers Involvement in School Decision Making. Journal of Study in Education, 4(3), 12-15.
Kawana, J. J. (2007). The Principal’s Leadership Role in a Successful Rural School in Namibia (Doctoral dissertation, Rhodes University).
Kiprop, C. J., &Kandic, S. J. (2012).An investigation into Teachers Participation in Decision-Making in public Secondary Schools in Kenya and case of baringo district. Elixir Education.
Kirby, P. C. (2001). Shared decision making: Moving from concerns about restrooms to concerns about classrooms. Journal of School Leadership, 2(3), 330-345.
Kotheri, (2004). Research Methodology: Methods & Techniques. 2nd Ed. New Delhi: new age international limited.
Lai, E. R. (2011). Motivation: A Literature Review Research Report. Retrieved on May, 30, 2013.
Latham, G. P., &Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 56, 485-516.
Law, S., & Glover, D. (2003). Educational Leadership & Learning: Practice, Policy and Research. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Lightfoot, S. L. (1996). On goodness in Schools: Themes of empowerment. Peabody Journal of Education, 63(3), 9-28.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2010, September). The Principal and the School: What do principals do?.In National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision Journal (Vol. 27, No. 4).
MoE (2004).Woreda Capacity Building program course Workbook:AED,USAID/BESO II project. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
MoE.(1994). Education and Training Policy.Ministry of Education. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Mokoena, S. (2011). Participative Decision-making: Perceptions of school stakeholders in South Africa. Journal of social sciences, 29(2), 119-131.
Moran, M. (2009).Fostering Teacher Professionalism in Schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217-247.
Muhammad, T. A., &Sabeen, F. (2011).Factors Affecting Teachers Motivation. International journal of Business and social Science, 2(3), 57-59.
Northouse, P. G. (2014). Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice. Sage Publications.
Okumbe, J. A. O. (1998). Educational Management: Theory and Practice. African Books Collective Ltd., The Jam Factory, 27 Park End Street, Oxford OX1 1HU, United Kingdom (paperback: ISBN-9966-846-42-5, $18).
Olorunsola, E. O., &Olayemi, A. O. (2011).Teachers Participation in Decision making Process in secondary schools in Ekiti State, Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy S
Owens, R. G., & Steinhoff, C. R. (1998).Towards a theory of organisational culture. Journal of Educational Administration, 27(3).tudies, 3(6), 78-84.
Pashiardis, P. (1994). Teacher participation in decision making. International Journal of Educational Management, 8(5), 14-17.
Rehel G/tsadik( 2012). Perception of leadership in effectiveness of school improvement program: the case of selected high schools in Addis Ababa city administration(Doctoral dissertation, ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY).
Sagie, A., Zaidman, N., Amichai?Hamburger, Y., Te’eni, D., ; Schwartz, D. G. (2002). An empirical assessment of the loose–tight leadership model: Quantitative and qualitative analyses. Journal of Organizational behavior, 23(3), 303-320.
Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary approaches to managing school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(5), 777-800.
Somech, A. (2010). Participative decision making in schools: A mediating-moderating analytical framework for understanding school and teacher outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 174-209.
Supaporn, S. (2000). High School Student’s Perspectives About Misbehavior. Physical Educator, 57(3), 124.
Sutherland, J., &Canwell, D. (2004). Key Concepts in Strategic Management. Palgrave Macmillan.
Tegenu, A. (2012). Assessment of Students Misbehavior and Coping Strategies (In the Case of Shashemene Secondary School). Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Thomas, B. (2002). Trust in Schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.
Tibebu L.(2011). The Role of Principals in participative decision making Practice: The case of Government Secondary schools of Hawassa town in SNNPR (Doctoral dissertation, MA Thesis. Haramaya University, Ethiopia).
Wadesango, N. (2011). Strategies of Teacher Participation in Decision-making in Schools: A case study of Gweru district secondary schools in Zimbabwe. Journal of Social Sciences, 27(2), 85-94.
Wadesango, N. (2012). The influence of teacher participation in decision-making on their occupational morale. Journal of social sciences, 31(3), 361-369.
Wadesango, N., & Bayaga, A. (2013). Management of Schools: Teachers’ involvement in decision making processes. African Journal of Business Management,7(17), 1689.
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied psychology, 51(3), 355-387.
White, P. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under “ideal” school-site autonomy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 69-82.
Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The leadership quarterly, 19(6), 708-722.
Cooper, J., ; Schindler, M. (2008). Perfect Sample Size in Research. New Jersey

APPENDIX
ETHIOPIAN CIVIL SERVICE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
INSTITUTE OF LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
Appendix A
Questionnaires for Teachers
Dear Respondents: First of all it is important to clarify the objective of the questionnaire. The objective of this questionnaire is to examine the teachers’ involvement in decision making in some selected primary school in Dega Woreda Buno Bedele Zone of Oromia. The information you give was used only for academic purposes and was kept confidential. Hence, when you are filling this questionnaire the researcher kindly requests you, as much as possible to give the necessary information freely and honestly.
Thank you for your advice.
Part I: Demographic Information Direction: Indicate your answer by putting a tick (?) mark in the given box and also write on the space provided.
Name of the school ______________________
1. Sex: A. Male B. Female
2. Age ___________
3. Qualification: A. TTI/ Certificate B. Diploma
C. First Degree D. MA/MSC
4. Areas of study/ Field of study
A. Language B. Mathematic C. Natural Science D. Social Science
E. Business F. Educational Management Areas G. Other _____________
5. Total Service Years _____________
6. Additional responsibility in the school
A. Unit leader B. Department head C. Club head D.Others__________
Part II: Teachers’ involvement in school decision making process
Direction: Indicate your answer by putting a tick (?) mark in the box given across each statement.
Have you involved in decision making process in your school?
Yes No
Part III: The school activities those involve teachers in Decision Making
The following items are some of the decision areas in which teachers expected to be participated. Please indicate the extent of teachers’ involvement in decision making individually or as a group in your school. Indicate your answer by putting a tick (?) mark in the box given across each statement. Key: very low = 1 Low = 2 Medium = 3 High = 4 very High = 5
No Item 1 2 3 4 5
1 Teacher’s Involvement on Decisions Concerning School Planning
1.1 Planning the schools activities
1.2 Setting the mission, vision and values of the school
1.3 Involving in preparing school budget
1.4 Determine the mechanism of controlling plan implementation
2 Teacher’s Involvement in Decisions Concerning curriculum and Instruction
2.1 Setting the learning objectives at school level
2.2 Deciding on the lesson plan
2.3 Evaluating how well the school is operating
2.4 Involving in developing teaching methodologies
2.5 Developing procedures for assessing student achievement
2.6 Determining when instructional supervision can be delivered.
2.7 Determining how instructional supervision can be delivered
No Item 1 2 3 4 5
3 Teacher’s Involvement in Decisions Concerning School policy, rules regulation
3.1 Determining the administrative and organizational structure of the school
3.2 Setting school rules and regulation
3.3 Developing disciplinary policies of the school
3.4 Establishing relationship between the principals and teachers
3.5 Establishing a program for community service
3.6 Deciding on rules or procedures to be followed in evaluating school performance
4 Teacher’s Involvement in Decisions Concerning School Budgeting and Income Generation
4.1 Determining school expenditure priorities
4.2 Sharing of budget for the department
4.3 Determining means of income generation
4.4 Deciding budget allocation for instructional material
5 Teacher’s Involvement in Decisions Concerning Student Affaire and Disciplinary
5.1 Determining students’ rights and welfare
5.2 Identifying Students with disciplinary problems and providing proper guidance
5.3 Participating in solving students problem with parents
5.4 Determine disciplinary measures on students with misconduct
6 Teacher’s Involvement in Decisions Concerning School Building
6.1 Deciding on the expansion of school buildings
6.2 Deciding on maintenance of school buildings
6.3 Deciding on the construction of new buildings
6.4 Assigning school building for administrative, department and teaching room purpose

Part III. Factors Affecting Teachers Participation in Decision Making
Direction: The following factor is expected to hinder teachers’ participation in school decision –making. Indicate your answer by putting a tick (?) mark in the box given across each statement. Key: Strongly Disagree =1 Disagree= 2 Undecided =3 Agree =4 strongly Agree=5
No Factors Affecting Teacher Participation in Decision Making 1 2 3 4 5
1. Teachers low level of concern/ willingness
2. Lack of trust and positive relationship between teacher and principal
3. Lack of motivation by principal to involve teachers /ignorance
4. Teachers belief that decision making is not their responsibility but the responsibility of school principals
5. Lack of available resource (time, information, materials etc.)
6. Autocratic leadership style of principals
7. Fear of taking risks by teachers themselves
8. School leaders? concern of his/her own power and authority not to be diminished
If, others specify
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

Part IV. The Extent of School Leaders Facilitate the way for the Teachers to involve in School Decision Making
Direction: The following are roles of school leaders that to facilitate the way for the teachers to involve in school decision making. Please, Indicate your answer putting a tick (?) mark in the box given that best describes your principal currently experiences. Key: very low =1 Low =3 Medium =3 High =4 very High =5
No Roles of School Leaders in Facilitating Teachers’ Participation in Decision–making 1 2 3 4 5
1. Provision of freedom to express their opinion
2. Sharing responsibility
3. Establishing and maintaining good interpersonal relationship
4. Provision of information /communicating information/
5. Accepting decision made independently by teachers
6. Allowing teachers to have greater voice
7. Proving support and establishing environment of trust
8. Giving recognition to teachers idea
9. Facilitating criticism when unusual idea come forth from the group
10. Explaining transparently what is expected from teachers
11. Allowing and encouraging team work and group activities
12. Allowing to elect department heads ; unit leader
13. Encourages teachers to participate
14. Aware teachers the point of discussion
15. Trigger teachers to forward ideas
16. Support teachers to develop sense of ownership

Thank you for your nice cooperation.

ETHIOPIAN CIVIL SERVICE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
INSTITUTE OF LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
Appendix B
Questionnaires for School Leaders
Dear Respondents: First of all it is important to clarify the objective of the questionnaire. The objective of this questionnaire is to examine the teachers’ involvement in decision making in some selected primary school in Dega Woreda of Oromia. The information you give was used purely for academic purposes and was kept confidential. Hence, when you are filling this questionnaire the researcher kindly requests you, as much as possible to give the necessary information freely and honestly.
Thank you for your advice.
Part I. Demographic Information
Direction: Indicate your Answer by encircling your choice for the multiple numbers given as choice and also write on the Space Provided
Name of the School ____________________________________
1. Sex: A) Male B) Female
2. Age ____________________________________
3. Qualification:
A) TTI/ Certificate B) Diploma C) First Degree D) MA/MSC
4. Areas of study/ Field of study:
A) Language B) Natural Science C) Mathematics D) Social Science E) Business
F) Educational Management Areas G) Other ______________
5. Total Service Years: ______________
6. Total Service Years as Principals: ______________
Part II. Factors Affecting Teachers involvement in Decision Making
Direction: The following factors are expected to hinder teachers’ involvement in school decision making. Indicate your answer by putting a tick (?) mark in the box given across each statement.
No Factors Affecting Teacher Participation 1 2 3 4 5
1. Teachers low level of concern/ willingness
2. Lack of trust and positive relationship between teacher and leaders
3. Lack of motivation by principal to participate
4. Teachers belief that decision making is not their responsibility but the responsibility of school leaders
5. Lack of available resource (time, in formation, materials etc.)
6. Autocratic leadership style of principals
7. Fear of taking risks by teachers themselves
8. School leaders concern of his/her own power and authority not to be diminished
If, others specify
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Key: Strongly Disagree =1 Disagree= 2 Undecided =3 Agree =4 strongly Agree=5

Part IV. The Extent of School Leaders Facilitate the way for the Teachers to involve in School Decision Making
Direction: The following are roles of school leaders that to facilitate the way for the teachers to involve in school decision making. Please, Indicate your answer putting a tick (?) mark in the box given that best describes your principal currently experiences.
Key: very low =1 Low =3 Medium =3 High =4 very High =5
No Roles of School Leaders in Facilitating Teachers’ Participation in Decision–making 1 2 3 4 5
1. Provision of freedom to express their opinion
2. Sharing responsibility
3. Establishing and maintaining good interpersonal relationship
4. Provision of information /communicating information/
5. Accepting decision made independently by teachers
6. Allowing teachers to have greater voice
7. Proving support and establishing environment of trust
8. Giving recognition to teachers idea
9. Facilitating criticism when unusual idea come forth from the group
10. Explaining transparently what is expected from teachers
11. Allowing and encouraging team work and group activities
12. Allowing to elect department heads & unit leader
13. Encourages teachers to participate
14. Aware teachers the point of discussion
15. Trigger teachers to forward ideas
16. Support teachers to develop sense of ownership

Thank you for your nice cooperation.

ETHIOPIAN CIVIL SERVICE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE
INSTITUTE OF LEADERSHIP AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
Appendix C
Interview Guidelines for school Leaders (principals, vice principals and cluster supervisor)
Name of the school/ Name of cluster _________________________________________
1. Do you have any training in educational management areas?
2. To what extent do you allow teachers to participate in different decision making activities in your primary schools?
3. In your opinion, to what extent do you think that teachers participate in school decision making currently?
4. According to your opinion, in what areas of decision making do teachers actively participate?
School planning,
School curriculum and instruction;
School policy, rules and procedures;
School budgeting and income generating;
Student affairs and disciplinary problem and
Decision made on concerning school building.
5. What factors do you think that hindered their participation?
6. What kinds of encouragement do you provide to increase their participation?
7. What role do you play as educational office/ teachers association officials, in order to make environment conducive for teachers to be more participated in decision making?
Thank you for your nice cooperation.

x

Hi!
I'm Mia

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out