Ganihar, N. N. (2015). A study of quality indicators from the perspective of heads of secondary schools. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 2(1). 43-52. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/74/104 A STUDY OF QUALITY INDICATORS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HEADS OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS Noorjehan N. Ganihar Karnatak University nnganihar@rediffmail.com Biodata Dr. Noorjehan N. GANİHAR is working in Karnatak University, Dharwad since 1986. Presently she is a Professor, Post-graduate Department of Education, Dean, Faculty of Education, Karnatak University, Dharwad, Director of UGC Sponsored Dr. Zakir Husain Studies Centre, Co-ordinator of Karnataka State Open University, Mysore, she was the former Academic Council member of Karnatak University, Dharwad and former Syndicate member of Karnatak University. She obtained her M.A. in Economics, M.Ed., and Ph.D. Degrees. She has a P.G Diploma in Education from S.N.D.T. Women’s University, Bombay. She also has a P.G. Diploma in Human Resource Management, and a P.G. Diploma in Higher Education from IGNOU. She was a “Second Rank” holder in her B.A course, “First Rank” holder in B.Ed., M.Ed. and P.G Diploma in Education Management. Copyright by Informascope. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of IOJET. mailto:nnganihar@rediffmail.com Ganihar 43 A STUDY OF QUALITY INDICATORS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HEADS OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS Noorjehan N. Ganihar nnganihar@rediffmail.com Abstract “A good quality education is one that enables all learners to realise the capabilities they require to become economically productive, develop sustainable livelihoods, contribute to peaceful and democratic societies and enhance wellbeing. The learning outcomes that are required vary according to context but at the end of the basic education cycle must include threshold levels of literacy and numeracy and life skills including awareness and prevention of disease.” (Tikly, 2010). Education quality programme encourages policy makers to take cognisance of changing national development needs, the kinds of schools that different learners attend and the forms of educational disadvantage faced by different groups of learners when considering policy options. A good quality education arises from interactions between three overlapping environments, namely the policy, the school and the home/ community environments. Creating enabling environments requires the right mix of inputs into each. the Education quality framework highlights the importance of accompanying processes within each environment that are key for ensuring that inputs get converted into desired outcomes. (Tikly, 2010). Creating a good quality education involves paying attention to the interface between each environment and ensuring that enabling inputs and processes have the effect of closing the gaps that often exist between them creating greater synergy and coherence. Keywords: education, quality, policy 1. Understanding Quality Education Quality education plays an essential part of economic and social development of the nations. “Economic benefits of education flow not only to the individual but also to society through lower social transfers and through the additional taxes individuals pay once they enter the labour market”(OECD 2010, p. 136). 1.1. Suitably trained experienced and motivated teachers Africa faces a severe shortage of suitably qualified and experienced teachers (UNESCO 2008). However, evidence suggests that initial teacher education and training and experience have a significant impact on achievement (Smith and Barrett 2010). A major finding across the Education quality projects is that for training to impact positively on outcomes for disadvantaged learners it needs to be consistent with the demands of the curriculum. It must focus on improved pedagogical practices including the use of “structured pedagogy”; effective teaching of language and literacy in multilingual settings effective use of ICTs to support learning. (Rubagiza,Were et.al., 2010). mailto:nnganihar@rediffmail.com International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 2015, 2(1), 43-52. 44 1.2. Key Processes Underlying a Good Quality Education Implementing a good quality education requires that policy making is informed by processes of dialogue, consultation and debate both within the state and between the government and interest groups including teachers and teacher unions, non-governmental and community organisations representing parents and other interests with a stake in education. A characteristic of education policy in countries that have successfully integrated into the global economy is that there has been a good match between education priorities and outcomes and changing labour market needs facilitated by processes of inter-governmental dialogue. Access to a good quality education has been an historic demand of anti-colonial movements on the African continent (Tikly 2010). The role of education in relation to national and local development priorities, the impact of global and regional agendas and the role of the state and of the private sector in providing access to a good quality education. Consideration of these issues is important for those involved in leading an informed public debate on education quality form a social justice perspective and for beginning to elucidate a normative basis to guide future policy (Tikly 2010). 1.3. Significance of the Study Quality education plays an essential part of economic and social development of the nations. “Economic benefits of education flow not only to the individual but also to society through lower social transfers and through the additional taxes individuals pay once they enter the labour market”(OECD 2010). School education lays the foundation for lifelong knowledge and skill development of the humanity. School effectiveness refers to the extent to which the goals set by the school management or school boards or school departments of the State governments have been achieved. It is a multi dimensional concept. One of the important measures of school effectiveness is the performance of the students in a public examination. Comparison of performance of students of various schools is no longer limited to national level. International comparative studies of student performance have come out with varied performance indicators. The Head of the school who organizes and coordinates all the activities will possess the required leadership qualities. 1.4. The Problem The present investigation is entitled as “A Study of Quality Indicators from the Perspective of Heads of Secondary Schools”. 1.5. Objectives of the Study 1. To study the leadership qualities of Heads of schools in high, average and low effective schools. 2. To study the dimensions of leadership qualities of Heads of schools in high, average and low effective schools. i. Assertative administration ii. Instructional leadership iii. Assumption of responsibility iv. Personal vision and character Ganihar 45 v. Decision making vi. Standard 3. To study the time management of Heads of schools in high, average and low effective schools. 4. To study the dimensions of time management of Heads of schools in high, average and low effective schools. i. Knowledge of time management ii. Attitude towards time management 1.6. Variables of the Study The present study aims to identifying the following variables. Heads of Schools related variables a. Leadership qualities of Heads of schools b. Time management of Heads of schools 2. Methodology The present study is a descriptive survey (ex-post-facto) type research. 2.1. Hypotheses of the Study The objectives of the study are stated above. The following hypotheses are generated based on the objectives of the study. Hypothesis: Schools at different levels of effectiveness differ on leadership qualities of Heads of schools. Hypothesis: Heads of school in schools at different levels of effectiveness differ in dimension of leadership qualities of Heads of schools i.e., assertive administration. Hypothesis: Schools at different levels of effectiveness differ in dimension of leadership qualities of Heads of schools i.e., instructional leadership Hypothesis: Schools at different levels of effectiveness differ on dimension of leadership qualities of Heads of schools i.e., assumption of responsibility Hypothesis: Schools with different levels of effectiveness differ on dimension of leadership qualities of Heads of schools i.e., personal vision and character. Hypothesis: Schools at different levels of effectiveness differ on dimension of leadership qualities of Heads of schools i.e., decision making. Hypothesis: Schools at different levels of effectiveness differ in dimension of leadership qualities of Heads of schools i.e., standard. Hypothesis: Schools with different levels of effectiveness differ on time management. Hypothesis: Schools at different levels of effectiveness differ on dimension of time management i.e., attitude towards time management. Hypothesis: Schools at different levels of effectiveness differ on knowledge of time International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 2015, 2(1), 43-52. 46 management. 2.2. Sample The population of the sample of Dharwad Taluka numbering upto 70 secondary schools formed the sample of the study. The data was collected from schools. From each school data was collected from teachers selected at random. In all, the data was collected from 70 schools – 490 teachers. 2.3. Research Tools The following tools were administered to students. 1.Leadership Qualities Questionnaire by Selvaraju (1993) 2.Time, Energy, Memory Survey Scale by Petrelio (1976) 2.4. Data Collection Data was collected from, teachers and the Heads of schools. The investigator personally visited the 70 schools of Dharwad taluka and with the prior permission of the Heads of schools, administered the tools to seven experienced teachers in each school and to the Heads. Clear cut instructions were given to fill up the questionnaires. 2.5. Statistical Technique Used For the analysis of data collected, differential analysis was used. 3. Data Analyses Table 1. Results of t-test for the variable Leadership Qualities of Heads of Schools Levels Mean SD t-value P-value Significance High 119.7778 12.5595 4.3610 <0.05 S Average 114.9244 8.5241 High 119.7778 12.5595 2.9255 <0.05 S Low 115.0873 12.8903 The results of the above table reveal that, 1. Heads in high effective schools (mean=119.7778) and average effective schools (mean=114.9244) differ significantly with respect to leadership qualities of Heads of schools. Heads in high effective schools are high on leadership qualities than in average effective schools. 2. Heads in high effective schools (mean=119.7778) and low effective schools (mean=115.0873) differ significantly with respect to leadership qualities of Heads of schools. Ganihar 47 Heads in high effective schools are high on leadership qualities than in low effective schools. Table 2. Results of t-test for the Dimension of Leadership Qualities of Heads of Schools - Instructional Leadership Levels Mean SD t-value P-value Significance High 20.8492 3.7525 3.0644 <0.05 S Average 19.7017 3.1967 High 20.8492 3.7525 3.2093 <0.05 S Low 19.3016 3.9013 The results of the above table reveal that, 3. Heads in high effective schools (mean=20.8492) and average effective schools (mean=19.7017) differ significantly with respect to dimension of leadership qualities of Heads of schools i.e., instructional leadership. Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of leadership qualities i.e. instructional leadership than the average effective schools. 4. Heads in high effective schools (mean=20.8492) and low effective schools (mean=19.3016) differ significantly with respect to dimension of leadership qualities of Heads of schools i.e., instructional leadership. Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of leadership qualities i.e., instructional leadership than the low effective schools. Table 3. Results of t-test for the Dimension of Leadership Qualities of Heads of Schools - Assumption of Responsibility Levels Mean SD t-value P-value Significance High 19.8571 3.4052 2.7574 <0.05 S Average 18.9034 2.9900 High 19.8571 3.4052 2.0685 <0.05 S Low 18.9524 3.5369 The results of the above table reveal that, 5. Heads in high effective schools (mean=19.8571) and average effective schools (mean=18.9034) differ significantly with respect to dimension of leadership qualities of Heads of schools i.e., assumption of responsibility. Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of leadership qualities i.e., assumption of responsibility than the average effective schools. 6. Heads in high effective schools (mean=19.8571) and low effective schools (mean=18.9524) differ significantly with respect to dimension of leadership qualities of Heads of schools i.e., assumption of responsibility. Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of leadership qualities i.e., assumption of responsibility than the low effective schools. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 2015, 2(1), 43-52. 48 Table 4. Results of t-test for the Dimension of Leadership Qualities of Heads of Schools - Personal Vision and Character Levels Mean SD t-value P-value Significanc e High 20.1190 3.6389 3.8335 <0.05 S Average 18.8445 2.6316 High 20.1190 3.6389 2.5709 <0.05 S Low 18.9444 3.6140 The results of the above table reveal that, 7. Heads in high effective schools (mean=20.1190) and average effective schools (mean=18.8445) differ significantly with respect to dimension of leadership qualities of Heads of schools i.e., personal vision and character. Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of leadership qualities i.e., personal vision and character than the average effective schools. 8. Heads in high effective schools (mean=20.1190) and low effective schools (mean=18.9444) differ significantly with respect to dimension of leadership qualities of Heads of schools i.e., personal vision and character. Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of leadership qualities i.e., personal vision and character than the low effective schools. Table 5. Results of t-test for the Dimension of Leadership Qualities of Heads of Schools - Decision Making Levels Mean SD t-value P-value Significanc e High 20.3095 3.9567 3.7807 <0.05 S Average 18.8824 3.1103 Average 18.8824 3.1103 2.0414 <0.05 S Low 19.6270 3.6611 The results of the above table reveal that, 9. Heads in high effective schools (mean=20.3095) and average effective schools (mean=18.8824) differ significantly with respect to dimension of leadership qualities of Heads of schools i.e., decision making. Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of leadership qualities i.e., decision making than the average effective schools. 10.Heads in average effective schools (mean=18.8824) and low effective schools (mean=19.6270) differ significantly with respect to dimension of leadership qualities of Heads of schools i.e., decision making. Heads in low effective schools are high on dimension of leadership Ganihar 49 qualities i.e., decision making than the average effective schools. Table 6. Results of t-test for the Variable Time Management of Heads of Schools Levels Mean SD t-value P-value Significa nce Low 43.8333 3.7456 -4.9325 <0.05 S Average 50.4118 4.9489 Low 43.8333 3.7456 -8.7082 <0.05 S High 56.1111 4.6639 Average 50.4118 4.9489 -4.0282 <0.05 S High 56.1111 4.6639 1. Heads in low (mean= 43.8333) and average (mean=50.4118) effective schools differ significantly with respect to time management. Heads in average effective schools are high on time management than the low effective schools. 2. Heads in low (mean= 43.8333) and high (mean=56.1111) effective schools differ significantly with respect to time management. Heads in High effective schools are high on time management than the low effective schools. 3.Heads in average (mean= 50.4118) and high (mean=56.1111) effective schools differ significantly with respect to time management. Heads in high effective schools are high on time management than the average effective schools. Table 7. Results of t-test for the Dimension of Time Management - Knowledge of Time Management Levels Mean SD t-value P-value Significa nce High 21.5000 1.7235 5.1278 <0.05 S Average 24.8824 2.4956 High 21.5000 1.7235 15.9927 <0.05 S Low 28.3889 0.6077 Average 24.8824 2.4956 5.8448 <0.05 S Low 28.3889 0.6077 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 2015, 2(1), 43-52. 50 The results of the above table reveal that, 1.Heads in high (mean= 21.5000) and average (mean=24.8824) effective schools differ significantly with respect to knowledge of time management. Heads in average effective schools are high on dimension of time management i.e., knowledge of time management than high effective schools. 2.Heads in high (mean= 21.5000) and low (mean=28.3889) effective schools differ significantly with respect to knowledge of time management. Heads in low effective schools are high on dimension of time management i.e., knowledge of time management than high effective schools. 3.Heads in average (mean= 24.8824) and low (mean=28.3889) effective schools differ significantly with respect to knowledge towards time management. Heads in low effective schools are high on dimension of time management i.e., knowledge of time management than average effective schools. Table 8.Results of t-test for the Dimension of Time Management - Attitude towards Time Management Levels Mean SD t-value P-value Significa nce High 28.9444 1.0556 5.7915 <0.05 S Average 25.2647 2.5739 High 28.9444 1.0556 25.5429 <0.05 S Low 21.6111 0.6077 Average 25.2647 2.5739 5.9100 <0.05 S Low 21.6111 0.6077 The results of the above table reveal that, 4. Heads in high (mean= 28.9444) and average (mean=25.2647) effective schools differ significantly with respect to attitude towards time management. Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of time management i.e., attitude towards time management than average effective schools. 5. Heads in high (mean= 28.9444) and low (mean=21.6111) effective schools differ significantly with respect to attitude towards time management. Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of time management i.e., attitude towards time management than low effective schools. 6. The average (mean= 25.2647) and low (mean=21.6111) effective schools differ significantly with respect to attitude towards time management. Heads in average effective schools are high on dimension of time management i.e., attitude towards time management than low effective schools. Ganihar 51 4. Major Findings 1.Heads in high effective schools are high on leadership qualities than in average effective schools. 2.Heads in high effective schools are high on leadership qualities than in low effective schools. 3.Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of leadership qualities i.e., instructional leadership than the average effective schools. 4.Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of leadership qualities i.e., instructional leadership than the low effective schools. 5.Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of leadership qualities i.e., assumption of responsibility than the average effective schools. 6.Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of leadership qualities i.e., assumption of responsibility than the low effective schools. 7.Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of leadership qualities i.e., personal vision and character than the average effective schools. 8.Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of leadership qualities i.e., personal vision and character than the low effective schools. 9.Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of leadership qualities i.e., decision making than the average effective schools. 10.Heads in low effective schools are high on dimension of leadership qualities i.e., decision making than the average effective schools. 11.Heads in average effective schools are high on time management than the low effective schools. 12.Heads in High effective schools are high on time management than the low effective schools. 13.Heads in high effective schools are high on time management than the average effective schools. 14.Heads in average effective schools are high on dimension of time management i.e., knowledge of time management than high effective schools. 15.Heads in low effective schools are high on dimension of time management i.e., knowledge of time management than high effective schools. 16.Heads in low effective schools are high on dimension of time management i.e., knowledge of time management than average effective schools. 17.Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of time management i.e., attitude towards time management than average effective schools. 18.Heads in high effective schools are high on dimension of time management i.e., attitude towards time management than low effective schools. 19.Heads in average effective schools are high on dimension of time management i.e., International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 2015, 2(1), 43-52. 52 attitude towards time management than low effective schools. 5. Conclusions of the Study During the past two decades much research has been conducted in the field of school effectiveness and improvement of the quality of schooling. The major concern in schools should be educational excellence meaning that students become independent, creative thinkers and learn to work more co-operatively. 1.A great deal of successful development in schools depends on a thoroughly professional teaching force. With this foundation, the school system can achieve much progress, with effective schools, having teachers with high expectations and positive views of the capabilities of their pupils, providing good models of behaviour, exhibiting good time management, involving in school activities and remaining satisfied in the job. 2.There appears to be agreement that the quality of leadership exercised by the head us crucial to the effectiveness of the school. The Head of the school sets the love for learning by the educational beliefs and values he or she holds and with a decision making proves in which all teachers feel that their views are represented. The Head’s educational philosophy, management of time concern for teachers’ and staff development activities show how central these processes are for school’s development. On the basis of the findings of the present study it is revealed that the schools havi ng better Heads of schools and institution performance were identified as more effective schools. It is essential to identify schools which are less-effective and provide necessary help to develop their facilities and other aspects so as to develop the performance of students in order to increase school effectiveness. References OECD (2010) Education at a Glance 2010. Paris: Author. Rubagiza, J., E. Were, et al. (2010). Introducing ICT into Schools in Rwanda: Educational Challenges and Opportunities. International Journal of Educational Development 31(1): 37- 43. Smith, M. and A. Barrett (2010). Determinants of Primary School Learners' Attainment in Africa. EdQual Policy Brief, 1. Tikly, L. (2010) Towards a Framework for Understanding the Quality of Education. Bristol: University of Bristol UK. UNESCO (2010) Reaching the Marginalized: EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010. Paris: Author.