INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND CHALLENGES

IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS OF WEST HARERGHE ZONE, OROMIA

REGIONAL STATE

MA THESIS

WONDWOSEN LEGESSE

December 2020

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY, HARAMAYA

 Instructional Leadership Practices and Challenges in Secondary Schools
of West Harerghe Zone, Oromia Regional State

The Thesis Submitted to the Department of Educational Planning and

Management

Postgraduate Program Directorate

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

The partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS IN SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Wondwosen Legesse

December 2020

Haramaya University, Haramaya

2
 HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM DIROCTORATE

I hereby certify that I have read and evaluate this thesis entitled instructional leadership
practices and challenges in secondary schools of west Harerghe Zone of Oromia regional state
prepared under my guidance by Wondwosen Legesse. I recommend that it be submitted as
fulfilling the thesis requirement.

________________________ ____________________ _____________________

Major Advisor Signature Date

________________________ ____________________ _____________________

Co- Advisor Signature Date

As a remember of the board of examiners of the MA thesis open defense examination, I certify
that I have read and evaluated. The thesis prepared by Wondwosen Legasse and examined the
candidate I recommend that the thesis be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement for the
degree of Master of Art in school leadership.

________________________ ____________________ _____________________

Chairperson Signature Date

________________________ ____________________ _____________________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

________________________ ____________________ _____________________

External Examiner Signature Date

3
 STATMENT OF THE AUTHOR
By my signature below, I declare and affirm that this thesis is my own work. I have followed
all ethical and technical principle of scholarship in the preparation, data collection, data
analysis, and compilation of this thesis. Any scholarly matter that is included in the thesis has
been given recognition through citation.

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for MA degree the Haramaya
University. This thesis deposited in the Haramaya University Library and is made available to
borrowers under the rules of the Library. I solemnly declare that this thesis has not been
submitted to any other Institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma, or
certificate.

Brief quotation from this thesis may be made without special permission provided that
accurate and complete acknowledgment of the source is made. Requests for permission for
extended for extended quotation from or reproduction of this thesis in whole or in part may be
granted by the head of the school or department when in his or her judgment the proposed use
of the material is in the interest of the scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission
must be obtained from the author of the thesis.

Name ________________________________ Signature____________________

Date _____________________________

Department __________________________________

4
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my lovely Major advisor
Dawit Nagassa (PhD, Associate professor), Co-advisor Yirgalem Alemu (assi. professor). I
really cannot put into words how incredibly grateful for everything they have taught me and
for their professional advice and constructive criticisms in my attempts to make this work a
success, I sincerely thank them.
Secondly, I would like to express my sincere love and appreciation for my friends Feyera
Dabesa, Dame Meskele and all my families' member f or material, technical support, as well as
moral support starting from the initial to the completion of this research work.
Thirdly, I am also greatly indebted to the postgraduate program directorate of Haramaya
University for its Sponsorship to carry out the study
Last, but not least, I would like to send my sincere thanks to West Hararghe Zone sample
secondary school principals and teachers, secondary school supervisors for their participation
in the study by giving the necessary information, through questionnaire and semi-structured
interview, which enable me to finish the study successfully.

5
 INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND CHALLENGES
IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS OF WEST HARERGHE ZONE, OROMIA REGIONAL
STATE
WONDWOSEN LEGESSE

Abstract

The purpose of this study was investigating the current practices and challenges of
instructional leadership and its implementation in secondary schools of West Hararghe Zone,
Oromia Regional State. In order to address the objectives of the study, a descriptive survey
design was employed. Among the 47 government secondary schools found in the Zone, 7 of
them were selected randomly as sample. From these sample schools, 7 principals and 7
school supervisors were also included as respondents using purposive sampling technique.
Furthermore, 156 teachers and vice principals have participated in the study through random
sampling technique particularly lottery method. Questionnaire was used as main tool of data
collection. Interview and document analysis were used to substantiate the data gathered
through questionnaires. Frequency, percentage, mean, and independent sample t-test were
utilized to analyze and interpret quantitative data gained through the questionnaires. The
qualitative data gathered thorough interview and document analysis were analyzed by
narration. The result of the study indicated that Instructional leadership practices of
instructional leaders that on setting the school vision and developing school mission,
supervising and evaluating the instruction, monitoring instructional programs, were not fairly
employed. Lack of resource availability and allocation were rated as high problem. Principals
should have the skill and capacity in producing school visions. The principals must be capable
and influential in the schools to bring common and shared values among the stakeholders
through regular discussion, motivating and developing collaborative activities.

Key words: Instructional Leaders; Instructional Leadership; School Leadership Practice.

6
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ESDP: Education Sector Development Program

GEQIP: General Education Quality Improvement Program
MoE: Ministry of Education
SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Sciences
TGE: Transitional Government of Ethiopia
WEO: Woreda Education Office

7
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS vii

1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 3
1.3 Research Questions 5
1.4 Objectives of the Study 6
1.4.1. General Objective 6
1.4.2. Specific Objectives 6
1.5 Significance of the Study 6
1.6 Delimitation of the Study 7
1.7 Operational Definition of key Terms 7
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 9
2. 1 Concept and Definition of Instructional Leadership 9
2.2 Leadership Theories and its Approach 11
2.2.1Trait Theory 11
2.2.2 Skills Approach 11
2.2.3 Path – Goal Theory 12
2.2.4 Transactional Leadership 12
2.2.5 Transformational Leadership 12
2.2.6 Ethical Leadership 13
2.2.7 Instructional Leadership 14
2.3 Practice of Instructional Leadership 16
2.3.1 Framing the School Mission 17

8
 2.3.2. Managing the Instructional Program 20
2.3.3. Promoting a Positive School Learning Climate 24
2.4 Overview of Instructional Leadership in Ethiopia 27
2.5 Challenges for Instructional Leadership Effectiveness 31
Continue

3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 33

3.1 Description of the Study Area 33
3.2 Research Design 33
3.3 Sources of Data 34
3.3.1 Primary Sources 34
3.3.2 Secondary Sources 34
3.4 Target Population, Sample Size and Sampling Techniques 34
3.5.1 Target Population 34
3.5.2 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques 35
3.6 Data Collection Instruments 36
3.6.1 Questionnaire 36
3.6.2 Interview 37
3.6.3 Document Analysis 37
3.7 Procedure of Data Collection 38
3.8 Methods of Data Analysis 38
3.9 Validity and Reliability of Data Collection Instruments 39
3.10 Ethical Considerations 40
4. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 41
4.1. Characteristics of the Respondents 41
4.2 Instructional Leadership Practices 44
4.3 Teaching Learning Roles of Instructional Leadership 70
4.4 Challenges for Instructional Leadership Effectiveness 80
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 94
5.1 Summary 94
5.2 Conclusion 96
5.3 Recommendations 98

9
References 100
APPENDIX A-1 106
APPENDIX B-1 114
APPENDIX B-2 116

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Summary of population and sample size and sample technique 36

2. Characteristic of Respondents 42
3. Professional skill Development 46
4 .Instructional leader’s Role in Supervision of Classroom 52
5. Directive Roles of Instructional Leaders 57
6. Setting the School Vision and Developing School Mission 62
7. Managing Curriculum and Instruction 66
8. Supervising and Evaluating the Instruction 71
9. Monitoring Instructional Programs 75
10. Promoting a Conducive School Learning Climate 78
11. Lack of Skills and Training of Instructional Leaders 82
12. Lack of Cooperation and Commitment of Instructional Leaders for
Instructional Improvement 84
13. Lack of Cooperation and Commitment of Instructional Leaders for Instructional
Improvement 87
14. Lack of Vision, Will and Courage of Instructional Leaders 91

10
 1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with the overview of the background, the statement of the problem,
objective of the study, significance of the study, delimitation of the study, limitation of the
study and operational definition of the study which were treated in this part of the study.

1.1 Background of the Study

Education is an indispensable means of transmitting the skills and knowledge that are required
by individuals to fully participate and contribute to the development of economic, social, and
political activities of any country. The principal is the head of a secondary school, as such;
he/she is the manager and administrator of that school. It is the responsibility of the principals
to provide instructional leadership which entail ensuring high quality teaching and learning by
supervising instructional program and ensuring effective use of instructional time to foster the
attainment of educational goals and objectives. Similarly, Onuma (2016) asserted that the
principal has the primary functions of exhibiting effective instructional leadership practices for
the improvement of diversified curriculum and quality of instructional programme for
effective attainment of set school goals. Instructional leadership practices are leadership roles
that are directly related to the teaching process, involving the interaction between teachers,
students and the curriculum (Quah, 2011).

Thus, the instructional leaders should frame school goals, communicate, supervise and
coordinate curriculum, monitor progress and provide support for the teaching- learning culture
in order to make their schools more effective. Supporting this, Glatthom (2012), Horing, et al
(2010), Darling-Hammond (2010), Stronge (2013) and Lashway (2007) conceptualized
instructional leadership practices as motivating employees for work and change, promoting
high expectation, defining and communicating a clear mission, goal and objectives, designing
and modifying curriculum, analyzing school and learners data, making formative observation
about teaching and providing direct and immediate feedbacks to teachers to improve the
teaching learning process and to ensure quality of education.
Instructional leadership has a particular importance in educational administration because of
its far reaching effects on the accomplishment of school programs, objectives, and educational
goals. A lot of emphasis is currently being placed on the need for principals to be instructional
leaders or leaders of learning, primarily because this type of leadership has a stronger impact
on student outcomes than other types of leadership. The more focused the school’s leadership
is on instruction, the more effective the school will be in adding value to student outcomes
(Robinson et al., 2008).

Leadership plays a critical role in creating and sustaining a school. Among other things,
leadership focuses on learning. It emphasizes the essential of learning, not only for the
students but also for teachers and staff. There are three areas integrated into the means of
leadership: first is vision, how the leaders facilitate some actions to improve the students’
outcomes and nurture commitments. Second is governance, how the leaders manage and
control their staff and encourage their participation. Third is resource allocation, how the
leaders place resources to support teaching and learning (Hallinger & Hack, 2010).

But Tedla (2012) mentioned that research obviously shows that the majority of school leader's
time is consumed on the administrative tasks rather than on teaching and learning. He further
states that a common complaint from principals is that, although they would like to spend
much time on instructional activities, like teaching and learning, staff professional
development, managing the curriculum, providing instructional leadership, their time is tied up
with administrative activities. Finally, principals don't have enough time to manage the
teaching and learning process of the school. Principals should not only focus on the
administrative functions but also must be instructional leaders, placing student and staff
learning as the highest priority (Kaster, 2010). Very often principals have been criticized
because they spend their time on daily tasks without engaging in instructional leadership
(Nguyen & Wu, 2012).

Even though, in the Ethiopian case, an attempt has been made to make the educational
management system decentralized and professional, still now a lot remains to be done
particularly in the area of training and professionalizing principal ship. Owing to this fact as
indicated by MOE (2013), most school principals failed to play their pivotal instructional
leadership role. Because of this, the results of students' achievement in schools showed very

2
low. This can be verified from the 2017/18 education annual statistical abstract of the West
Hararghe Zone. As indicated in the abstract, the promotion rates of Grade 10 students and the
survival rate of female student, when compared elementary to secondary school, there were
much lower than average. Although there might be various reasons for this low achievement
of students, many raise the instructional leadership practices as one of major problems.
Strengthening this idea, the study attempts to measure the implementation of instructional
leadership practices such setting the school vision and developing school mission, managing
curriculum and instruction, supervising and evaluating the instruction, monitoring
instructional programs, promoting a conducive school learning climate in the schools of
Hararghe Zone. and also the researcher undertook this study in order to identify the major
challenges encountered in the implementation of instructional leadership practice, and
recommend some remedies that can better address the problems.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

As scholars like Bush (2009) and Davis et al. (2005) indicated, in the 21st century school
leaders should lead their educational institutions with passion, be skillful, knowledgeable
committed and enthusiastic about their work and design different strategies to make their
institutions/schools effective. However, as Dufour and Matto (2013) elaborated, as a result of
many culminating factors, school leaders are increasingly in a difficult situation and must find
an innovative ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their schools. Similarly, as
Wallace Foundation (2013) indicated, an effective instructional leader performs tasks like
shaping a vision of academic success for students, creating a climate hospitable to education,
cultivating leadership in others, improving data instruction, and managing people and process
to foster school improvement.

According MoE (2010), in ESDP IV one of main challenges focused to improve is leadership
and management capacities at institutional level remained weak. Additionally, MoE (2006)
stated that due to shortage of qualified school leader’s appointment of secondary school
leaders in Ethiopia is very much based on experience. So, it was found that, there were
challenges in performing technical management, building school culture and attractive school
compound, participatory decision making and school management for teachers and students,
creating orderly school environment by clarifying duties and responsibilities, being skillful in

3
human relations and communicating with different stakeholders by those school leaders
assigned based on experience without qualification.

Research on instructional leadership concludes that when principals visit classrooms, they can
positively impact on student achievement, teacher practices, and teacher attitudes. However,
the literature indicates that principals normally do not spend much time visiting classrooms
and providing feedback (Wayne, 2011). The research on instructional leadership has
confirmed the great need for strong instructional leadership in schools and has identified many
common characteristics of effective leaders. One of those characteristics which is highly
important in the operation of a school and neglected, is that of being a visible principal.
Nevertheless, many principals are stuck with daily administrative operations, discipline,
paperwork, and telephone conversations. Thus principals are unable to recognize that the
school's main purpose is found not in the office, but in the classrooms and playgrounds (Beth,
1997).

An obvious feature of instructional leaders is their dedication to improve the quality of

instructional activities. They pay utmost importance to the enhancement and advancement of
educational programs and they are interested in managing the difficulties arise in their way.
Instructional leaders consider teaching time as holy and do everything they can to protect
classroom instruction from external interruptions (Oplatka & Hefer-Antebi, 2008). The
principal means not only a job or an occupation, but also a profession. The cultivation of
teaching leadership does not refer to academic attainments or the improvement of teaching
leadership, but the attainments of both academic and teaching leadership (Yan,2015).

Regarding Ethiopia, there are some evidences that verify that there are a lot of challenges to
implement instructional leadership practice effectively. From those various studies some of
them are Adugna (2014) and Eneyew (2018) have been conducted study on issues related to
practice and challenges of instructional leadership. However, most of them are different in
numerous ways from the current study. For example, a study by Eneyew (2014) entitled as
the roles, practice and challenges of school leadership in government secondary schools in
Kirkos Subcity, Addis Ababa. Study by Adugna (2014) entitled the practice and challenges of
school leadership in secondary schools of Ilu Aba Bor Zone of Oromia Region. There are the
two prominent studies in two different regions, Oromia and Addis Ababa respectively. They

4
certify that the practice and challenges of instructional leadership was not implemented as we
expected. The two researchers indicated above, generally, identified the following five factors,
namely, lack of well trained facilitators or mentors, lack consistently supported incentive from
concerned bodies, lack of training and experience sharing with surrounding schools and
shortage of budget are the major hindrances for unsuccessful implementation of instructional
leadership practice in their respective schools.

However, they are different from this study in two different ways. Firstly, they did not focus
on all instructional leadership practice under its dimensions but this research included most of
instructional leadership practice properly. Secondly, this study is different in that its focus
was on instructional leadership practices and challenges in secondary schools to which could
play role in minimizing challenges that has spread in seven woredas' secondary schools.But
the previous studies focused on limited woreda in their respective schools.

Regarding the practices in the secondary schools of West Hararghe Zone, the researcher faced
a lot of challenges of instructional leadership practice. In addition, there was a complaint from
educational officials at the Woreda and Zonal levels regarding the poor performance of
principals in relation to their leadership responsibilities, lack of training and inefficiency, lack
of commitment, and their turnover. However, to the best of researcher's knowledge, there was
no study that show the degree of the problems and the challenges that implementation of
instructional leadership in secondary schools of West Hararghe Zone, Oromia Regional State,
of Ethiopia and also the quality of education is still low and student achievement is
inadequate. This by itself initiated the researcher to undertake this study.

Thus, this study intended to identify the major challenges in the implementation of
instructional leadership and recommend some remedies that can better address the problems.
In the process of the study the researcher formulated and attempted to answer the following
basic questions

1.3 Research Questions

1. Which of instructional leadership are being practiced in secondary schools of Hararghe
Zone?
2. To what extent do school leaders practice different dimensions of instructional leadership in

5
 secondary Schools of West Hararghe Zone?
3. To what extent do instructional leaders practice the roles of instructional leadership in
West Hararghe Zone secondary Schools?
4. What are the major challenges that faced school leaders in practicing instructional
leadership in West Hararghe Zone secondary schools?

1.4 Objectives of the Study

1.4.1. General Objective

The main objective of this study was investigate the current practices and challenges of
instructional leadership and its implementation in secondary schools of West Hararghe Zone,
Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia.

1.4.2. Specific Objectives

1. To identify the current practice of instructional leadership in the study schools.

2. To examine whether the dimension of instructional leadership practice effectively

implemented in the study schools or not.
3. To assess whether effectively performed instructional Leadership roles or not.
4. To identify the major challenges that hinders the effectiveness of instructional leadership
practices in the schools.

1.5 Significance of the Study

The results of this study will help to create awareness among school leaders, teachers, and
supervisors in West Hararghe Secondary Schools concerning the existing practice of school
leadership and the challenges against improving and promoting school success. In addition,
the finding also will provide valuable information to the schools about how to practice
instructional leadership roles and enable them to take corrective actions for the major
challenges they faced in practicing instructional leadership. And also it will serve as
information source for educational officials at different levels of the education hierarchy to
identify the gaps existed in relation to the instructional leadership and address the problems in

6
the future. It may serve as a foundation for other researchers who are interested to do their
research in this area.

1.6 Delimitation of the Study

To make the study more manageable and feasible, the study was delimited to 7 government
secondary school in West Hararghe Zone of Oromia Region. including Wachu, Chiro Gola,
Mieso, Gemmechis, Hirna, Habro and Doba Secondary Schools, teachers, school supervisors,
school principals and vice principals that was help him to sense the problem.

In this full study, the focus from a total of 47 primary target population schools, 7 were taken
as sample population using random sampling, particularly, the lottery method. Teachers,
principals, vice principal and supervisors were primary sources of data collection. From a total
of 520 teachers in seven secondary schools, 156 teachers were selected using simple random
sampling method using lottery method. From a total 7 sample School supervisors 7 would be
selected using purposive sampling method , from a total 7 sample school principals 7 were
selected using purposive sampling method and from the total 14 vice principals 7 select using
simple random sampling method using lottery method. In this study, Semi-structured
interview, and structured questionnaire protocols was main tools to collect data from the
respondent.

1.7 Operational Definition of key Terms

Challenges refer to: barriers to instructional leadership as factors that negatively effect on the
school leaders role in leading teaching and learning (Bhengu, Naicker& Mthiyane 2014).
Instructional leadership: Instructional leadership refers a leadership style that encourages
best practices in teaching (Glanz, 2006; Louis et al, 2010).
Instructional leadership dimension: Refers to defining the school's mission, managing the
instructional program, and creating a learning climate within the school (Hallingerand
Murphy, 2012).
Leadership refers to: a process in which a leader, who influences, establishes goals and
guides individuals towards achieving those goals (Nahavandi, 2012).
Practice of instructional leadership refers to: the way school leaders setting vision and
defining the school mission, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising and

7
 evaluating instruction, providing professional skill development, and creating conducive
and healthy school environment (Murphy,1990).
School leaders in this study refer to: principals and vice principals.
School leader: Refers to a person by whatever name called, responsible for the day to day
management of the school and for person deployed to work at school. On the other hand
school leader is instructional leaders namely, principals, supervisors, vice principals that
take part in the leadership of the teaching learning and management (Sergiovanni, 2001).
Secondary school in this study refers to: the schools of west Hararghe zone that included
in the research from grade 9 and 10.

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

The purpose of this review of related literature is to provide conceptual framework on the
concepts and conceptual definition of instructional leadership, leadership theory and its
approach, practices of instructional leadership, the overview of instructional leadership
development in Ethiopia and challenges that affect the practices of instructional leadership
effectiveness. Since the conceptual framework of this study is mainly based on Hallinger and
Murphy (1985) instructional leadership model, all the three dimensions of this model are
reviewed with other supporting literature. The three dimensions of this model also sub divided
into more specifically define tasks. Therefore, instructional leadership served as the theoretical
framework for this study.

2. 1 Concept and Definition of Instructional Leadership

Over the last three decades, researchers have attempted to define instructional leadership. The
research supports the concept of instructional leadership as building a rigorous learning
climate that sets high expectations for learning and encouraging teachers in their work to meet
the expectations (Cann & Hernandez, (2012). The definition of instructional leadership has
been extended to include deeper involvement in the core purpose of school that is teaching and
learning. The National Association of Elementary School Principals in USA (2001) defines

8
instructional leadership as leading learning communities, in which staff members meet on a
regular basis to discuss their work, collaboratively solve problems, reflect on their tasks and
shoulder responsibility for what students learn (Sarok & Jihet, 2012). Michael & Donna
(2002) provide a different definition:

The title instructional leader should define the primary role of the principal in the
quest for excellence in learning. To achieve this quest, it takes more than a strong
principal with concrete ideas and technical expertise. It requires a redefinition of the
role of principal that is based in a model of instructional leadership that removes the
barriers to leadership by eliminating bureaucratic structures, reinventing
relationships, and developing a strategic time horizon (Michael and Donna, 2002.

With the reference to the DuFour et al. (2008) Kaster (2010) defined instructional leadership
as those who lead learning communities in an educational environment where teachers and
administrators work collaboratively to diagnose and solve problems related to student
learning. Robertson (2013) explains the instructional leadership as towards one end of a
continuum its meaning can include everything that happens in schools. Towards the other end
of a continuum it can be defined as being specifically connected to student learning, to the
extent that principals can only be described as instructional leaders if teaching in a classroom
is part of their role. (Robertson, 2013).

Makau & Tanui (2014) define instructional leadership as instructional leadership refers to the
activities that the principal involves in or delegates to others to improve student learning. It
involves giving direction, coordination, and providing resources for the improvement of
curriculum and instruction. The principals' main responsibility is to promote the teaching and
learning of the school. (Makau & Tanui, 2014).

Sim (2011) also provides some definitions of instructional leadership with the reference of
other scholars. Keefe and Jenkins (2002) refer instructional leadership as the role of principal
in providing directions, facilities and supports to teachers and students in order to progress the
education system of the schools (Sim, 2011). Instructional leadership refers to the ability to
develop educational activities. These activities include the abilities to interpret the curriculum
and decide the objectives of teaching, the varieties of teaching pedagogies, determine

9
classroom management, establish a learning environment, implement instructional innovation,
and coordinate the teachers to achieve the goals of schooling (Sergiovanni, as cited in Sim,
2011).

Instructional leadership is different from school administrators and managers in different

ways. Principals who consider them as administrators are occupied with administrative
responsibilities while principals who believe them as instructional leaders engage in defining
school vision, mission and goals, providing required materials for teaching and learning,
leading the curriculum, checking lesson plans and observing teachers and giving feedback
(Sarok & Jihet, 2012). A principal can be considered as an instructional leader if the principal
gives the utmost importance on improving the quality of teaching and learning in the school.
When the principal gives more focus on instruction and spend more time to the instructional
duties compared to those administrative tasks, it can be decided that the principal is an
instructional leader (Rao & Gezahegn, 2013).

2.2 Leadership Theories and its Approach

Leadership is a process in which an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a

common goal (Northouse, 2007). There are several approaches to leadership. Following is
information about trait theory, skills approaches, style approach, path-goal theory,
transactional theory, and transformational leadership.

2.2.1Trait Theory

One of the first systemic approaches to leadership was the trait theory (Northouse, 2007). In
the early 20th century, this approach was studied to determine whether there were specific
attributes that cause some leaders to be more effective than others. Since then this theory has
been modified several times. Jago (1982) placed emphasis on identifying the qualities that
made some social political and military leaders great. Trait approach to leadership maintains
that leaders were born with certain qualities that make them effective‖ leaders (Alig-
Mielcarek, 2003; Nahavandi, 2012; Northouse, 2007). This theory purports that only certain
people have the natural capabilities for leadership, and they should be the only people called
upon to lead. These individuals are believed to have certain critical qualities that ensure
success such as tirelessness and special insights as well as the capacity for persuasion (Garubo

10
& Rothstein, 1998). This type of leadership affords no credence to the concept that leadership
is a process that may be learned (Northouse, 2007).

2.2.2 Skills Approach

Although leadership skills had been studied for many years, an article by Katz (1955) in the
Harvard Business Review, titled Skills of an Effective Administrator‖ chronicled research on
skills that contributed greatly to how the concept of skills in leadership is viewed today. This
approach emphasizes the importance of three skills in leadership; technical skill - the
knowledge and proficiency in a particular type of work or activity; human skill the knowledge
about others and the ability to work with them; and conceptual skill - the ability to work with
concepts and ideas. Unlike the trait approach emphasizing that certain great individuals were
born to lead, the skills approach advocates that many people have the potential to lead
(Northouse, 2007).

2.2.3 Path – Goal Theory

The motivation of subordinates to accomplish given tasks is the emphasis of Path goal theory.
It suggests that subordinates perform tasks well if they are expected to do so and if they expect
a reward for the tasks performed. The theory emphasizes that leaders define goals, clarify
paths, remove obstacles, and provide support (Green, 2010; Guthrie & Schuermann, 2010;
Nahavandi, 2012; Northouse, 2007).

House and Mitchell (1974) leading advocates for the path goal theory posited that
subordinates are motivated when the number and kind of payoffs are increased by the
leadership. They also contend that subordinates are motivated when the path to the goal is
easily accessible and when there is adequate guidance and support. Motivation and support are
believed to lead to personal satisfaction. According to this theory, leaders need to ensure that
they remove obstacles, define and clarify goals, and support subordinates to ensure a
maximum output in their organizations (Northouse, 2007).

2.2.4 Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership involves an exchange of things of value that benefit both the leader
and the follower (Alig-Mielcarek, 2003; Burns, 1978; Green, 2010; Guthrie &Schuermann,
11
2010; Northouse, 2007). The leader gains cooperation in the completion of tasks through the
promise of reward. This contractual relationship is mutually beneficial to both the leader and
the follower (Green, 2010). Leadership is also largely managerial as it contributes to the
smooth flow of the organization in question. A cost may be attached to not completing one‘s
side of the contract (Green, 2010).

2.2.5 Transformational Leadership

This type of leadership changes people and transforms organizations, (Burns, 1975; Guthrie &
Schuermann, 2010). Transformational leaders have a vision for the organization they lead and
are able to communicate this vision effectively. Such leaders are uniquely able to inspire
others to share and commit to the vision and together work towards its attainment (Green,
2010). People are led to accomplish more than what is expected of them. Motivation of the
leaders as well as the followers is raised. Transformational leadership is concerned with
emotions, values, ethics and standards with concerns of the followers at the forefront to ensure
that their needs are met (Burns, 1975).

According to Nahavandi (2012) three elements comprise transformational leadership:

charisma and inspiration, intellectual stimulation and individual stimulation. Charisma and
inspiration is the quality in transformational leadership that helps followers to overcome
resistance to change. Through intellectual stimulation, new ideas are propagated and followers
are made to feel empowered. Individual consideration is when a special bond is forged
between the leaders and the followers and followers feel encouraged and motivated to excel
(Nahavandi, 2012).

2.2.6 Ethical Leadership

A fundamental principle of transformational leadership is ethical behavior. Ethical principles

are based on values and morals that an individual or society espouses (Northouse, 2007).
Leaders must lead with moral purpose; this means leading with intensions of making a
positive difference in the lives of subordinates as well as the society on a whole (Fullan,
2001). Leaders possess a great amount of power (Burns, 1978). What separates
transformational leaders from those who are not is that transformational leaders have a moral
code by which they live and lead. Hitler had great skills in leadership but he did not inspire

12
people to be better individuals; to be better human beings. His leadership fulfilled his personal
missions and his personal aspirations. He is a good example of what it means to lead through
coercion (Burns, 1978).

In contrast, Abraham Lincoln was also a powerful leader but he was very concerned with the
wellbeing of his people. He was visible to them building strong alliances and focusing on
persuasion rather than coercion. He was honest and always ensured that decisions made were
in the best interest of those he served and not himself (Phillips, 1988). These are
characteristics of a transformational leader.

Another reason it is critical that transformational leaders exhibit moral values and moral
courage is that as they transform the institutions which they lead, and in the process they
transform minds (Gardner, 2006). Leaders are charged with ensuring that under their tenure
the organization grows and becomes more productive. Among other things this means
communicating goals which then become shared goals and aspirations. Followers need to be
secure in the knowledge that the leaders have only their best interest at heart so that they can
trust the leaders and trust the decisions that are made on their behalf. When followers feel
confident that they are truly a part of decision making and that their opinions really matter,
they feel vested in their institution and are generally more productive (Green, 2010). It is,
therefore, critical to any leader that he/she is trusted by the followers. Trust is developed
through a commitment to the truth ( Cunningham & Bacon, 2009; Freire, 1973).

Truth as an element of moral leadership was highlighted by Freire (1973) when he described
leaders as oppressors and followers as the oppressed. One of the things that oppressors hold
from the oppressed is truth. He maintained that if truth is not spoken, dialogue does not occur.
On the contrary, he purported that telling the truth is a part of being human to others and
contributes to releasing followers from the tyranny of oppression (Frerie, 1973).

2.2.7 Instructional Leadership

Instructional leadership refers a leadership style that encourages best practices in teaching
(Glanz, 2006; Louis et al, 2010). The principal as an instructional leader is held accountable
for the academic achievement of students (Kelehear, 2008; Smith & Andrews, 1989).
Instructional leaders help to support the achievement of students by actively facilitating the

13
development of the most sophisticated pedagogical practices in teachers (Kelehear, 2008).
Instructional leaders are chief learning officers‖ who are responsible to establish collaborative
and supportive school cultures focused on teaching and learning (Green, 2010).

Instructional leaders have transformational attributes. As facilitators, they exhibit behaviors

that enhance the abilities of school faculty and staff. They ensure that the teachers feel
empowered to achieve goals of school improvement and student learning (Green, 2010).
Support is given for the creation of learning communities that encourage dialogue and
collaboration in the quest to accomplish the vision of the learning institution (Green, 2010;
Louis et al, 2010). Leadership must also be shared. The leaders must be cognizant of their
strengths and weaknesses as well as that of the faculty and staff to ensure that the leadership is
shared effectively and that each individual‘s expertise is being maximized for school
improvement (Green, 2010; Louis et al, 2010).

Although instructional leaders have to manage aspects of their institutions effectively, they
differ from managers in that they focus on building relationships and gaining commitment
from followers through the power of influence (Green, 2010). They also empower followers
and encourage them to be creative and to use initiative in tasks that they have to undertake
(Green, 2010). Leaders focus on the future, create change and a culture based on shared
values, and use personal power. Mangers try to maintain existing structures, focus on the
present, and use position power (Nahavandi, 2012).

Instructional leaders define and communicate shared goals, monitor and provide feedback on
the teaching and learning process, and promote school-wide professional development (Alig-
Mielcarek, 2003). The following section describes these three pillars of instructional
leadership.

2.2.7.1 Define and communicate shared goals

This first pillar of instruction leadership focuses on the convergence of instructional and
transformational leadership; it emphasizes reflection as well as adherence to the curriculum.
The principles that govern each of these practices are explained as they relate to the pillar of
defining and communication of shared goals.

14
2.2.7.2 Instructional and transformational leadership

Transformational leaders change people and transform organizations, (Burn, 1975).

Instructional leaders encourage best practices in teaching (Glanz, 2006; Louis et al, 2010) and
help to support the achievement of students by actively facilitating the development of
pedagogical practices in teachers (Kelehear, 2008). Instructional and transformational leaders
work towards the improvement and transformation of the institutions that they serve.

2.2.7.3 Vision

One attribute of transformational leadership typical of instructional leaders is that leaders must
have a vision for the organizations they lead and they must communicate this vision
effectively (Green, 2010). Northouse (2012) refers to vision as being a ―mental model for a
future state‖ a picture that is better than what currently exists; a change that points to a more
positive future; values that are espoused by all; a map that lays out the paths that should be
followed; and, a challenge to do things that ensure that things are better for all.

Effective leaders must also articulate their vision. In doing so, leaders must communicate the
vision in a manner that shows that the vision is not that different from what currently exists.
Leaders need to present the values of the vision so that the followers clearly see themselves as
a part of something that is worthwhile. The leaders need to choose the right language in
articulating the vision as it is important that they inspire the followers to want to be a part of
the new direction that is being set forth (Northouse, 2012).

Implementation of the vision is also critical, requiring the leader to embody the vision that
should be perpetuated by the followers. The leader must also ensure that expectations for the
success of vision are high and that the followers have set goals ahead of them that are
challenging but attainable (Northouse, 2012).

2.2.7.4 Goals

Instructional leaders ensure that the goals are shared goals. Individuals perform at higher
levels and are more vested when they feel that their opinion matters. They believe that they are
working towards the very goals that the leaders are striving towards and that cause
productivity in general to increase. On the contrary, when individuals do not feel vested and
15
that their opinions matter, they are less likely to work at peak productivity. (Blanchard &
Bowles, 1998; Green, 2010).

2.3 Practice of Instructional Leadership

As the pioneers in the field of instructional leadership, Hallinger and Murphy (1985) created a
conceptual model composed on three dimensions outlining the instructional management role
of the school leaders. These three dimensions: defining the school mission, managing the
instructional program, and promoting a positive learning climate are also subdivided into more
specifically defined tasks. The first dimension of this model requires defining the school
mission. In defining the mission, the principal is responsible in collaboration with staff and
parents to ensure that the school has a vision that is focused on student learning. Under this
dimension the specific roles of the school leaders is framing the school vision, mission, and
goals and communicating them with concerned people.

The second category, managing and organizing the instructional program requires the
principal to be involved in the instructional development of the school. This includes
supervising and evaluating instruction, coordinating the curriculum and monitoring student
progress ( Hallinger & Murphy, 1985).

The last dimension, promoting a positive school learning climate has five job functions. It
involves protecting instructional time, promoting professional development, maintaining high
visibility, providing incentives for teachers and providing incentives for learning (Hallinger &
Murphy, 1985).

2.3.1 Framing the School Mission

According to Hallinger & Murphy (1985) the first dimension of their model, framing the
School Mission incorporates creating the school vision, mission, and goals and
communicating them with concerned people. The first task in principal's instructional
leadership is articulating vision and values. Having clearly defined vision, mission and goals
are important to improve the academic performance of the school. If the principal is incapable
to articulate the school vision, mission, and goals in the right way, the school would not be
having any real goals and objectives to achieve and this could demoralize the teachers (Sarok

16
& Jihet, 2012). The findings of the study conducted by Sarok & Jihet (2012) revealed that the
principal who communicates the vision and goals of the school has significant relationship
with teachers' commitment. Suleiman (2013) also highlights the importance of having a vision
that is focused to improve student learning: Leadership roles at all levels are also judged by
how well all members of society are equitably served and advanced by the vision of those who
work towards meaningful education for all students. (Suleiman, 2013)

2.3.1.1 Creating the school vision, mission, and goal.

Principal can be visionaries who articulate this with their teachers. When teachers understood
their principal's vision they were very much likely to be committed to work harder to achieve
it (DuPont, 2009). In addition, Moffitt (2007) states that the principals participated in his
research agreed that creating a vision and setting high expectations assist teachers to deliver
high instruction which leads to increase student achievement. Bush (2003) also mentions that
vision is increasingly considered as a crucial component of leadership. The author further
states that vision is an important element of school leadership which differentiates successful
leaders from less successful leaders.

Scholars have suggested that the most important responsibility of leadership is to describe the
ultimate goal which the school will try to achieve, sometimes this is considered as leadership
for what (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). Principals from highly effective schools are dedicated to
the formulation, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of vision of learning that
articulated and supported by the school community. During the process of developing the
school vision, mission, and goals, principals should involve the representatives from the
school community. Studies from different countries reveal that more participation from
different members of the school community in decision making is related with high-
performing schools (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Successful principals contribute the
development of the school vision that is aimed to provide high quality learning to all the
students. Especially, instructional leaders ensure that vision; mission and goals are focused on
improving student learning and are clearly described (Murphy, Elliot & Goldring, 2007).

The heart of leadership has to do with what a person believes, values, dreams about, and is
committed to the person's personal vision, to use the popular term (Sergiovanni, 1992). Vision

17
and values are at the heart of good educational management; however, it will have no use
unless they can be translated into actions by which they can be achieved. Managers are aware
that it will never be enough for the vision and goals remain at the level of personal belief,
without shared commitment and workable structure. To enable it to be achieved (Bell &
Harrison, 1996). Davies (2005) also talks about the importance of translating the vision and
moral purpose into action. The author further states that it is a delivery mechanism for creating
the direction and the capability for the organization to achieve that direction or goals.
Transformational leaders also believe that clear vision and shared goals make staff committed
to achieve their personal goals and organizational goals simultaneously (Hallinger, 2003).

At present, principals usually try to promote a shared vision and invest in human development
and resources. They have also strongly accepted that the main reason of having schools is to
meet the different academic, social, cultural, spiritual, and other needs of all students
(Suleiman, 2013). In his famous book, The Fifth Discipline Senge (1990) also mentions that, if
any one idea about leadership has inspired organizations for thousands of years, it's the
capacity to hold a shared picture of the future we seek to create. However, just having a vision
will not bring any benefit to the school if the school is not trying to reach it. Successful people
not only have a clear dream of what they want to accomplish, but also they think strategically
about the ways to make their dream a reality.

2.3.1.2 Communicating the vision, mission, and goals.

In order to define a mission of a school the principal should involve the staff and make sure
that the school has a clear mission and the mission that is aimed on improving student
learning. This dimension is the corner stone for creating a student-oriented school. (Hallinger,
2011). Principals having a vision for their schools and articulate that vision effectively to
others become dedicated to it and their daily activities are instilled with its meaning and
values. It is important that the vision be institutionalized with its meanings and values rooted
in the culture of the school (Beare, Caldwell & Millikan, 1989). Besides, Bush (2003) also
mentions that consideration should be given to institutionalize the vision if principal is to be
effective. Pendergrass (2007) also states that educational goals are given life through the
vision of the school and with articulated vision the school can achieve common objectives.
Ghavifekr et al. (2015) also states that communicating the vision and mission is a vital factor

18
that influences the instructional leadership practice of an institution. This is because, through
articulating the vision and mission with all the staff would understand their workflow and
organizational objectives they should achieve.

Effective principals articulate the mission and vision through their behaviors and by sharing
with others inside and outside of the school. At first, they are talented in making the school
vision as the hub of their operational procedure. They demonstrate through their behaviors the
school's dedication to the values and beliefs which are at the heart of the vision and mission
also specific activities needed to attain the goals. Successful principals work constantly to
articulate and advocate the mission and programs of the school to employees, students, parents
and other stakeholders. In fact, successful principals are talented in putting the vision, mission,
and goals in the forefront of everyone's attraction and at the heart of employees' performance
(Murphy, et al. 2007). Hallinger (2010) explains the importance of vision and goals as
follows:

The ability to articulate a learning focused vision that is shared by others and to set
clear goals creates a base for all other leadership strategies and actions. The
principal's vision and goals should be linked to core values of the school's leadership
team and the school community more broadly. Visions written down on paper only
come to life through the routines and actions that are enacted on a daily basis.
(Hallinger, 2010)

2.3.2. Managing the Instructional Program

Managing the instructional Program is focuses on the harmonization and control of

instruction and curriculum. This dimension includes three leadership functions: supervising
and evaluating instruction, coordinating the curriculum, and monitoring student progress. This
dimension demands the principal fully participate in supervision monitoring instruction in the
school (Hallinger, 2005). These tasks require that the school leaders have the knowledge and
experience in effective instruction as well as devoted to the school development. In the large
schools, it is obvious that the principal alone is not enough to involve in observing and
managing the instructional programs of the school (Hallinger, 2011). However, this model

19
believes that managing and organizing the instruction is the prime responsibility of the
principal (Hallinger, 2003). Ayub (2015) explains how to manage instructional program:

Management of the instructional program is necessary to achieve organizational

goals. Principals manage the instructional program by supervising and evaluating
instruction, coordinating the curriculum and monitoring student progress. The focus of
this dimension is on teaching and learning so principal must have expertise to perform
the functions. (Ayub, 2015)

In order to manage the curriculum, principals must ensure that learning objectives are aligned
with national curriculum; they must also participate in providing quality education and
facilitating to provide required learning materials. Principals are responsible for ensuring that
subject departments are running smoothly and effectively (Sarok & Jihet, 2012).

2.3.2.1 Coordinating the curriculum

In high performing schools, principals ensure that learning objectives, classroom learning,
teaching resources and testing and evaluation are carefully coordinated. This means that there
is an effective coordination across subjects within grades and among teachers within and
across departments and grade level (Murphy, et al. 2007). Kruger (2003) mentions that if
principals manage and coordinate the curriculum in an effective way then teaching time can be
maximized. Hence, principals should support the instruction and provide the materials
required for teaching and learning.

Effective principals are competent in instruction and they also involve in the school teaching
and learning programs. These principals work along with their colleagues to ensure that the
school has relevant and useful curricular programs in general and there is customized
programs for individual students. At first, they set high standards in different curricular areas
from the national curriculum. They also ensure to provide opportunity for each student to
maximize their learning. These principals are also industrious in supervising and evaluating
the effectiveness instruction (Murphy, et al. 2007). DuPont (2009) also states that principals
are expected to be curriculum coordinators in their schools. The author further mentions that
by learning contemporary techniques and experience, principals can monitor better to facilitate
teachers to develop them.

20
Effective instructional leaders ensure that their schools have a rigorous curriculum and provide
quality instructions to all the students. These leaders know the techniques and strategies of
quality instruction and ensure that quality education is provided from their schools (Goldring,
et al. 2007). These authors define the notion of rigorous curriculum and quality instruction as
follows:

Rigorous curriculum is defined as ambitious academic content provided to all students

in core academic subjects. Quality instruction is defined as effective instructional
practices that maximize student academic and social learning. (Goldring, et al. 2007)

As the main business of schools is to offer effective instruction, school leaders should be
aware of special needs of each instructional area (Krug, 1993). Jenkins (2009) also underpins
this view by saying that principals should know the concepts of the curriculum, educational
philosophy and beliefs, curricular sources and curriculum evaluation and improvement.
Instructional leaders also encourage teachers to search for a strategy, the student might
respond best and they also pushed teachers to promote differentiated instruction to maximize
student learning (Knapp, Honig, Plecki, Portin and Copland, 2014).

2.3.2.2 Monitoring student progress

Monitoring student progress is defined as the extent to which principals take responsibility for
developing a systematic and comprehensive testing program. Test results are discussed with
the staff as a whole, and are provided interpretations or analyses for teachers detailing the
relevant test data. Test results are used for goal setting, curricular assessment, planning, and
measuring progress toward school goals (Ahmad & Hussain, 2015).

In order to monitor student progress, effective principals use multiple methods of monitoring
and evaluation. They utilize different ways of observation and evaluation methods. They make
sure that student learning is measured using multi-dimensional approaches. This means the
comprehensive assessment strategies of these schools include teachers' records, unit tests, term
tests, portfolio, and standardized measures of student performance (Murphy, et al. 2007).
Although principals outstandingly motivate students who excel in academic by awarding
incentives or certificates they pay less attention to meet individual students' who faced

21
problems in studies (Sim, 2011). Kruger (2003) explains the importance of monitoring the
students as follows:

Monitoring and evaluating the learners' progress by means of tests and examinations.
Using the results to provide support to both learners and educators to improve as well
as to help parents understand where and why improvement is needed. (Kruger, 2003)

One of the three functions of second dimension, managing the instructional program is
supervising and evaluating the instruction. Supervision of instruction is a tool or instrument
required to improve the quality control and maintenance of standards in the education system
(Okendu, 2012). Regarding the supervision, Nkoma, Taru & Mapfumo (2014) state as follows:

Supervision is what school personnel do to adults and things to maintain or change the
school operation in ways that directly influence the teaching processes employed to
promote student learning. Supervision is a major function of the school operation, not a
task, or a set of techniques. ( Nkoma, Taru, & Mapfumo, 2014 )

In the process of supervision, instructional leaders give written constructive feedback after
observing the instruction. Findings also suggest that teachers value clear and specific written
feedback that has potential to develop themselves (Ovando, 2005). After doing a research
Ovando & Ramirez (2007) state that the results of their research reveal that school principals'
leadership practices are related with teacher performance management that decides the teacher
performance and student academic success. The prime focus of supervision is to use teachers'
potential which maximizes providing high quality education to all the students. Besides,
monitoring and evaluation ensures a school maintains standards and makes check and balance
(Tedla, 2012). Principals in outstanding schools are hard-working and provide timely feedback
to the teachers to enhance the quality of education (Murphy et al., 2007).

There is much evidence from the research that meaningful feedback is necessary for classroom
visits to support teacher learning. Meaningful feedback often occurs through the conversation
between principal and teachers after a classroom visit (Wayne, 2011). Louis et .al. (2010) state
that the concept of instructional leadership focus on classroom practices. The fundamental
idea is that instruction will enhance if leaders give detailed and clear feedback to teachers,

22
including recommendations for development. Regarding the importance of supervising the
teaching and giving feedback Jun (2014) states as follows:

Supervision was another interpersonal process in which principals gave feedbacks to

teachers resulting in communication and interaction about curricular and pedagogical
design. Principals acknowledged the importance of collective efforts in supervisory
procedure and delegated the supervisory roles to subject leaders and academic
officers. Principals supported the instruction improvement by organizing teaching
sharing session based on collective classroom observation. Collaboration between
principals and teachers contributed to variety and individual initiative in instructional
delivery which was a vital part of supervisory process (Jub, 2014).

Evaluating instruction is one of the functions of Managing the Instructional Program. Hence,
instructional leaders have responsibility to evaluate the instructional program of their schools.
As principals create a conducive learning climate that encourage staff learning and establish a
culture to improve the quality of learning, they are also responsible to implement complete
teacher appraisal system that focus at enhancing the performance of the school (Ovando &
Ramirez, 2007).

It is very important to measure the performance of teachers because just saying that you want
teachers to use effective instructional strategies will not guarantee that they do. An effective
principal must also be aware of the power of that both role modeling and relationship have in
ensuring quality teaching. A school principal must investigate instructional practices in the
school through observation and having professional dialog with colleagues (Patti, 2009).

2.3.3. Promoting a Positive School Learning Climate

The last category, promoting a positive school learning climate comprises of five job
functions. It includes protecting instructional time, promoting professional development,
maintaining high visibility, providing incentives for teachers and providing incentives for
learning (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). Studies of effective schooling reveled that schools
characterized by a positive school climate emphasized to promote student learning and high
expectations for student achievement. A conducive and positive learning environment
provides an important foundation for effective teaching and supportive learning environment

23
to all children (Cohen & Brown, 2013). The most important responsibility of a principal is to
create a helpful environment for providing education (Dong & Seong, 2014). Rao & Gezahegn
(2013) explain the importance of positive school climate as follows:

School climate is an important ingredient that relates to the productivity and well-
being of staff members, parents or guardians, and students. The principal, more than
any other individual, is responsible for the climate in the school. As an instructional
leader, he is the key figure in promoting an academic learning environment within the
school that is conducive to student learning (Rao & Gezahegn, 2013).

The organizational culture of a school is an important aspect of school and it has a significant
influence on all the other aspects of a school. A school with an established teaching and
learning culture will also have a good organizational structure and instructional program that
covers on all aspects of academic achievement and the professional development of educators
(Kruger, 2003).

The organizational culture of a school is an important aspect of school and it has a significant
influence on all the other aspects of a school. A school with a supporting environment for
teaching and learning will also have effective management structure and teaching and learning
programs that include all elements of academic achievement and opportunities for training and
development for the staff (Kruger, 2003). Hallinger (2005) states that instructional leaders are
viewed as culture builders. Furthermore, Kruger (2003) also mentions that principals are
responsible to create culture that quality education will be provided with the aim of improving
student learning. Therefore, instructional leaders should build a learning culture which focus
on student learning as the heart of the school culture.

2.3.3.1 Maintaining high visibility

When the principal maintain the visible presence and visits classrooms, teachers see the
principal as an instructional leader and collaborative work relationship between the principal
and teachers is enhanced. This contributes to developing a positive school culture (Millar,
2009). Yan (2015) also highlights the importance of principals' presence in classrooms and
their involvement in teaching and learning process. Some of the participants use informal
visits to classrooms to learn what teachers are doing. They believe that visibility in the school

24
by walking around and informally visiting classrooms was related to increased use of
reflectively informed behaviors and good teacher behavior (Yasin, et al., 2015).

2.3.3.2 Promoting professional development

Sparks and Loucks-Horsley (1989) define staff development as those processes that improve
the job-related knowledge, skills, and attitudes of school employees. School leaders are
responsible for giving chances for staff to increase their information, skills, and attitude
through this program. School staff can utilize reflection and analysis of their activities as a
core discipline for professional growth. Leaders should ensure that the program meets the
individual as well as organizational needs. These leaders should actively participate in these
programs and encourage others to do the same. Killion (2002) also states that in outstanding
schools, principals were actively involved in providing training and development to their staff.
Everyday certain time should be allocated for professional growth of the staff. This view is
supported by Hirsh (2006) by saying that effective training and development opportunities
facilitate the schools to attain the school mission and goals.

Instructional leaders boost professional development of teachers by creating a culture of

collaboration among the teachers (Alig-Mielcarek, 2003). Rather than being the source of all
knowledge, the principal's role should be to tap the expertise and leadership of teachers
(Osman, 2013). Coordinating staff development programs is the main role and function of a
principal as an instructional leader in facilitating a quality learning atmosphere (Tedla, 2012).
Hallinger (1998) also mentions that in successful organizations leaders utilized the knowledge
that exists in the workforce and they share the knowledge through staff development.
Principals who are interested in learning are very talented in constructing an environment for
learning. These leaders are strong advocates of life-long learning who motivated their staff to
utilize professional development opportunities and create a learning culture in their school
(Goldring et al. 2006).

Leadership should be focused to build the school's capability for development and school
progress is about the enrichment of the teachers (Hallinger, 2011). Instructional leaders
establish an effective system for developing staff capacity in which each staff has the
opportunity to learn necessary competencies to develop his or her teaching skills. These

25
leaders embed the training and development activities into the culture of the school and align
the focus on student learning (Murphy, et al. 2007). Continuous professional development is
needed for all the teachers to cope up with speedy changes in knowledge and technology so
that professionals will be ready to accommodate these changes (Bush & Glover, 2004). Policy
makers have put school principals and teachers accountable for student performance.
Therefore, professional development needs have significantly increased (Dempster, Lovett
&Flückiger, 2011).

3.2.3.3 Providing incentives for teachers and providing incentives for learning

Instructional leaders are responsible to provide incentive for teachers and students. In high
performing schools there is school-wide recognition and rewarding system for the purpose of
reinforcing the students. Rewards are given very often and they reach a great majority of
students. These incentives are perceived as valuable and significant by stakeholders, especially
students. These schools noted the achievements of staff and student. The recognition and
rewards are given for academic accomplishments as well as for success in different disciplines
(Murphy, et al., 2007).

Okoth (2014) also states that principals as instructional leaders should give rewards for
students and provide rewards to teachers. The author further states that motivating the teachers
is considered as most important responsibility of a principal for successful implementation of
the curriculum. Transformational leadership also encourages establishing a reward system to
motivate the staff (Hallinger, 2003). Motivation intends to strengthen teachers to have more
passion on their jobs and to help them reach their highest potentialities. Besides, motivation
aims to increase students achievement and to offer students with chances to initiate and direct
their own learning (Mhunpiew, 2014).

2.3.3.4 Protecting instructional time

Instructional leaders should ensure that the maximum teaching time is devoted to teach
various subjects. These leaders work collaboratively with teachers to emphasize the usage of
teaching approaches that optimize student learning at an outstanding level. Effective
instructional leaders undertake the collection of activities that protect instructional time from
interruptions, including: (1) assigning academic subjects time slots that are least likely to be

26
disturbed by school events; (2) protecting teachers from distractions from the school office;
(3) developing, implementing and monitoring procedures to minimize student tardiness and
absenteeism; and (4) ensuring that teachers are punctual (Murphy et al., 2007).

2.4 Overview of Instructional Leadership in Ethiopia

The history of Ethiopian education system traces back its origin to the introduction of
Christianity about fourth century A.D. However, the western type of education system was
formally introduced into Ethiopia in 1908 with the opening of Menelik second school. In 1943
the first high school which was dominated by expatriates was opened. According to Ahmed at
its early stage the history of principal ship in Ethiopia was dominated by foreign principals. In
all government owned schools that were opened before and few years after the Italian
occupation expatriates from France and Britain were assigned as school principals.

After the restoration of independence in 1942, education was given high priority which
resulted in opening of schools in deferent parts of the country. However, there was not enough
educated Ethiopians to teach and run schools, most of the teachers and principals in school
were from foreign countries such as USA, Egypt and India (ICDR, 1999). According to MoE
(2002) prior to 1962 expatriate principals were assigned in the elementary and secondary
schools of different provinces of Ethiopia.

Gradually, the history had developed in to a new phase where Ethiopians began to replace
expatriates which started in 1964. According to Teshome cited in Ahmed (2006) this new
phase of principal ship started with supervising principals such leaders were responsible for
the school and the education system of the community where the schools located. From 1960's
the Ethiopian schools principals were directly assigned in elementary school without
competition among candidates. Only educational level and teaching experience were given
highest priority for principal ship. However, during the first few years of 1960's it was
understood that those graduates of certificate in teaching were directly assigned in primary
schools. On the other hand, the promotion that were issued from 1973-1976 show that primary
school principals were those who had at least worked for a limited time as a unit leader,
department heads or teacher.

27
It is also stated in the job description of the MoE issued in 1989 that secondary school
principals should have certificate in school administration and supervision including sufficient
work experiences. But in Ethiopia most principals are appointed by the government without
enough training, experience, and development in leadership. Secondary school principals had
been political appointed by major problems of secondary schools in instructional leadership
are: lack of professional training for principal ship, lack of required qualification and
commitment in making maximum use of environment resources and negative attitude toward
leadership. This shows that instructional leadership as professions has been given little
attention.

Following a change of government in 1991, Ethiopia has been undertaking major reforms in
its educational system. The education reform and policy in Ethiopia has developed different
criteria and process of selection and placement of school principals. The policy instructs to
select and assign the most qualified principals to the position. Its major focus is making
educational management professionalize. The policy states that educational management
practices shall be professional, democratic and efficient (TGE, 1994). However, according to
Fiseha (2005), most of the principals did not have the required qualification for secondary
school principal ship and they did not get educational leadership training. Dereje (2007) added
that Ethiopian school leaders badly lack theoretical knowledge of school leadership. This has
been a problem on the quality of educational leadership they provide. Principals' performance
related with their previous training and rich experience has a big effect on student
achievement. Dessalegn (2005) did his research on the school principal and its relation to
students' achievement. The study finding showed that there was strong relationship between
principals' performance and student achievements.

The roles of educational leaders were not given due attention in education policy formulation,
education practice and academic research in Ethiopia until recent times. Ethiopian government
in its Education Sector Development Program (ESDP) III focused on improving education
management at the woreda (district) and school levels so as to expand access to education
(MOE 2005). Following that the ESDP IV (MoE 2010) also considered the improvement in
school management and administration as one of the tools for improving education decision-
making at all levels. The Government also launched the General Education Quality

28
Improvement Programme (GEQIP), in which school management and administration were
taken as one of the key education quality intervention areas (Shibeshi 2009).

In 2013, the Ethiopian teachers, principals and supervisors development guideline (the revised
blueprint) (MoE 2013) replaced the Ethiopian teacher's development programme guideline
(the blueprint). Following the endorsement of the revised blueprint, the development of the
Ethiopian school leadership also entered the seventh phase. The revised blueprint prescribed
that primary and secondary school principals must have bachelor and master degree
respectively in one of the school subjects and must have taught for at least three years (MoE,
2013).

Originally, both primary and secondary school principals’ preparations were designed to be
training of PGDSL in two summers which they attend after their recruitment to the post. While
secondary school principal training changed to a Master Degree in school leadership a year
later Training of primary principals continued as it was originally formulated (MoE 2014).
Apart from the controversy of the adoption of the PGDSL training and an MA in ScL
preparation, the ministry, however, made an attempt to focus on new areas of the leadership
development that can be valued. Foremost, ESDP V is aligned to sustainable development
goals provision of quality education, the elimination of gender disparities, and the supply of
qualified educational personnel (United Nation, 2015).

While ESDP V planned to be funded through a collaborative arrangement made between

government and development partners, it has targeted, among other things, improved teaching,
and leadership skills in all institutions, matched with greater motivation and job satisfaction
(MoE, 2015). Improvement of leadership skill is reasonably targeted to improve teachers'
motivation and job satisfaction for quality of school administration and human resource
management was found to be a critical motivating factor for effective teaching (MoE, 2015).
The ministry also targeted 100% licensing of school principals working at all levels, which is
contributory to quality leadership and then to the educational quality. An objective of
increasing female participation in the school leadership from 8% to 20% also formulated to
make up for gender equity. Leadership training of three months for females was designed to
realise this objective (MoE, 2015).

29
The implication of all these developments is that the ministry of education has to argument the
school principals’ preparation in particular and school principals’ development in general to
help them to competently cope up with the challenges and in order to help them to eradicate
the observed deficiencies in their leading. The transformation of the existing alternative basic
education centers into regular schools that is targeted by ESDP V MoE (2015) is also means
that the ministry has to recruit and train more school principals to staff the newly transformed
institutions.

However, studies indicating that school principals are lacking the necessary professional
qualities. Afework (2015) for instance, found that school leaders have no adequate knowledge
and skill on recent leadership theories and practices. Oumer and Kejela (2017) also concluded
from their study that school principals had a narrow view of school leadership orientation.
Edamo (2018) recognised that there was dysfunction in implementation of the instructional
leadership in schools and he attributed this deficiency to the assignment of principals to the
posts without having educational planning and management skills. Wondemetegegn (2017)
also explicated that school principals' leadership, coordination and management capacity and
their planning and implementation skills at institutional level remain weak.

A study done by Young Lives (2012) on the extent to which school-based management and
administration contributed to the improvement of critical decision-making at school level and
to a higher quality of education in Ethiopia indicated that the Ethiopian Educational policy
gives full power to head-teachers to manage and control the overall activities of the school.
The study also specified that despite this fact, in practice, various factors have constrained the
head-teachers ability to implement policies and regulations properly. The constraints identified
in the study include head-teachers’ limited management capacity, lack of transparency in their
appointment, shortages of human, material and financial resources, lack of adequate support
from the woreda education bureau (WEO), and a low level of awareness among communities.
As a result, the quality of education is still low and student achievement is inadequate.

With regard to west Hararhe Zone of, a substantial expansion of secondary education took
place under ESDP II & III. Nevertheless, instructional leadership practice in the zone is yet
requiring much to be done.

30
2.5 Challenges for Instructional Leadership Effectiveness

Bhengu, Naicker& Mthiyane (2014) define barriers to instructional leadership as factors that
negatively effect on the school leaders role in leading teaching and learning. As there are too
many definitions of instructional leadership, these definitions are the barriers that principals
face when trying to behave as instructional leaders. Five main obstacles to instructional
leadership consist: insufficient time, inability, lack of credibility, limited knowledge and a
weak monitoring and evaluation process. Due to overload of operational and managerial
duties, most principals see instructional leadership as an optional task. Staff reluctance to
change was identified as the most common barrier to instructional leadership. There are many
reasons for teachers' resistance to change. Some of these include laziness, fear of the
unknown, and uncomfortable with the new initiatives (Packard, 2011).

Tedla (2012) mentioned that research obviously shows that the majority of school leaders'
time is consumed on the administrative tasks rather than on teaching and learning. He further
states that a common complaint from principals is that, although they would like to spend
much time on instructional activities, like teaching and learning, staff professional
development, managing the curriculum, providing instructional leadership, their time is tied up
with administrative activities. Finally, principals don't have enough time to manage the
teaching and learning process of the school. Principals should not only focus on the
administrative functions but also must be instructional leaders placing student and staff
learning as the highest priority (Kaster, 2010). Very often principals have been criticized
because they spend their time on daily tasks without engaging in instructional leadership
(Nguyen & Wu, 2012).

31
 3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Description of the Study Area

West Hararge (Afaan Oromo: Harargee Lixaa; English: West Hararghe) is one of the Zones in
the Ethiopian Region of Oromia. West Hararghe takes its name from the former province of
Hararghe. West Harerge is bordered on the south by the Shebelle River which separates it
from Bale, on the southwest by Arsi, on the northwest by the Afar Region, on the north by the
Somali Region and on the east by East Hararghe. Towns in West Hararghe include Chiro,
Bedessa, Gelemso, and Mieso.

According to a May 24, 2004 World Bank memorandum, 9% of the inhabitants of West
Hararghe have access to electricity, this zone has a road density of 23.6 kilometers per 1000
square kilometers (compared to the national average of 30 kilometers),the average rural
household has 0.5 hectare of land (compared to the national average of 1.01 hectare of land
and an average of 1.14 for the Oromia Region and the equivalent of 0.6 heads of livestock.
16.4% of the population is in non-farm related jobs, compared to the national average of 25%
and a regional average of 24%. Concerning education, 55% of all eligible children are enrolled
in primary school, and 8% in secondary schools (World Bank, 2006).

This Zone has 47 secondary schools. From these the study was conducted in 7 schools:
Wachu, Chiro Gola, Mieso, Gemmechis, Hirna, Habro and Doba Secondary schools.

32
3.2 Research Design

To study the existing practices and challenges of instructional leadership in secondary schools
of sampled schools in West Hararghe Zone of Oromia Regional State, descriptive survey
design was employed. This method was selected because it enables the researcher to describe
what sort of relationship that existed among different variables related to the topic under the
study, and it was also convenient to gather data from a relatively large scale of respondents at
a particular time to arrive at better generalization of the existing situation. Strengthens this
assumption Seyoum and Ayalew (1989) expressed that: the descriptive survey method of
research is more appropriate to gather several kinds of data of broad size.

In this study survey method was selected and used to collect quantitative data, while for the
qualitative data interview was employed. Quantitative approach is considered as an
appropriate because it is use to the survey in collecting data from a wide area by selecting a
representative sample of a large population. Besides, the qualitative approach was employed
so as to obtain detail descriptions of the phenomenon such as direct quotations capturing
people's personal perspectives and experience of instructional leadership through in depth
interview. McLaughlin et al. (2001) believe that for information that cannot be obtained
through quantitative method can be effective in obtaining such information. Therefore, in this
study, both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed.

3.3 Sources of Data

To address the objective of the study and to answer the basic research questions stated in the
first part, the researcher collected data from primary and secondary sources.

3.3.1 Primary Sources

Data was collected using primary sources. The primary sources of the study is key informants
from the Zone including supervisors, principals and vice principals of the secondary schools.
Those in the managerial position were contacted for information sources for the reason that
they directly involved in the practices of schools leadership. Teachers were taken as source of
information for the reason that they were direct beneficiaries of the service deliver.

33
3.3.2 Secondary Sources

The secondary data was obtained from document like different school plan, minutes of
relevant meeting, monthly and quarterly reports, checklists, and feedbacks.

3.4 Target Population, Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

3.5.1 Target Population

The entire West Hararghe Zone of Oromia Regional State was considered as the study area.
Since the Zones consisted of people with diversified life styles and economic conditions, there
was high probability that the findings could be at a certain level representative of the situation
in other Zones, too. The sample respondents and schools were determined based on the 2010
E. C. annual report of West Hararghe Zone Education Statistics Department. According to this
report, there were government secondary schools in 15 Woredas and 2 town administration of
the Zone of which, 47 schools were secondary schools grade 9 up to 10 and 15 were grade11
and 12. In these secondary schools grade 9 up to 10, a sum of 1540 teachers, 17 supervisors,
47 principals, 25 vice principals, were working and 714,206 students were attending their
education in 2010 E.C.

This study was conducted in West Hararghe Zone of Oromia Regional State. In this study, 47
Secondary schools, 7 school supervisors, 520 teachers, 7 Principals, and 14 vice principals
were identified as target population from the above total population of the Zone.

3.5.2 Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

From a total of 47 primary targets population schools, 7 were taken as sample using random
sampling technique particularly the lottery method. After such selection of sample schools, the
selections of the respondents of the study were conducted. Accordingly, data was collected
from four categories of respondents including fourteen (14) school leaders (principals and vice
principals), seven supervisors, and one hundred fifty six (156) teachers. As result, availability
sampling was employed in selecting supervisors, principals, from the sample schools. It was
due to the fact that they were few in numbers, and their direct involvement in the practices of
schools leadership. In addition, simple random selection was used to select vice principal from
each school. This was because they were very close to the overall instructional activities of
34
teachers and closely assist teachers in the practices of instructional leadership in particular. In
selecting sample teachers, out of 520 teachers in the sample secondary schools, 156 (30%) of
them were selected through simple random sampling technique, particularly through lottery
method with the assumption that all teachers had equal chance of being selected and to obtain
representative sample. Random sampling gave each unit of the population equal opportunity
of being selected (Seyoum and Ayalew, 1989).

Table 1: Summary of Total Population and Sample Size and sample technique

1. Types of Total Sample % Sampling Technique

Respondents Population Size

2. Teachers 520 156 30% Simple Random

sampling
3. Principals 7 7 100% Purposive sampling

4. School supervisors 7 7 100% Purposive sampling

5. vice principals 14 7 50% Simple Random

sampling
Total 548 177 32.2%

35
3.6 Data Collection Instruments

Three instruments were used in the process of gathering the necessary data for the study.
These were questionnaire, semi-structure interview, and document analysis.

3.6.1 Questionnaire

The researcher used questionnaire because it is convenient to conduct survey and acquire
necessary information from a large number of study subjects with a short period of time.
Furthermore, it makes possible an economy of time & expense and also provides high
proportion of usable response (Best & Kahn, 2003).

Self developed questionnaire with close ended type question items was prepared in English as
the researcher believes that the respondents can understand the questions. These are copies of
a single questionnaire distributed to 170 respondents. Responses from participants were taken
using 5 point Likert Scale method of rating and the respondents were expected to express their
degree of agreement on five point scale that is relevant to the issues. The questionnaire has
four sections. The first section had background information of respondents, the second section
issue related to practices of instructional leadership, and had 5 questions with 31 items. Third
section was issue related teaching learning roles of instructional leaders, and had 3 questions
with 14 items. Challenges of instructional leadership, and had 4 questions with 20 items

3.6.2 Interview

Interview was the second important data gathering instrument in this study. This data
gathering instrument was selected with the researcher belief that deeper information was
obtained on issues critical to the study underway. It was also being used to cross-check the
responses obtained through questionnaire and it let the interviewee to express her/his feeling
freely and knowledge of people in a program in depth (Best and Kahn, 2003).

In order to obtain deeper information related to the practices and challenge of instructional
leadership in the study area, a semi structure interview was held with a group of respondents:
7 school supervisors were interview to reflect on some (5) guiding questions related with the

36
practices and challenges of instructional leadership implementation in the study area. This
group of respondents was selected for interview in the ground that more information can
possibly obtain from them due to their position in the instructional leadership and daily
engagements in the core activities of instructional leadership.

In addition, it was believed that they were much closed to the day to day challenges exist in
the schools. The process of interview was conducted in Afan Oromo language and supported
by Audio (tape recorder) in order to minimize loses of audio information. The record data was
categorized based on similarities of responses and then transcribed into English language.

3.6.3 Document Analysis

Relevant document review was also used to gather additional information. Annual school plan,
minutes of relevant meeting, monthly and quarterly reports on different school activities,
checklists, and feedbacks given from supervisors were consulted as document as to examine
the emphasis instructional issue, And also used to obtain information on factor affecting
instructional leadership.

3.7 Procedure of Data Collection

To collect necessary data, firstly the research made face to face contact with school
supervisors, teachers, principals and vice principals of each sample school. And introduce the
purpose of the study and secure cooperation for collecting the data for interview particularly.
Next the researcher secured information about name, list of other background information of
teachers and school supervisors from principal of respective school. That was followed by
identifying the teacher and school supervisors who were included in the sample respondents
and arranging the time and place to get the respondents. After distributing the questionnaire,
the researcher meanwhile conducted interview with external supervisor while waiting for the
return of questioner paper from respondents.

3.8 Methods of Data Analysis

After the collection and gathering of data from the respondents, the next step was analyzing of
the given data by using tables according to similarities of issues raised in the questionnaires.

37
Depending on the nature of the variables quantitative as well as qualitative data analysis
method was employed. To begin the analysis, first respondents were categorized under
different groups in terms of the practices that they had in leadership activity. Then, different
characteristics of respondents were analyzed by using frequency and percentage. Secondly, the
quantitative data obtained through Likert Scale collected through questionnaires were coded
and inserted in to SPSS for analysis.

Then the means for the two groups of respondents (instructional leaders and teachers) were
identified and analysis was done using the average means of the two groups' respondents'
responses. To determine the existence implementation of the different instructional leadership
practices in the secondary schools of the Zone, an average point of decision was set.
Accordingly, an average mean point of 1.00-1.80=Strongly Disagree, 1.81- 2.60=Disagree,
2.61-3.40=Undecided, 3.41-4.20=Agree and 4.21-5.00=Strongly Agree In categorizing the
rating scales for the role and practice of instructional leaders. and also an average point of
decision was set, Accordingly Mean scores an average mean point of 1.00-1.80 very low,
1.81-2.60 low, 2.61-3.40 moderate, 3.41-4.20 high and 4.21 very high problem for the
challenges faced to practice instructional leadership in west Hararghe secondary schools.

For the case of analysis strongly agree and agree indicate effective implementation of each
item in the school and undecided presents neither positive nor negative agreement. Similarly,
strongly disagree and disagree indicate ineffective implementation of the items in the task. On
the other hand, for the challenges of instructional leadership effectiveness five point scales
ranging from very high to very low problem was used for the sake of analysis and
interpretation.

An independent sample t- test was used to make sure whether there was a significant
difference in the distribution of preferences between two groups of respondents in terms of a
given items. Finally, the qualitative data that was collected through interviews was analyzed
qualitatively and reported through narrative description to complement the quantitative data.

To examine the difference of the views of the two groups of respondents (teachers and
instructional leaders) up on the practices and the challenges of instructional leadership, an
independent sample t-test has been conducted. To this end, a test of significance has been
carried out with five of practice of instructional leadership, three of teaching learning roles of
38
instructional leaders and four challenges of instructional leadership effectiveness items.
Accordingly, if a calculated value is greater than 0.05 significant levels, there is no
significance difference between the views of the two groups of respondents, while the
calculated value is less than the 0.05 significant values, there was significant difference
between the views of the two groups' of respondents. Items involved in the questionnaires
were classified into two major categories. The first category dealt with general background
information of the respondents, while the second part treated specific issues of the study.

3.9 Validity and Reliability of Data Collection Instruments

Checking the validity and reliability of data collecting instruments before providing to the
actual study subject is the core to assure the quality of the data Ayalew (2011). To ensure
validity of instruments, the instruments were developed under close guidance of the advisors
and also a pilot study was carried out on1principal, 1 vice principal and 18 teachers of
Chercher Secondary School (grade 9 up to 10). The respondents of the pilot test were not
included in the actual study. Based on the respondents' response, some improvements were
made on the questionnaire to make it clear and relevant to the basic questions so as to get more
valuable information. For example, some unclear statements were also elaborate.

The objectives of the pilot test was to, a) assess the practicality and appropriateness of the
questionnaire and provide an indication whether the items need further refinement; b) obtain
teachers suggestions and views on the items; c) determine the level of difficulty of the items;
and d) assess the reliability of the questionnaire.

A reliability test was performed to check the consistency and accuracy of the measurement
scales. Then an internal consistency reliability estimate was calculated with using Cronbach
Coefficient of Alpha for the questionnaires. The result of the pilot testing showed that all
questions were filled in pilot schools but slight errors given modification. 0.95 That is the
instrument was found to be reliable as statistical literature was recommended a test result of
0.70 (70% reliability) and above as reliable used for analysis.

39
3.10 Ethical Considerations

An official letter had been written to the concerned bodies were received from Haramaya
University Department of Educational Planning and Management to inform the issue. Based
on the letter, the researcher asked permission and began establishing rapport with the
concerning bodies for the successful accomplishment of the study. The purpose of the study
was explained to the participants and the researcher asked their consent to answer questions in
the questionnaires or interview guide. He also informed the participants that the information
they provide was used for only the study purpose. In addition, the researcher ensured
confidentially by making the participants anonymous.

4. PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter deals with presentation, analysis and interpretation of data obtained from
teachers, principals, vice principals, supervisors. The study employed questionnaires for
teachers, principals and vice-principals, and interviews with supervisors. Besides, additional
information was gathered through document analysis. Thus, the quantitative as well as
qualitative analysis of data was incorporated in to this chapter. The qualitative part was
supposed to be complementary to the quantitative analysis.

40
Therefore, frequency and percentages were used for the analysis of characteristics of
respondents. On the other hand, mean, standard deviation, t-test were used for the analysis of
specific items.

4.1. Characteristics of the Respondents

As mentioned above, 170 copies of the questionnaires were distributed to 156 teachers, 7
school principals and 7 for vice principals. Out of these, 141 copies of questionnaire from
teachers, 7 from principals and 7 from vice principal were filled and returned. This is, the rate
of return of the questionnaires was 100% from principals and 100% from vice principal while
it was 90.4% from teachers. In addition to this, interview was conducted with 7(100%)
supervisors were interviewed. Totally, 162 respondents took part in this study. The summary
of information about the respondents' sex, age, educational qualification, and years of
experiences are presented for better understanding of their background. The data collected on
the characteristics of the respondents are presented in the table 2 below.

Table 2: Characteristics of Respondents in terms of Sex, Age, Level of Education and

Service years

Respondents
school Leaders
N Vice School
o Principal principal supervis
Items Teacher s s ors Total
Category N % N % N % N % N %
125 88.7 7 100 5 71.4 7 100 14 88.8
Male 4
1 Sex
Female 16 11.3  - - 2 28.6   - 18 11.2
141 100 7 100 7 100 7 100 16 100
Total 2
20-25 5 3.55  - -  - -   - 5 3.1

26-30 31 22 1 14.3 1 14.2   - 33 20,4

31-35 55 39 4 57.1 3 42.9 2 28.6 64 39.5
2 Age 36-40 32 22.7 2 28.6 3 42.9 3 42.9 40 24.7
41 and 18 12.8  - -  - - 2 28.6 20 12.3
above
141 100 7 100 7 100 7 100 16 100
Total 2
3 level of Diploma 3 2.13  -   -   - 3 1.9

41
 BA/BED/B 103 73 1 14.3 1 14.2   - 10 64.7
Sc Degree 5
educatio MA/MSce. 35 24.8 6 85.7 6 85.8 7 100 54 33.3
n Degree
141 100 7 100 7 100 7 100 16 100
Total 2
under 5 year 3 2.13  - -  - -   - 3 1.9
6--10 22 15.6  - -  - -   - 22 13.6
11--12 57 40.4 3 42.9 3 42.8   - 63 38.9
service 16--20 16 11.3 2 28.6 3 42.8 4 57.1 25 15.4
4
year 21 and 43 30.5 2 28.6 1 14.3 3 42.9 49 30.2
above
141 100 7 100 7 100 7 100 16 100
Total 2

Regarding sex distribution of the respondents as shown under item 1 of Table2, from the total
141 teachers 125 (88.7%) were males and 16 (11.3%) were females respectively. Among 7
school principals 7(100 %) of them were males and among 7 vice principals 5(71.4%) were
males and 2(28.6%) of them were females. From these, one can realize that the number of
females in the teaching profession and the position of school leadership were much lower than
males in the sampled schools. Because of all sampled schools supervisors were males, all the
interviewees also were males. Accordingly, this implies that secondary schools supervisory
positions were controlled by males. This was not a new finding; rather it has been reported by
various researchers and organizations who have involved in educational affairs in the country.
For instance, Emebet (2003) and MoE (2005) witnessed that participation of females in
education had been low and this has resulted in lower rate of employment. This could be due
to serious economic deprivation, unreasonable house load, school distance, early marriage,
marriage by abduction and pregnancy.

With regards to age distribution of the respondents as shown item 2 of Table 2 shows, 5
(3.55%) of the teacher respondents were found to be in the ranges of 20-25 years, 31(22%)
and 55(39%) of the teachers' ages were 26-30 and 31-35 years respectively. Whereas,
1(14.3%), 4(57.1%) 2(28.6%) of principals respondents were ages 26-30, 31-35 and 36-40
years respectively. Regarding the ages of vice principals, 1 (14.2 %) and 3(42.9%) of them
were in the ranges of 26-30 and 31-35. The rest 3 (42.9%) of them were found in the ranges of
36-40 years respectively. From the age distribution of interviewed school supervisors,

42
2(28.6%) and 3(42.9%) were found to be in the ranges of 31-35 and 36-40 years respectively.
The rest, 2(28.6 %) of the principals were of ages 41 and above years. Therefore, this age
figure indicates that the majority of the respondents are matured enough to provide reliable
information with regard to the issue under study.

In terms of level of education, as shown in item 3 of Table 2, out of the total teacher
respondents, 3(2.13%) were diploma holders or under qualified to teach in secondary schools
as per the requirement of the education policy while 103(73%) first-degree holders and
35(24.8%) were second-degree holder. On the other hand, 1 (14.2%) of the principles were
first-degree holders while the remaining 6 (85.8%) of the principles were second-degree
holders or fulfilled the minimum qualification requirement to serve as principal in secondary
schools. Similarly, 1(14.2%) of vice principals were first-degree holders while the remaining 6
(85.8%) of vice principals were second-degree holders which was compatible as per
requirement. From the data, the researcher concluded that it was good chance for instructional
leaders in carrying out their school leadership activities successfully.

Regarding the educational level, the interviewees had second degree holders or fulfilled the
minimum qualification requirement to serve as supervision in secondary school.

Concerning work experience of the respondents, as shown in item 4 in Table 2, 3(2.13%) of

teachers had teaching experience of under 5 years while 22(15.6%), 57(40.4%) ,16(11.3%)
and 43(30.5%) of the respondents had teaching experience between 6-10, 11-12, 16-20 and 21
and above years respectively. This clearly shows that teachers had different years of
experience. Whereas, 3(42.9%), 2(28.6%) 2(28.6%) of principal respondents had years of
teaching experience between 11-12, 16-20 and 21 and above years respectively. Regarding
work experience of vice principals, 3(42.8%), 3(42.8%) and 1(14.3%) were in the ranges of
11-12, 16-20 and 21 and above years respectively.

In relation to work experience of the respondents of interviewed school supervisors, 4(57.1%)

and 3(42.9%) were found to be in the ranges of 16-20 and 21 and above years respectively.
This implies that the majority of teachers and instructional leaders were more experienced and
they could provide more support for the school community.

43
4.2 Instructional Leadership Practices

In conceptualizing the instructional leadership, there are initial definitions on instructional

leadership by previous researchers. For instance, instructional leadership was defined as
principals’ initiatives and efforts with the purpose of enhancing student learning progress such
as setting school vision, defining school goals, channeling resources needed for learning,
implementing teacher supervision and evaluation, organizing staff development programs and
stimulating relationships and cooperation between teachers. Primarily, the instructional
leadership was being conceptualized as a personal characteristic of leadership practice which
comprised behavior, action and also involved practice that emphasized on the effectiveness on
teaching and learning (Hallinger, 2016).

Under related to practices of instructional leadership, section on issue are setting the school
vision and developing school mission, managing curriculum and instruction, supervising and
evaluating the instruction monitoring instructional programs, promoting a conducive school
learning climate, and had 5 questions with 31 items were presented to the group of teachers
and instructional leaders and analyzed under table 3 to 7. Both groups of respondents were
asked to rate from strongly agree to strongly disagree depending on the degree of
implementation of the items in their schools. In the process of data analysis, the scales
strongly agree and agree indicate effective implementation of each item; whereas undecided
presents neither positive nor negative agreement moderate implementation of each item. On
the other hand, the scales disagree and strongly disagree indicate low implementation of the
items in the sample schools. Those were discussed below.

Table 3: Responses on Setting the School Vision and Developing School Mission

Respondents’ Response
Comparing means
by using t test
Teachers Instructional  
Item N=141 leaders N=14  
Your school leaders .../as T Sig(2
No a school leader...... Mean STD Mean STD WM value Df tailed
Well express or
communicate the vision to
 1 all stakeholders 2.62 1.328 2.43 1.453 2.53 0.521 153 0.603

44
 Allocate adequate
resources for the effective
implementation of a
school vision and mission
 2 2.55 1.262 2.43 1.342 2.49 0.351 153 0.726
Develop missions that are
easily understood and
used by teachers in the -
 3 school 2.60 1.464 2.64 1.151 2.62 0.117 153 0.907
Frame the school missions
in terms of staff
-
 4 responsibilities 2.55 1.381 2.86 1.351 2.7 0.805 153 0.422
Identify the impediments
to achieve missions of the
school and design
strategies to address the
 5 impediments in advance 2.60 1.434 2.36 1.151 2.48 0.603 153 0.547
Develop a set of annual
school-wide goals focused -
6 on student learning 2.38 1.371 2.64 1.216 2.51 0.682 153 0.496
7 Use students' performance
results to develop the
schools' Missions Well
express or communicate
the vision to all -
stakeholders 2.40 1.409 2.64 1.336 2.52 0.607 153 0.545
2.53 2.55

WM=weighted mean, STD=standard deviation, Df=degree of freedom, t critical=1.96,

N=number, Mean scores an average mean point of 1.00-1.80=Strongly Disagree, 1.81-
2.60=Disagree, 2.61-3.40=Undecided, 3.41-4.20=Agree and 4.21-5.00=Strongly Agree.

As indicated on the above Table 3 of item 1, respondents were asked whether instructional
leaders well express or communicate the vision to all stakeholders or not, accordingly,
teachers with the (X=2.62, SD=1.328) undecided about the issue and school leaders with
the(X=2.43, SD=1.453) disagreed that with the issue. The overall mean 2.53 shows, the
disagreement of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean,
majority of instructional leaders didn't well express or communicates the vision to all

45
stakeholders. The significance level (p=0.603) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is
no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers.

The results of the study illustrate that majority of instructional leaders did no more express or
communicate the vision to stakeholders. This could create difficulties during the process of
implementing the vision. Contrast to this, Ghavifekr et al., (2015) states that communicating
the vision and mission is a vital factor that influences the instructional leadership practice of
an institution. This is because through articulating the vision and mission with all the staff
such as teachers and instructional leaders would understand their workflow and organizational
objectives they should achieve.

Regarding item 2 of Table 3 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders allocate
adequate resources for the effective implementation of a school vision and mission or not.
Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.55, SD=1.262) disagreed with the point and school
leaders with the (X=2.43, SD=1.342) disagreed with the point. The overall mean 2.49 shows,
the disagreement of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall
mean, majority of instructional leaders didn't allocate adequate resources for the effective
implementation of a school vision and mission. The significant level (p=0.726) is greater than
0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional
leaders and teachers.

The result of the study illustrates that adequate resources allocation by majority of
instructional leaders for the effective implementation of a school vision and mission was less
implemented. Based on the results, it is possible to conclude that unless school leaders use
financial resources, time, facilities, technology, and partnerships innovatively and equitably;
they could not to accomplish the goal of powerful teaching and learning for student.

Regarding item 3 of Table 3 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders develop
missions that are easily understood and used by teachers in the school or not Accordingly,
teachers with the (X= 2.60, SD=1.464 ) disagreed with the point and school leaders with
the(X=2.64 , SD=1.151 ) undecided about the issue. The overall mean 2.62 shows the
undecided of the majority of respondents with the issue. As can be seen from the overall mean,
majority of instructional leaders didn't develop missions that were easily understood and used
by teachers in the school. The significant level (p=0.907) is greater than 0.05, this indicates
46
that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and
teachers.

The result of the study illustrates that majority of respondents not reached to decision and the
mentioned items were not clearly put into practice. Contrast to this, Successful principal work
constantly to articulate and advocate the mission and programs of the school to employees,
students, parents and other stakeholders. In fact, successful principals are talented in putting
the vision, mission, and goals in the forefront of everyone's attraction and at the heart of
employees' performance (Murphy, et al. 2007).

Regarding item 4 of Table 3 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders frame the
school missions in terms of staff responsibilities or not. Accordingly, teachers with the
(X= 2.55, SD=1.381) disagreed with the point and school leaders with the (X=2.86,
SD=1.351) undecided with the point. The overall mean 2.7 shows undecided of the total
respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional
leaders didn't clearly frame the school missions in terms of staff responsibilities. The
significance level (p=0.422) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers.

The results of the study illustrate that majority of respondents not reached to decision and the
mentioned items were not effectively put into practice. In contrast to this result, Peter
Northouse (2012) indicates that a core function of school leadership is to create a common
vision for improving students' learning. Creating a learning organization requires a deep
rethinking of the leader's role. Instructional leaders must see themselves as learning leaders'
responsible for helping schools develop the capacity to carry out their mission. A crucial part
of this role is cultivating and maintaining a shared vision which provides focus, generating
questions that apply to everyone in the organization. Learning becomes a collaborative, goal-
oriented task rather than a generalized desire to 'stay current'

Regarding item 5 of Table 3 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders identify the
impediments to achieve missions of the school and design strategies to address the
impediments in advance or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.60, SD=1.434 undecided
about the issue and school leaders with the(X=2.36, SD=1.151) disagreed with the issue the

47
overall mean 2.48 shows, the disagreement of the total respondents with the point. As can be
seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional leaders didn't identify the impediments to
achieve missions of the school and design strategies to address the impediments in advance.
The significance level (p=0.547) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The results of the study
illustrates that majority of instructional leaders did not effectively identify the impediments to
achieve missions of the school and design strategies to address the impediments in advance.

Regarding item 6 of Table 3 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders develop a
set of annual school-wide goals focused on student learning or not. Accordingly, teachers with
the (X=2.38, SD=1.371) disagreed and school leaders with the(X=2.64, SD=1.216) undecided
about the issue. The overall mean 2.51 shows, the disagreement of the total respondents with
the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional leaders didn't
develop a set of annual school-wide goals focusing on student learning effectively. The
significance level (p=0.496) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers.

The results of the study illustrate that majority of instructional leaders develop a set of annual
school-wide goals focusing on student learning was unsatisfactory. Contrast to this result the
research finding of Blanchard & Bowles (1998), Green (2010) showed that instructional
leaders ensure that the goals are shared goals. Individuals perform at higher levels and are
more vested when they feel that their opinion matters. They believe that they are working
towards the very goals that the leaders are striving towards and that cause productivity in
general to increase.

Regarding item 7 of Table 3 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders use
students' performance results to develop the schools' missions well express or communicate
the vision to all stakeholders or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.40, SD=1.409)
disagree. And school leaders with the (X=2.64, SD=1.336) were not sure about the issue. The
overall mean 2.52 shows, the disagreement of the total respondents with the point. As can be
seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional leaders didn't use students' performance
results to develop the schools' missions well express or communicate the vision to all

48
stakeholders. The significance level (p=0.545) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is
no significant different between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers.

The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders did not effectively use
students' performance results to develop the schools' missions well express or communicate
the vision to all stakeholders. In contrast to this result, Ghavifekr et al. (2015) also states that
communicating the vision and mission is a vital factor that influences the instructional
leadership practice of an institution. This is because through articulating the vision and
mission with all the staff would understand their workflow and organizational objectives they
should achieve.

From document analysis to see whether the schools had school improvement program plan
with clearly mentioned vision and mission or not And also from observation researcher
obtained each schools had school improvement program plan, but in majority of the schools,
there is no any evidence to show the leaders: in developing specific plan with clearly stated
vision and mission, facilitate stockholders participation in planning process, developing
simple, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bounded plan, ability to communicate vision
of the plan, implementing status depending on annual planning and regular staff meeting to
discuss about the plan. And also there was no evidence documents and data to show whether
the schools self assessment of school improvement program or not.

An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare setting the school vision and
developing school mission for both instructional leaders and teachers. As a result, they rated
all the items in the dimension as low performance with no statistically significant difference in
their responses. All obtained t-values are less than the critical value (1.96) when tested at
alpha level 0.05. So, this implies the consistency of responses between the groups.

As a whole, the role of instructional leaders with regard to setting the school vision and
developing school mission was disagreed on. Therefore, it can be said that the role of
instructional leaders in setting the school vision and developing school mission among
stakeholder in the school less practice in West Harerghe Secondary Schools. Developing
strong vision and mission statements can help stakeholders in school reach such a common
understanding. Without a vision, the school lacks direction.

49
Table 4: Responses on Managing Curriculum and Instruction

Respondents’ Response
Comparing means
by using t test
Teachers Instructional W  
Item N=141 leaders N=14 M  
Your school leaders T Sig(2
No .../as a school leader...... Mean STD Mean STD value Df tailed
Coordinate the
curriculum evaluation
process of the school to
address problems related 1.25 1.05 15
1 to the curriculum 3.53 7 3.79 1 3.66 0.730 3 0.466
Check periodically
students result in order to
ensure the effective
implementation of the 1.22 1.28 15
2 curriculum 2.54 8 2.50 6 2.52 0.113 3 0.910
Advice teachers and
department heads
regarding the challenges
they faced in relation to
the implementation of the 1.32 1.13 15
3 curriculum 3.26 2 3.29 9 3.27 0.083 3 0.934
Encourage and provide
the necessary support to
departments and teachers
to periodically evaluate
and comment for 1.32 1.70 15
4 curriculum improvement. 3.25 2 3.14 3 3.19 0.269 3 0.789
Evaluating the
effectiveness of
instructional program in 1.34 1.22 15
5 achieving school goals 2.50 0 2.50 5 2.50 0.010 3 0.992
Ensure the timely
allocation of resources
(human, material and
financial) necessary for 1.14 15
6 instructional process 2.43 1.3 2.07 1 2.25 0.982 3 0.328
2.92 2.88

50
WM=weighted mean, STD=standard deviation, Df=degree of freedom, t critical=1.96,
N=number, Mean scores an average mean point of 1.00-1.80=Strongly Disagree, 1.81-
2.60=Disagree, 2.61-3.40=Undecided, 3.41-4.20=Agree and 4.21-5.00=Strongly Agree.
As indicated on the above table 4 of item 1, respondents were asked whether instructional
leaders coordinate the curriculum evaluation process of the school to address problems related
to the curriculum or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X= 3.53, SD=1.257) agreed on the
point. And school leaders with the(X= 3.79, SD=1.051) also agreed on the point. The overall
mean 3.66 shows, the agreement of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from
the overall mean, majority of instructional leaders coordinate the curriculum evaluation
process of the school to address problems related to the curriculum. The significance level
(p=0.466) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the
opinions of instructional leaders and teachers.

The results of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders did not coordinate the
curriculum evaluation process of the school to address problems related to the curriculum
effectively. From the result it is possible to conclude that instructional leaders should provide
assistance to teachers in evaluating instruction and curriculum. The instructional leaders did
help teachers find answers to curriculum and instructional problems.

Regarding item 2 of Table 4 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders check
periodically students' result in order to ensure the effective implementation of the curriculum
or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X= 2.54, SD=1.228) disagreed and school leaders with
the (X=2.50, SD=1.286) also disagreed on the point. The overall mean 2.52 shows, the
disagreement of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean,
majority of instructional leaders didn't check periodically students' result in order to ensure the
effective implementation of the curriculum. The significance level (p=0.910) is greater than
0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional
leaders and teachers. The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders
did not check periodically students result in order to ensure the effective implementation of the
curriculum.

Regarding item 3 of Table 4 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders advice
teachers and department heads regarding the challenges they faced in relation to the

51
implementation of the curriculum or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=3.26, SD=1.322 )
were not sure about issue. And school leaders with the (X= 3.29, SD=1.139) were not sure
about the issue. The overall mean 3.27 shows, not sure about the issue of the total respondents
with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional leaders didn't
advice teachers and department heads regarding the challenges they faced in relation to the
implementation of the curriculum. The significance level (p=0.934) is greater than 0.05, this
indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders
and teachers. The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders did not
advice teachers and department heads regarding the challenges they faced in relation to the
implementation of the curriculum.

Regarding item 4 of Table 4 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders frame
encourage and provide the necessary support to departments and teachers to periodically
evaluate and comment for curriculum improvement or not. Accordingly, teachers with the
(X=3.25, SD=1.389) were not sure about issue and school leaders with the (X=3.14,
SD=1.703) were not sure about the issue. The overall mean 3.2 shows, not sure about the issue
of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of
instructional leaders didn't frame encourage and provide the necessary support to departments
and teachers to periodically evaluate and comment for curriculum improvement. The
significance level (p=0.467) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers.

The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders did not frame encourage
and provide the necessary support to departments and teachers to periodically evaluate and
comment for curriculum improvement. In contrast to this, in order to manage the curriculum,
principals must ensure that learning objectives are aligned with national curriculum; they must
also participate in providing quality education and facilitating to provide required learning
materials. Principals are responsible for ensuring that subject departments are running
smoothly and effectively (Sarok & Jihet, 2012).

Therefore, instructional leaders promote quality instruction by conducting teaching

conferences and evaluating, visiting classroom, providing specific suggestions and feedback

52
on the teaching-learning process and determining teachers assignments in the best interests of
the student learning.

Regarding item 5 of Table 4 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders evaluating
the effectiveness of instructional program in achieving school goals or not. Accordingly,
teachers with the (X=2.50, SD=1.340) disagreed and school leaders with the(X=2.50 ,
SD=1.225 ) also disagreed with the issue. The overall mean 2.50 shows, the disagreement of
the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of
instructional leaders didn't evaluate the effectiveness of instructional program in achieving
school goals. The significance level (p=0.992) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is
no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result
of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders did not evaluating the
effectiveness of instructional program in achieving school goals. In contrast to this, better
instructional leaders to be aware of the variety of the ways in which students' progress can and
should be assessed. Instructional leaders have responsibility to evaluate the instructional
program of their schools. As principals create a conducive learning climate that encourage
staff learning and establish a culture to improve the quality of learning, they are also
responsible to implement complete teacher appraisal system that focus at enhancing the
performance of the school (Ovando & Ramirez, 2007).

Regarding item 6 of Table 4 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders ensure the
timely allocation of resources (human, material and financial) necessary for instructional
process or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.43, SD=1.3) disagreed and school leaders
with the (X=2.07, SD=1.141) also disagreed with the issue. The overall mean 2.25 shows, the
disagreement of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean,
majority of instructional leadership didn't timely allocation of resources (human, material and
financial) necessary for instructional process. The significance level (p=0.328) is greater than
0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional
leaders and teachers.

The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders timely allocation of
resources (human, material and financial) necessary for instructional process were not
implemented effectively. In contrast to this, resources are the means to the end effective

53
principal, as an instructional leader who must perform at high level in four areas: as a resource
provider, as an instructional resource provider, as a communicator, and as a visible presence.
In the role as resource provider, the principal takes action to marshal personnel and resources
within the school and in the community to help him achieve school visions and goals. These
resources may be seen as materials, information or opportunities with the principal acting as
the broker. (Akinyi & Onyango, 2014)

An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare managing curriculum and instruction
for both instructional leaders and teachers. As a result, they rated all the items in the
dimension as high performance with no statistically significant difference in their responses.
All obtained t-values are less than the critical value (1.96) when tested at alpha level 0.05. So,
this implies the consistency of responses between the groups. .

As a whole, instructional leadership practices with regard to managing curriculum and

instruction was undecided on. Therefore, it can be said that instructional leadership practices
in managing curriculum was implement moderately in west Harerghe Secondary Schools. The
job of principals is no more simply placing teachers in the classroom, provide textbooks, and
get students to attend school. Increasingly, schools and school leaders are being judged on
their progress in helping students learn to the standards set by government. This means that
school leaders must have in-depth knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and student
assessment. unless school leaders managing curriculum and instruction properly, unable to
help teachers identify the things that students should learn in greater depth.

Table 5: Responses on supervising and evaluating the instruction

Respondents’ Response
Comparing means
by using t test
Item Teachers Instructional W  
Your school N=141 leaders N=14 M  
leaders .../as a school T Sig(2
No leader...... Mean STD Mean STD value Df tailed
Make classroom visits
for the purpose of -
improving instructional 0.26
 1 process 3.54 1.442 3.64 1.216 3.59 0 153 0.795
 2 Give adequate time 2.25 1.364 3.21 1.351 2.73 0.27 153 0.783

54
 after class visit to
discuss the problems
and plan improvement
together 6
Hold regular meetings
with each department
for the purpose of -
improving curriculum 0.16
 3 and instruction 3.21 1.598 3.29 1.541 3.25 3 153 0.870
Use teaching staff
meetings to discuss
curricular and -
0.76
instructional issues
 4 2.14 1.334 2.43 1.399 2.29 4 153 0.446
Create opportunities
for professional -
discussions among 0.65
 5 Teachers 2.18 1.359 2.43 1.505 2.3 4 153 0.514
Encourage teachers to
use different
6 instructional methods 2.13 1.403 2.14 1.351 2.14 -0.39 153 0.969
7 Make regular follow-
up and feedback to 0.08
teachers 2.25 1.479 2.21 1.477 2.23 2 153 0.935
2.53 2.76 2.65

WM=weighted mean, STD=standard deviation, Df=degree of freedom, t critical=1.96,

N=number, Mean scores an average mean point of 1.00-1.80=Strongly Disagree, 1.81-
2.60=Disagree, 2.61-3.40=Undecided, 3.41-4.20=Agree and 4.21-5.00=Strongly Agree.

As indicated in the above Table 5 of item 1, respondents were asked whether instructional
leaders make classroom visit for the purpose of improving instructional process or not.
Accordingly, teachers with the (X=3.54, SD=1.442 agreed and school leaders with
the(X=3.64, SD=1.216) also agreed with the issue. The overall mean 3.59 shows, the
agreement of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean,
majority of instructional leaders made classroom visit for the purpose of improving
instructional process. The significance level (p=0.795) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that
there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers.

55
The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders made classroom visits
for the purpose of improving instructional process were implemented effectively. In light of
this Classroom visit enables supervisors not only to identify any shortcomings of teachers and
the problems encountered by them, but also to understand what leads to better performance of
the teaching learning process (MoE, 1994).

Regarding item 2 of Table 5 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders give
adequate time after class visit to discuss the problems and plan improvement together or not.
Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.25, SD=1.364) disagreed with the issue and school
leaders with the(X=3.21 , SD=1.351) not sure about the issue. The overall mean 2.73 shows,
the not sure of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean,
majority of instructional leaders didn't give adequate time after class visit to discuss the
problems and plan improvement together with teachers in the school. The significance level
(p=0.783) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the
opinions of instructional leaders and teachers.

The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders did gave less time after
class visit to discuss the problems and plan improvement together with teachers in the school.
Consequently, Gwyn (1964) remarked that post observation conference is the positive
improvement should always be used if possible. He further observed that a warm human
approach to the teacher-supervision relationship is always important to achieve a purpose. In
general, the post observation conference can be seen as a vital component of supervisory
procedures which solely deals with the act of providing teachers with constructive feedback on
the lesson taught and classroom management, in the hope of effecting some improvement in
teaches’ general performance and self satisfaction of teachers. If instructional leaders observe
some parts of the class activity and leave the class, the supervisee teacher may suspect the
supervisor to judge his or her activity in a negative way and the supervisee may feel unhappy.

Regarding item 3 of Table 5 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders hold regular
meetings with each department for the purpose of improving curriculum and instruction in the
school or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X= 3.21, SD=1.598) were not sure about the
issue and school leaders with the(X=3.29, SD=1.541) were not sure about the issue. The
overall mean 3.25 shows, were not sure of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen

56
from the overall mean, majority of instructional leaders didn't hold regular meetings with each
department for the purpose of improving curriculum and instruction in the school. The
significance level (p=0.870) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of the study
illustrates that majority of instructional leaders did not hold regular meetings with each
department for the purpose of improving curriculum and instruction in the school.

Regarding item 4 of Table 5 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders use
teaching staff meetings to discuss curricular and instructional issues or not. Accordingly,
teachers with the (X=2.14, SD=1.334) disagreed and school leaders with the (X=2.43,
SD=1.399) also disagreed with the issue. The overall mean 2.29 shows, the disagreement of
the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of
instructional leaders didn't use teaching staff meetings to discuss curricular and instructional
issues. The significance level (p=0.446) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no
significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of
the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders did not use teaching staff meetings to
discuss curricular and instructional issues effectively.

Regarding item 5 of Table 5 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders Create
opportunities for professional discussions among teachers or not. Accordingly, teachers with
the (X=2.18, SD=1.359) disagreed and school leaders with the(X=2.43, SD=1.505) also
disagreed with the issue. The overall mean 2.3 shows, the disagreement of the total
respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional
leaders didn't create opportunities for professional discussions among Teachers. The
significant level (p=0.514) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of the study
illustrates that majority of instructional leaders gave less emphasis to create opportunities for
professional discussions among Teachers.

Regarding item 6 of Table 5 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders encourage
teachers to use different instructional methods or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.13,
SD=1.403) disagreed and school leaders with the(X=2.14, SD=1.351) also disagreed with the
issue. The overall mean 2.14 shows, the disagreement of the total respondents with the point.

57
As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional leaders didn't encourage
teachers to use different instructional methods. The significance level (p=0.969) is greater than
0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional
leaders and teachers. The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders
encourage teachers to use different instructional methods were less implemented.

Regarding item 7 of Table 5 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders make
regular follow-up and feedback to teachers or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.25,
SD=1.479) disagreed and school leaders with the (X=2.21, SD=1.477) also disagreed with the
issue. The overall mean 2.23 shows, the disagreement of the total respondents with the point.
As can be seen from the overall mean, instructional leadership didn't make regular follow-up
and feedback to teachers. The significance level (p=0.935) is greater than 0.05, this indicates
that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and
teachers. The result of the study illustrates that instructional leaders did not make much effort
to use regular follow-up and feedback to teachers were not

In interview session, the supervisors asked, what obstacles they met while they gave
instructions to teachers. They replied, as most of them, similar with two groups of respondents'
responses in the questionnaires. As one of the participant supervisor said that:

Teachers were inconvenient to accept feedbacks of the instructional leaders' supervision.

They doubt with their supervisory skills and methodological approaches specially to
carry out classroom observation. They noted that the leaders had employed classroom
observation infrequently in the academic year.

An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare supervising and evaluating the
instruction for both instructional leaders and teachers. As a result, they rated the entire item no
statistically significant difference in their responses. All obtained t-values are less than the
critical value (1.96) when tested at alpha level 0.05. So, this implies the consistency of
responses between the groups.

As a whole, instructional leadership practices with regard to supervising and evaluating the
instruction was undecided on. Therefore, it can be said that instructional leadership practices
on supervising and evaluating the instruction was implemented at moderate level in west

58
Hararghe Secondary Schools. Through effective supervision of instruction, school leaders can
reinforce and enhance teaching practices that will contribute to improved student learning. By
skillfully analyzing performance and appropriate data, school leaders can provide meaningful
feedback and direction to teachers that can have a profound effect on the learning that occurs
in each classroom. Unless instructional leaders to supervising and evaluating the instruction,
impossible to provide equal access to quality educational programs for all students,

Table 6: Responses on monitoring instructional programs

Respondents’ Response
Comparing means
by using t test
Teachers Instructional  
Item N=141 leaders N=14 WM  
No Your school leaders Mea T Sig(2
.../as a school leader...... n STD Mean STD value Df tailed
Encourage teachers to
held the school's testing
practice as integral part of
the total instructional
process than treating it as
a separate function 1.56 1.44 15
 1 2.86 1 2.64 7 2.75 0.495 3 0.621
Inform the school's
performance result to
teachers in a report form
after effective monitoring
of the activities 1.26 1.38 - 15
 2 2.16 7 2.29 3 2.23 0.362 3 0.717
Meet individually with
teachers to discuss
students academic
Progress 1.35 1.35 - 15
 3 2.12 5 2.14 1 2.13 0.059 3 0.953
Use test result to assess
progress toward school
goals 1.39 1.31 - 15
 4 2.16 0 2.21 1 2.19 0.150 3 0.881
2.33 2.32 2.33

59
WM=weighted mean, STD=standard deviation, Df=degree of freedom, t critical=1.96,
N=number, Mean scores an average mean point of 1.00-1.80=Strongly Disagree, 1.81-
2.60=Disagree, 2.61-3.40=Undecided, 3.41-4.20=Agree and 4.21-5.00=Strongly Agree.

As indicated on the above Table 6 of item 1, respondents were asked whether instructional
leaders encourage teachers to held the school's testing practice as integral part of the total
instructional process than treating it as a separate function or not. Accordingly, teachers with
the (X=2.86, SD=1.561) were not sure about the issue and school leaders with the (X=2.64,
SD=1.447) were not sure about the issue. The overall mean 2.75 shows that, not sure of the
total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of
instructional leaders didn't encourage teachers to hold the school's testing practice as integral
part of the total instructional process as treating it as a separate function. The significance
level (p=0.621) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference
between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers.

The result of the study revealed that current practice of instructional leaders toward
encourage teachers to hold the school's testing practice as integral part of the total instructional
process than treating it as a separate function in West Haraghe Secondary Schools.

Regarding item 2 of Table 6 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders Inform the
school's performance result to teachers in a report form after effective monitoring of the
activities or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.16, SD=1.267 ) disagreed and school
leaders with the (X=2.29, SD=1.383) also disagreed with the issue. The overall mean 2.23
shows, the disagreement of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the
overall mean, majority of instructional leaders didn't inform the school's performance result to
teachers in a report form after effective monitoring of the activities. The significance level
(p=0.717) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the
opinions of instructional leaders and teachers.

The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders make less effort to
inform the school's performance result to teachers in a report form after effective monitoring
of the activities in west Haraghe secondary schools.

60
Regarding item 3 of Table 6 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders Meet
individually with teachers to discuss students academic progress or not. Accordingly, teachers
with the (X=2.12, SD=1.355) disagreed and school leaders with the(X=2.14, SD=1.351) also
disagreed with the issue. The overall mean 2.13 shows, the disagreement of the total
respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional
leaders didn't Meet individually with teachers to discuss students academic progress. The
significance level (p=0.953) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers.

The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders met individually with
teachers to discuss students academic progress was unsuccessful.

Regarding item 4 of Table 6 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders use test
result to assess progress toward school goals or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.16,
SD=1.390) disagreed with the issue and school leaders with the(X=2.21, SD=1.311) disagreed
with the issue. The overall mean 2.19 shows, the disagreement of the total respondents with
the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional leaders didn't use
test result to assess progress toward school goals. The significance level (p=0.881) is greater
than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of
instructional leaders and teachers. The result of the study illustrates that majority of
instructional leaders did not use more test result to assess progress toward school goals.

In interview session, the supervisors were asked, how they monitor the teachers’ progress
during teaching-learning activities. They replied, as most of them, similar with two groups of
respondents responses in the questionnaires. As one of the participant supervisor said that:

Encouraging teachers to hold the school's testing practice as integral part of the total
instructional process than treating it as a separate function and informing the schools'
performance result to teachers in a report form after effective monitoring of the activities
need much effort to improve the performance level of their respective schools'

The document analysis made in the school also verified that instructional leaders, were to
some extent, used check list for monitoring instructional programs and teachers' performance

61
An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare monitoring instructional programs for
both instructional leaders and teachers. As a result, they rated all the items no statistically
significant difference in their responses. All obtained t-values are less than the critical value
(1.96) when tested at alpha level 0.05. So, this implies the consistency of responses between
the groups.

As a whole, instructional leadership practices with regard to monitoring instructional programs

disagreed. Therefore, it can be said that instructional leadership practices on monitoring
instructional programs was unsuccessful in West Hararghe Secondary Schools.

In order to monitor students' progress, effective principals use multiple methods of monitoring
and evaluation. They utilize different ways of observation and evaluation methods. They make
sure that student learning is measured using multi-dimensional approaches. This means the
comprehensive assessment strategies of these schools include teachers' records, unit tests, term
tests, portfolio, and standardized measures of student performance (Murphy, et al. 2007).

Principals take responsibility for developing a systematic and comprehensive testing program.
Test results are discussed with the staff as a whole, and are provided interpretations or
analyses for teachers detailing the relevant test data. Test results are used for goal setting,
curricular assessment, planning, and measuring progress toward school goals. (Ahmad &
Hussain, 2015).

Table 7: Responses on promoting a conducive school learning climate

Respondents’ Response
Comparing means by
using t test
Item Teachers Instructional  
Your school N=141 leaders N=14 WM  
leaders .../as a school T Sig(2
No leader...... Mean STD Mean STD value Df tailed
 1 Establish supportive and  2.21 1.422  2.29  1.13  2.25  - 153  0.839 
motivating atmosphere 9 0.204
in which staff, parents
62
 and students are
encouraged to work as a
team in the school
Create positive
environment in which
good working  1.34  0.79
 2 relationship exist.  3.77 1.215  3.50 5  3.64 4 153  0.428
Favorable school
environment conducive
to student Achievements  1.01  -
 3  3.49 1.329  3.57 6  3.53 0.224 153  0.823 
Provide support in
building collaborative  1.55  -
 4 cultures among teachers.  2.45 1.523  2.64 0  2.55 0.459 153  0.647 
Encourage a culture of
trust between school
leaders and teaching  1.70  -
 5 staff  2.66 1.502  2.86 3  2.76 0.464 153  0.643
Establish a productive
working relationship -
6 with the Community 2.94 1.463 3.14 1.351 3.04 0.490 153 0.625
7 Understand when
personal concern causes
teachers to arrive work -
late or leave early 3.79 1.286 3.93 1.207 3.86 0.394 153 0.694
3.03 3.13 3.08

WM=weighted mean, STD=standard deviation, Df=degree of freedom, t critical=1.96,

N=number, Mean scores an average mean point of 1.00-1.80=Strongly Disagree, 1.81-
2.60=Disagree, 2.61-3.40=Undecided, 3.41-4.20=Agree and 4.21-5.00=Strongly Agree.

As indicated on the above table 7 of item 1, respondents were asked whether instructional
leaders establish supportive and motivating atmosphere in which staff, parents and students
are encouraged to work as a team in the school or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.21,
SD=1.422) disagreed and school leaders with the(X=2.29, SD=1.139) also disagreed with the
issue. The overall mean 2.25 shows, the disagreement of the total respondents with the point.
As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional leaders didn't establish
supportive and motivating atmosphere in which staff, parents, and students are encouraged to
work as a team in the school. The significance level (p=0.839) is greater than 0.05, this
63
indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders
and teachers. The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders establish
supportive and motivating atmosphere in which staff, parents and students are encouraged to
work as a team in school at low level.

Regarding item 2 of Table 7 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders create
positive environment in which good working relationship exist or not. Accordingly, teachers
with the (X=3.77, SD=1.215) agreed with the point and school leaders with the (X=3.50,
SD=1.345) agreed with the point. The overall mean 3.64 shows, the agreement of the total
respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional
leaders create positive environment in which good working relationship exist. The significance
level (p=0.428) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference
between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of the study illustrates
that majority of instructional leaders gave much attention to create positive environment in
which good working relationship exist.

Regarding item 3 of Table 7 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders create
favorable school environment for conducive to student achievements in the school or not.
Accordingly, teachers with the (X=3.49, SD=1.329) agreed with the point and school leaders
with the(X=3.57, SD=1.016) agreed with the issue. The overall mean 3.53 shows, the
agreement of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean,
majority of instructional leaders were advocate school environment conducive to student
achievements in the school. The significance level (p=0.823) is greater than 0.05, this
indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders
and teachers. The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders advocate
school environment conducive to student achievements in the school were successfully.

Regarding item 4 of Table 7 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders Provide
support in building collaborative cultures among teachers or not. Accordingly, teachers with
the (X= 2.45, SD=1.523) disagreed with the issue and school leaders with the (X=2.64,
SD=1.550) not sure about the issue. The overall mean 2.55 shows, the disagreement of the
total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of
instructional leaders didn't provide support in building collaborative cultures among teachers.

64
The significance level (p=0.647) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The results of the study
illustrates that majority of instructional leaders made less practice to provide support in
building collaborative cultures among teachers.

Regarding item 5 of Table 7 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders encourage
a culture of trust between school leaders and teaching staff or not. Accordingly, teachers with
the (X= 2.66, SD=1.502) not sure about the issue and school leaders with the(X=2.86,
SD=1.703) not sure about the issue. The overall mean 2.76 shows, not sure about the issue of
the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of
instructional leaders didn't encourage a culture of trust between school leaders and teaching
staff. The significance level (p=0.643) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no
significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of
the study illustrates that instructional leaders did not encourage a culture of trust between
school leaders and teaching staff.

Regarding item 6 of Table 7 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders establish a
productive working relationship with the community or not accordingly, teachers with the
(X=2.94, SD=1.463) were not sure about the issue and school leaders with the(X=3.14,
SD=1.351) were not sure about the issue. The overall mean 3.04 shows not sure of the total
respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional
leaders didn't establish a productive working relationship with the community. The
significance level (p=0.625) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of the study
illustrates that majority of instructional leaders establish a productive working relationship
with the community unsatisfied. Based on the results, it is possible to conclude that

Regarding item 7 of Table 7 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders understand
when personal concern causes teachers to arrive at work late or leave early or not.
Accordingly, teachers with the (X=3.79, SD=1.286) agreed with the issue and school leaders
with the(X=3.93, SD=1.207) agreed with the issue. The overall mean 3.86 shows, the
agreement of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean,
majority of instructional leaders understood when personal concern causes teachers to arrive

65
work late or leave early. The significance level (p=0.694) is greater than 0.05, this indicates
that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and
teachers. The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders understood
when personal concern causes teachers to arrive at work late or leave early.

An independent sample t-test was computed to compare whether instructional leaders promote
conducive school learning climate for both instructional leaders and teachers. As a result, they
rated all the items in the dimension as high performance with no statistically significant
difference in their responses. All obtained t-values are less than the critical value (1.96) when
tested at alpha level 0.05. So, this implies the consistency of responses between the groups.

As a whole, instructional leadership practices with regard to promoting conducive school

learning climate was undecided. Therefore, it can be said that instructional leadership
practicing on promoting a conducive in school learning climate was moderate in west
Harerghe Secondary Schools. Effective schooling revealed that schools characterized by a
positive school climate emphasized to promote student learning and high expectations for
student achievement. A conducive and positive learning environment provides an important
foundation for effective teaching and supportive learning environment to all children (Cohen
& Brown, 2013).

4.3 Teaching Learning Roles of Instructional Leadership

According to Chris peel, (1992) instructional leadership behaviors associated with promoting
professional growth and staff development yield positive effects on classroom practice.
Conversely, instructional leaders that did not engage in monitoring and providing feedback of
the teaching-learning process had negative effect on teachers and classroom practices (Blasé
and Blasé, 1998). In particular leaders that engage in behaviors that inform staff about current
trends and issues, encourage attendance at workshops, seminar and conferences, build a
culture of collaboration and learning, promote coaching, use inquiry to drive staff
development, set, professional growth goal with teachers, and provide resources foster teacher
innovation in using a variety of methods, materials, instructional strategies, reflective practice,
and technology in the classroom.

66
Under related to teaching- learning roles of instructional leadership section on issue are
professional skill development of staff, instructional leader’s role in supervision of classroom,
responses on directive roles of instructional leaders, and had 3 questions with 14 items were
presented to the group of teachers and instructional leaders and analyzed under table 8 to 10.
Both groups of respondents were asked to rate from strongly agree to strongly disagree
depending on the degree of implementation of the items in their schools. In the process of data
analysis, the scales strongly agree and agree indicate effective implementation of each item;
whereas undecided presents neither positive nor negative agreement moderate implementation
of each item. On the other hand, the scales disagree and strongly disagree indicate low
implementation of the items in the sample schools. Those were discussed below.

Table 8: Responses on professional skill development of staff

Respondents’ Response
Comparing means by
Instructional using t test
Teachers leaders  
Item N=141 N=14  
No Your school leaders .../ T Sig(2
as a school leader...... X STD X STD WM value Df tailed
 Help to provide short
term training at school
level by preparing
academic  1.44  2.5  1.32  15
 1 meeting/workshop  2.82 7 2.29 1.204 5 4 3  0.187
 Develop mechanisms by
which competent teachers
share their experiences on
teaching methodologies  1.05  3.6  0.55  15
 2 with their colleagues  3.73 5 3.57 0.756 5 0 3  0.583
 Encourage teachers to
collaborate with
surrounding schools for  1.32  2.6  1.00  2.5  -  15
 3 Experience sharing  2.48 9 4 8 6 0.459 3 0.647 
 Encourage teachers to
review individual
professional growth goals
consistent with school  2.5  0.54
 4 goals and priorities  2.65 1.45  2.43  1.089  4 4 153  0.587 
 5  Give regularly teachers  2.52 1.402  2.50 1.225   2.5  0.04  15  0.964
Feedback as to how they 1 6 3
can improve their
67
 teaching

Over all mean 2.84 2.69 2.66

WM=weighted mean, STD=standard deviation, Df=degree of freedom, t critical=1.96,

N=number, Mean scores an average mean point of 1.00-1.80=Strongly Disagree, 1.81-
2.60=Disagree, 2.61-3.40=Undecided, 3.41-4.20=Agree and 4.21-5.00=Strongly Agree.

As indicated on the above Table 8 of item 1, respondents were asked whether school leaders
help to provide short term training at school level by preparing academic meeting/workshop or
not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.82, SD=1.447) were not sure about the issue and
school leaders with the(X=2.29, SD=1.204) disagreed on the point. The overall mean 2.55
shows, the disagreement of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the
overall mean, majority of instructional leaders didn't provide short term training at school level
by preparing academic meeting/workshop. The significance level (p=0.187) is greater than
0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional
leaders and teachers.

The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders did not provide short
term training at school level by preparing academic meeting/workshop was less implemented
in west Hararghe secondary schools. Contrast to this to enhance school leaders' capacity to
promote staff development, leadership should be focused to build the school's capability for
development and school progress is about the enrichment of the teachers (Hallinger, 2011).
Instructional leaders establish an effective system for developing staff capacity in which each
staff has the opportunity to learn necessary competencies to develop his or her teaching skills.
These leaders embed the training and development activities into the culture of the school and
align the focus on student learning (Murphy, et al. 2007).

Regarding item 2 of Table 8 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders develop
mechanisms by which competent teachers share their experiences on teaching methodologies
with their colleagues. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=   3.73, SD=1.055) agreed on the
point and school leaders with the (X=3.57, SD=0.756) also agreed on the point. The overall
mean   3.65 shows were agreed on the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority
of instructional leaders developed mechanisms by which competent teachers share their
68
experiences on teaching methodologies with their colleagues. The significance level
(p= 0.583) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the
opinions of instructional leaders and teachers.

The results of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders developed mechanisms
by which competent teachers share their experiences on teaching methodologies with their
colleagues were implemented successfully. The same to this, sharing experiences and
communal problem solving activities should be central to the training program. Schools that
aim to build capacity and to generate professional learning communities will need to provide
regular opportunities for teachers to engage in meaningful professional development.

As shown item 3 of Table 8 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders Encourage
teachers to collaborate with surrounding schools for Experience sharing or not. Accordingly,
teachers with the (X=2.48, SD=1.329) disagreed on the point and school leaders with the
(X=2.64, SD= 1.008) were not sure about the issue. The overall mean 2.56 shows, the
disagreement of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean,
majority of instructional leaders didn't encourage teachers to collaborate with surrounding
schools for Experience sharing. The significance level (p=0.647) is greater than 0.05, this
indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders
and teachers. The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders gave low
effort to encourage teachers to collaborate with surrounding schools for experience sharing.

As it can be seen item 4 of Table 8 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders
encourage teachers to review individual professional growth goals consistent with school
goals and priorities or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X= 2.65, SD=1.45) were not sure
about the issue and school leaders with the(X=2.43, SD=1.089) disagreed with the point.
The overall mean 2.54 shows, the disagreement of the total respondents with the point. As can
be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional leadership didn't encourage teachers
to review individual professional growth goals consistent with school goals and priorities. The
significance level (p=0.587) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers.

The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders encourage teachers to
review individual professional growth goals consistent with school goals and priorities were
69
less implemented at study schools. Contrast to this, engaging regularly in continuing
professional development is widely recognized as the tangible expression of the commitment
to learn, and is essential if professionals at every level in the school are to remain up to date in
their knowledge of the curriculum, be wise in their selection and use of a selection of
pedagogical skills, be enthusiastic about their work and the students they teach, and be self-
confident and clear about their purposes (Harris & Muijs, 2005).

Regarding item 5 of Table 8 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders Give
regularly teachers Feedback as to how they can improve their teaching or not. Accordingly,
teachers with the (X=2.52, SD=1.402) disagreed with the point and school leaders with the
(X=2.50, SD=1.225) also disagreed about the issue. The overall mean 2.51 shows were
disagreed with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional
leaders didn't give regularly teachers feedback as to how they can improve their teaching. The
significance level (p=0.964) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of the study
illustrates that practice of majority of instructional leaders toward giving regularly teachers'
feedback as to how they can improve their teaching was less implemented at study schools.

In interview session the supervisors were asked, how they evaluate the professional skill
development practice in schools. They replied as most of them similar with two groups of
respondents responses in the questionnaires. As one of the participant supervisor said that:

School leaders did not play active role in facilitating teacher’s professional development,
such as there is no staff training to create a spirit of cooperative working atmosphere and
no adequate time for professional development at school level. In addition school, leaders
do not encourage teacher to collaborate with surrounding schools.
Generally there were low professional skill development activities in the schools due to
lack of budget and lack of knowledge from concerned bodies on the issues. This shows
that professional skill development did not effectively practiced in the sampled schools.

An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare promoting professional skill

development for both instructional leaders and teachers. As a result, they rated all the items no
statistically significant difference in their responses. All obtained t-values are less than the

70
critical value (1.96) when tested at alpha level 0.05. So, this implies the consistency of
responses between the groups.

As a whole, instructional leadership practices with regard to professional skill development of

staff was undecided. Therefore, it can be said that instructional leadership practicing on
professional skill development of staff was moderate in West Hararghe Secondary Schools.

Table 9: Responses on Instructional leader’s Role in Supervision of Classroom

Respondents’ Response
Comparing means
by using t test
Teachers Instructional  
N Item N=141 leaders N=14 WM  
o Your school leaders .../ Mea Mea T Sig(2
as a school leader...... n STD n STD value Df tailed
Visit the classrooms
often to ensure  -
 1 classroom instruction  2.14 1.397 2.21  1.477   2.18 0.184 153  0.854 
observe teachers for
professional
development instead of  -
 2 evaluation  2.13 1.364  2.14  1.351   2.14 0.021 153  0.983 
Arrange meeting with
teachers to share
experience after  0.23
 3 supervision  2.16 1.387  2.07  1.269   2.12 8 153  0.813 
Encourage in-built
supervisions within the  0.00
 4 school  2.14 1.302  2.14  1.351   2.14 3 153  0.998 
2.14 2.14

WM=weighted mean, STD=standard deviation, Df=degree of freedom, t critical=1.96,

N=number, Mean scores an average mean point of 1.00-1.80=Strongly Disagree, 1.81-
2.60=Disagree, 2.61-3.40=Undecided, 3.41-4.20=Agree and 4.21-5.00=Strongly Agree.

As indicated in the above Table 9 of item 1, respondents were asked whether instructional
leaders visit the classrooms often to ensure classroom instruction or not. Accordingly,
teachers with the (X=2.14, SD=1.397) disagreed with the point and school leaders with the
(X=2.21 , SD=1.477 ) also disagreed with the point. The overall mean 2.18 shows, the
disagreement of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean,

71
majority of instructional leaders didn't visit the classrooms often to ensure classroom
instruction. The significance level (p=0.854) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no
significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The results of
the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders often did not visit the classrooms to
ensure whether or not classroom instruction implemented properly in study schools . Contrast to
this, Classroom visit enables supervisors not only to identify any shortcomings of teachers and
the problems encountered by them, but also to understand what leads to better performance of
the teaching learning process (MoE, 1994).

In interview session the supervisors were asked, to what extent you are focusing on
instructional issues while giving supervisory support? As one of the participant supervisor said
that: Discussion about instruction with teacher and principals was carried after classroom
observation once per a semester.

Regarding item 2 of Table 9 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders observe
teachers for professional development instead of evaluation or not. Accordingly, teachers with
the (X= 2.13, SD=1.364) disagreed with the point and school leaders with the (X=2.14,
SD=1.351) disagreed with the point. The overall mean 2.14 shows, the disagreement of the
total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of
instructional leaders did not observe teachers for professional development instead of
evaluation. The significance level (p=0.983) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no
significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of
the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders observed teachers for evaluation
instead of professional development at study schools.

Regarding item 3 of Table 9 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders Arrange
meeting with teachers to share experience after supervision or not. Accordingly, teachers with
the (X=2.16, SD=1.387) disagreed with the point and school leaders with the (X=2.07,
SD=1.269) disagreed with the point. The overall mean 2.12 shows, the disagreement of the
total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of
instructional leaders didn't arrange meeting with teachers to share experience after supervision.
The significance level (p=0.813) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of the study

72
illustrates that majority of instructional leaders no arranged meeting with teachers to share
experience after supervision.

Regarding item 4 of Table 9 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders encourage
in-built supervisions within the school or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.14,
SD=1.302) disagreed with the point and school leaders with the(X=2.14, SD=1.351) also
disagreed with the point. The overall mean 2.14 shows, the disagreement of the total
respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional
leaders didn't encourage in-built supervisions within the school. The significance level
(p=0.998) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the
opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The results of the study illustrates that the
practice of majority of instructional leaders to encourage in-built supervisions within the
school was less effective.

In interview session the supervisors were asked, do principals undertake their instructional
leadership roles effectively. If their answer no, they list factors that influence their
effectiveness. They replied as most of them similar with two groups of respondents responses
in the questionnaires. As one of the participant supervisor said that:

instructional leadership roles were lack of timely open discussion between teachers and
principal, lack of required experience and qualification of principals for leadership
position, high teachers turnover, mist behavior of students, the instructional leaders in its
role of supervision was not taking sufficient time for classroom observation, instead of this
they providing collegial feedback for teachers at different experience level.

An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare instructional leader’s role in

supervision of classroom for both instructional leaders and teachers. As a result, they rated all
the items were no statistically significant difference in their responses. All obtained t-values
are less than the critical value (1.96) when tested at alpha level 0.05. So, this implies the
consistency of responses between the groups.

As a whole, instructional leadership practices with regard to instructional leader’s role in

supervision of classroom was disagree. Therefore, it can be said that Instructional leadership

73
practicing on instructional leader’s role in Supervision of classroom was less effective in West
Hararghe Secondary Schools.

Table 10: Responses on Directive Roles of Instructional Leaders

Respondents’ Response
Comparing means
by using t test
Teachers Instructional  
Item N=141 leaders N=14  
Your school leaders .../ T Sig(2
No as a school leader...... Mean STD Mean STD WM value Df tailed
Take much of the time
when teacher-principals  -
 1 conferences are held on  2.16 1.395  2.29  1.326   2.23 0.333  153 0.740 
Closely checks teachers'
 -
 2 activities  2.18 1.411   2.29 1.383   2.24 0.275 153  0.784 
Keep a close check on
 3 sign-in time  2.21 1.453  2.21  1.311   2.21  -0.04 153  0.997 
Tell what they do, guide
 -
 4 and direct  2.08 1.399   2.64 1.499   2.36 1.432 153 0.154 
Monitor everything the
 0.28
 5 teachers do  2.26 1.496  2.14  1.748   2.2 1 153  0.779 
2.18 2.31

WM=weighted mean, STD=standard deviation, Df=degree of freedom, t critical=1.96,

N=number, Mean scores an average mean point of 1.00-1.80=Strongly Disagree, 1.81-
2.60=Disagree, 2.61-3.40=Undecided, 3.41-4.20=Agree and 4.21-5.00=Strongly Agree.

As indicated on the above table 10 of item 1, respondents were asked whether instructional
leaders Take much of the time when teacher-principals conferences are held on or not.
Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.16, SD=1.395) disagreed with the point and school
leaders with the (X=2.29, SD=1.326) also disagreed with the point. The overall mean 2.23
shows, the disagreement of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the
overall mean, majority of instructional leaders didn't take much of the time when teacher-
principals conferences are held on. The significance level (p=0.740) is greater than 0.05, this
indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders

74
and teachers. The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders low
efferent to take much of the time when teacher-principals conferences are held on.

Regarding item 2 of Table 10 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders closely
checks teachers' activities or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.18, SD=1.411)
disagreed with the point and school leaders with the (X=2.29, SD=1.383) also disagreed with
the point. The overall mean 2.24 shows, the disagreement of the total respondents with the
point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional leaders didn't closely
checks teachers' activities. The significance level (p=0.784) is greater than 0.05, this indicates
that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and
teachers. The results of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders did not take
more time to checks teachers' activities.

Regarding item 3 of Table 10 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders Keep a
close check on sign-in time or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.21, SD=1.453)
disagreed with the point. And school leaders with the (X=2.21, SD=1.311) also disagreed with
the point. The overall mean 2.21 shows, the disagreement of the total respondents with the
point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional leaders didn't keep a
close check on sign-in time. The significance level (p=0.997) is greater than 0.05, this
indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders
and teachers. The results of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders did not
keep a close check on sign-in time.

Regarding item 4 of Table 10 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders tell what
they do, guide, and direct or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X= 2.08, SD=1.399)
disagreed with the point and school leaders with the (X=2.64, SD=1.499) were not sure about
the issue. The overall mean 2.36 shows, the disagreement of the total respondents with the
point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional leaders didn't tell what
they do. The significance level (p=0.154) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no
significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of
the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders did not tell what they do.

Regarding item 5 of Table 10 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders monitor
everything the teachers do or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=2.26, SD=1.496)
75
disagreed with the point and school leaders with the(X=2.14, SD=1.748) also disagreed with
the point. The overall mean 2.2 shows, the disagreement of the total respondents with the
point. As can be seen from the overall mean, majority of instructional leadership didn't
monitor everything the teachers do. The significance level (p=0.779) is greater than 0.05, this
indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders
and teachers. The result of the study illustrates that majority of instructional leaders did not
monitor everything the teachers do.

In interview session the supervisors were asked, the extent to which instructional leadership
practice contributed to the effectiveness of teaching learning process in your school. If their
answer no, they list factors that influence their effectiveness. They replied, as most of them,
similar with two groups of respondents' responses in the questionnaires. As one of the
participant supervisor said that:

Infrequency instructional leaders monitor everything the teachers do , because of some

other external workloads, time constraints; and if it happened, the instructional leaders
supervision prevailed were not organized under the lead of the principals and the time
provided for classroom observation were insufficient. So that principals' intention towards
instructional leadership observed by the majority of respondents response was less as
compared to their administrative role they used to perform.

An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare directive roles of instructional leaders
for both instructional leaders and teachers. As a result, they rated all the items in the
dimension as high performance with no statistically significant difference in their responses.
All obtained t-values are less than the critical value (1.96) when tested at alpha level 0.05. So,
this implies the consistency of responses between the groups.

As a whole, the role of instructional leaders with regard to directive roles of instructional
leaders was disagreed on. Therefore, it can be said that the role of instructional leaders in
directive roles of instructional leaders among teachers in the school was unsuccessful

4.4 Challenges for Instructional Leadership Effectiveness

Bhengu, Naicker& Mthiyane (2014) define barriers to instructional leadership as factors that
negatively effect on the school leaders role in leading teaching and learning. As there are too

76
many definitions of instructional leadership, these definitions are the barriers that principals
face when trying to behave as instructional leaders. The main obstacles to instructional
leadership consist: insufficient time, inability, lack of credibility, limited knowledge and a
weak monitoring and evaluation process. Due to overload of operational and managerial
duties, most principals see instructional leadership as an optional task. Staff reluctance to
change was identified as the most common barrier to instructional leadership.

Under related to the challenges of instructional leadership effectiveness Section on issue are
lack of skills and training, lack of cooperation and commitment for instructional improvement,
lack of resource availability and allocation, lack of vision, will and courage, and had 4
questions with 20 items were presented to the group of teachers and instructional leaders and
analyzed under table 11 to 14. Both groups of respondents were asked to rate five point scales
ranging from very high to very low problem was used for the sake of analysis and
interpretation. In the scale very high and high represents the extent of insufficient of each
item. On the other hand, in the scale very low and low represents sufficient of each item.
Those were discussed under the following of each table.

Table 11: Responses on lack of skills and training

Respondents’ Response
Comparing means by
Instructional using t test
Item leaders Teachers  
N Your school N=141 N=14  
o leaders .../ as a school Mea Mea T Sig(2
leader...... n STD n STD WM value Df tailed
Lack of qualified
instructional leaders in
the area of education  1.18  0.97  2.6  -
 1  2.63 0  2.79 5 7 0.474  153  0.636
Lack of training on
instructional
leadership  1.33  0.99  2.6  -
 2  2.55 5  2.71 4 3 0.130  153  0.897
Lack of in-service
training and teachers
development program  1.25  0.98  3.5  0.73
 3  3.68 5  3.43 3 6 1  153  0.466
 4 Lack of qualified  2.40  1.30  2.57  1.22  2.4  -  153  0.646
teachers in all subject 4 2 9 0.460

77
 area

2.82 2.88 2.85

WM=weighted mean, STD=standard deviation, Df=degree of freedom, t critical=1.96,

N=number, Mean scores an average mean point of 1.00-1.80 very low, 1.81-2.60 low, 2.61-
3.40 moderate, 3.41-4.20 high and 4.21 very high problem

As indicated on the above table 11 of item 1, respondents were asked whether instructional
leaders Lack of qualified instructional leaders in the area of education or not. Accordingly,
mean scores of both teachers with the (X=2.63, SD=1.180) and school leaders with the
(X=2.79, SD= 0.975) which felt moderate problem about the issue. The overall mean 2.67
shows that, the total respondents' response indicate moderate problems of the point. The
significance level (p=0.636) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of the study
illustrates that lack of qualified instructional leaders in the area of education was at moderate
level in sampled schools.
Regarding item 2 of Table 11 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders lack of
training on instructional leadership or not. Accordingly, mean scores of both teachers with the
(X=2.55, SD= 1.335) and school leaders with the (X=2.71, SD=0.994) which felt moderate
with the issue. The overall mean 2.63 shows, moderate problem of the total respondents with
the point. The significance level (p=0.897) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no
significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of
the study illustrates that instructional leaders' lack of training on instructional leadership was
at moderate level in sampled schools.

Regarding item 3 of Table 11 respondents were asked whether lack of in-service training and
teachers development program or not. Accordingly, the mean scores of both teachers with the
(X= 3.68, SD=1.255) and school leaders with the (X=3.43, SD= 0.983) which felt high
problem with the issue. The overall mean 3.56 shows, high problem of the total respondents
response with the point. The significance level (p=0.930) is greater than 0.05, this indicates
that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and

78
teachers. The result of the study illustrates that the problem of lack of in-service training and
teachers' development program was at high level.

Regarding item 4 of Table 11 respondents were asked whether there were lack of qualified
teachers in all subject area or not. Accordingly, the mean value both teachers with the
(X=2.40, SD=1.304) and school leaders with the score (X=2.57, SD=1.222) rated at low
problem with the issue. The overall mean 2.49 shows, low of the total respondents with the
point. The significance level (p=0.646) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no
significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of
the study illustrates that the problem of lack of qualified teachers in all subject area in sampled
schools were at low level. Therefore, it can be said that qualified teachers in all subject area
were at good level.

An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare lack of skills and training for both
instructional leaders and teachers. As a result, they rated all the items in the dimension as high
performance with no statistically significant difference in their responses. All obtained t-
values are less than the critical value (1.96) when tested at alpha level 0.05. So, this implies
the consistency of responses between the groups.

As a whole, with regard to lack skills and training for both instructional leaders and teachers
were moderate problem. Therefore, it can be said that skills and training for both instructional
leaders and teachers were at good level.

Table 12: Responses on lack of cooperation and commitment for instructional improvement

Respondents’ Response
Comparing means
by using t test
Teachers Instructional  
Item N=141 leaders N=14  
N Your school leaders .../ Mea Mea T Sig(2
o as a school leader...... n STD n STD WM value Df tailed
Lack of cooperation of
teachers  1.45  3.4  0.04  15  0.96
 1  3.45 1 3.43  0.852  4 6 3 3
Lack of cooperation of
Students  1.37  1.26  3.8  -  15  0.32
 2  3.70 8 4.07 9 9 0.981 3 8

79
 Lack of cooperation of
School boards  1.40  1.54  3.7  -  15  0.33
 3  3.55 6 3.93 2 4 0.962 3 7
Lack of cooperation of
School communities  1.31  1.01  3.4  -  15  0.91
 4  3.46 2  3.50 9 8 0.108 3 4
Lack of cooperation of
Woreda educational
managers  1.36  1.05  2.4  15  0.93
 5  2.82 6  2.79 1 4  0.79 3 7
3.40 3.54 3.47

WM=weighted mean, STD=standard deviation, Df=degree of freedom, t critical=1.96,

N=number, Mean scores an average mean point of 1.00-1.80 very low, 1.81-2.60 low, 2.61-
3.40 moderate, 3.41-4.20 high and 4.21 very high problem

As indicated on the above table 12 of item 1, respondents were asked whether instructional
leaders lack of cooperation of teachers or not. Accordingly, the mean value both teachers with
the (X= 3.45, SD= 1.451) and school leaders (X=3.43, SD= 0.852) rated at high problem with
the issue. The overall mean   3.44 shows were high problem of the total respondents with the
point. As can be seen from the overall mean, instructional leadership lacks of cooperation of
teachers were high problem. The significance level (p= 0.963) is greater than 0.05, this
indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders
and teachers. The result of the study illustrates that instructional leader's lack of cooperation of
teachers were high problem. Therefore, it can be said that cooperation of teachers was at low
level.

Regarding item 2 of Table 12 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders lack of
cooperation of Students or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X= 3.70, SD=1.378) were high
and school leaders with the (X=4.07, SD=1.269) were also high with the point. The overall
mean 3.89 shows, high problem of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from
the overall mean, instructional leadership lacks of cooperation of students were high problems.
The significance level (p=0.328) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of the study
illustrates that instructional leaders lack of cooperation of students were high problems.
Therefore, it can be said that cooperation of Students was at low level.
80
Regarding item 3 of Table 12 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders Lack of
cooperation of school boards or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=3.55, SD= 1.406) were
high problems and school leaders with the(X=3.93, SD=1.542) were also high problems with
the issue. The overall mean 3.74 shows, high problems of the total respondents with the point.
As can be seen from the overall mean, instructional leadership lacks of cooperation of school
boards were moderate problems. The significance level (p=0.337) is greater than 0.05, this
indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders
and teachers. The results of the study illustrates that instructional leaders did Lack of
cooperation of School boards high problems. Therefore, it can be said that cooperation of
School boards was at low level.

Regarding item 4 of Table 12 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders lack of
cooperation of school communities or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=3.46,
SD= 1.312) were high and school leaders with the (X=3.50, SD=1.019) were also high
problem with the issue. The overall mean 3.48 shows, high problems of the total respondents
with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, instructional leadership Lack of
cooperation of School communities were high problems. The significance level (p=0.914) is
greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of
instructional leaders and teachers. The result of the study illustrates that instructional leaders
lack of cooperation of school communities were high problems. Therefore, it can be said that
cooperation of School communities was at low level.

Regarding item 5 of Table 12 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders Lack of
cooperation of Woreda educational managers or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X= 2.82,
SD=  1.366) were moderate and school leaders with the(X=2.79, SD= 1.051) were moderate
with the issue. The overall mean 2.44 shows low of the total respondents with the point. As
can be seen from the overall mean, instructional leadership Lack of cooperation of Woreda
educational managers were moderate. The significance level (p=0.937) is greater than 0.05,
this indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional
leaders and teachers. The result of the study illustrates that instructional leaders lack of
cooperation of woreda educational managers were moderate. Therefore, it can be said that
cooperation of woreda Educational Managers was at good level.

81
An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare lack of cooperation and commitment
for instructional improvement for both instructional leaders and teachers. As a result, they
rated all the items in the dimension as low performance with no statistically significant
difference in their responses. All obtained t-values are less than the critical value (1.96) when
tested at alpha level 0.05. So, this implies the consistency of responses between the groups.

As a whole, with regard to lack of cooperation and commitment for instructional

improvement there was serious problem. Therefore, it can be said that cooperation and
commitment for instructional improvement had negative impacts in the practices of
instructional leadership effectiveness.

In institutional setting like schools everything starts with relationships, whether those
relationship are among ideas (Marx,2006).Teachers, administrators, supervisions, students and
parents need to come together to define their aspiration, design procedures for decision
making, the mobilization of resources and the evaluation of learning outcomes. The role of
instructional leader in team building and developing team cohesion is aimed at defining
common goals. In school setting everyone wants to be safe, to be appreciated, to be accepted
as part of the school community and be recognized as contributing to the school effectiveness.

Table 13: Responses on lack of resource availability and allocation

Respondents’ Response
Comparing means by
using t test
Item Teachers Instructional  
Your school N=141 leaders N=14  
No leaders.../ as a Mea Mea Sig(2
school leader...... n STD n STD WM T value Df tailed
Shortage of time to
perform instructional
activities
 1  3.84  1.371  3.71  0.825  3.78  0.328 153  0.743 
Lack of stationary
materials for teaching
 2  3.96  1.247  4.02  0.997  3.99  -0.331 153  0.741
Lack of student
textbook
 3  3.53  1.5  3.57  1.222  3.55  -0.095. 153   0.924
Lack of school
 4 furniture  3.48  1.524  3.43  0.938  3.46  0.129 153  0.897

82
 Lack of library space
and time
 5  3.52  1.543  3.79  1.311  3.67  -0.611 153  0.524 
Lack of recurrent
budget support
6 3.51 1.505 3.50 1.160 3.55 0.026 153 0.980
3.43 3.64 3.54

WM=weighted mean, STD=standard deviation, Df=degree of freedom, t critical=1.96,

N=number, Mean scores an average mean point of 1.00-1.80 very low, 1.81-2.60 low, 2.61-
3.40 moderate, 3.41-4.20 high and 4.2-5.00 very high problem.

As indicated on the above Table 13 of item 1, respondents were asked whether instructional
leaders shortage of time to perform instructional activities or not. Accordingly, teachers with
the (X=3.84, SD=1.371) were high and school leaders with the (X=3.71, SD=0.825) were high
problems with the issue. The overall mean 3.78 shows, high problems of the total respondents
with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, instructional leadership Shortage of time
to perform instructional activities were moderate problems. The significance level (p=0.743) is
greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of
instructional leaders and teachers. The result of the study illustrates that instructional leaders
had shortage of time to perform instructional activities were high problems.

Regarding item 2 of Table 13 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders Lack of
stationary materials for teaching or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X= 3.96, SD=1.247)
were high and school leaders with the (X=4.02, SD=0.997) were high problems with the
point. The overall mean 3.99 shows, high problems of the total respondents with the point. As
can be seen from the overall mean, instructional leadership Lack of stationary materials for
teaching was moderate problems. The significance level (p=0.741) is greater than 0.05, this
indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders
and teachers. The result of the study illustrates that instructional leaders Lack of stationary
materials for teaching was moderate problems.

Regarding item 3 of Table 13 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders had lack
of student textbook or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=3.53, SD=  1.5) were high and
school leaders with the (X=3.57, SD=1.222) were high problem with the issue The overall
mean 3.55 shows, high problem of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from

83
the overall mean, instructional leadership had lack of student textbook there was moderate
problem. The significance level (p=0.924) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no
significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of
the study illustrate that instructional leaders had lack of student textbook were high problem.

Regarding item 4 of Table 13 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders had lack
of school furniture or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=3.48, SD=1.524) were high
problem and school leaders with the (X=3.43, SD=0.938) were high problem. The overall
mean  3.46 shows, high problem of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from
the overall mean, instructional leadership had lack of school furniture which was high
problem. The significance level (p=0.897) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no
significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of
the study illustrates that instructional leaders did lack of school furniture.

Regarding item 5 of Table 13 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders lack of
library space and time or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X= 3.52, SD=1.543) were high
problem and school leaders with the (X=3.79, SD=1.311) were high with the issue. The
overall mean 3.67 shows, high of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the
overall mean, instructional leadership had moderate problem toward lack of library space and
time. The significance level (p=0. 0.524) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no
significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of
the study illustrates that instructional leaders had high problem toward lack of library space
and time.

Regarding item 6 of Table 13 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders lack of
recurrent budget support or not. Accordingly, teachers with the (X=3.51, SD=1.505) were high
and school leaders with the (X=3.50, SD=1.160) were high problem with the issue. The
overall mean 3.55 shows high of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the
overall mean, instructional leadership had high problem toward recurrent budget support. The
significance level (p=0.980) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of the study
illustrates that instructional leaders had moderate problem toward recurrent budget support.

84
In interview session the supervisors were asked, what are the major challenges that school
leaders face during their leader ship? They replied as most of them similar with two groups of
respondents responses in the questionnaires. As one of the participant supervisor said that:
Lack of budget, school leaders were overloaded with various tasks, shortage of available recourse
was among the factors that hinder practicing instructional leadership.

An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare lack of resource availability and
allocation for both instructional leaders and teachers. As a result, they rated all the items with
no statistically significant difference in their responses. All obtained t-values are less than the
critical value (1.96) when tested at alpha level 0.05. So, this implies the consistency of
responses between the groups.

As a whole, the challenge of instructional leaders with regard to lack of resource availability
and allocation was high problem on. Therefore, it can be said that the challenge of
instructional leaders practice with regard to lack of resource availability and allocation in the
school was high problem.

Resources are the means to the end. They matter in terms of school improvement and long-
term effectiveness. In research synthesis about practices in high-performance schools, the
finding that relate to resource is evident in (Ubben and Hughes, 1997). In other words, lack of
resources (financial, physical, or human) can be a serious obstacle to carry out his task
effectively. A principal may want to lead and the situation and expectations of others may call
for his leadership. Nevertheless, if resources necessary to implement his or her leadership are
inadequate, the principal will face a significant impediment (Gorton, 1983).

Table 14: Responses on lack of vision, will and courage

Respondents’ Response
Comparing means by
using t test
Item Teachers Instructional  
N Your school N=141 leaders N=14  
o leaders .../ as a school Mea Mea T Sig(2
leader...... n STD n STD WM value Df tailed

85
 Lack of courage to
take risks, at time for
the improvement of
instruction  1.44  1.08  3.7
 1  3.79 2  3.64 2 2  0.382 153  0.703 
unwillingness to
devote more time for
instructional issues  0.61  3.9
 2  4.01  .898  3.93 6 7  0.319 153  0.750
Lack of adequate
knowledge base of
instruction leadership  1.44  0.99  3.7
 3  3.82 7  3.71 4 7  0.256 153  0.799 
Lack of organizing the
school community for
leadership work  1.32  0.75  3.6
 4  3.80 7  3.57 6 9  0.637 153  0.525 
unwillingness to assess
staff and school
capacity for leadership  1.07  0.76  2.5 - 0.01
 5  2.50 3  2.50 0 0 2 153  0.990 
3.58 3.47 3.53

WM=weighted mean, STD=standard deviation, Df=degree of freedom, t critical=1.96,

N=number, Mean scores an average mean point of 1.00-1.80 very low, 1.81-2.60 low, 2.61-
3.40 moderate, 3.41-4.20 high and 4.21 very high problem

As indicated on the above Table 14 of item 1, respondents were asked whether instructional
leaders Lack of courage to take risks, at time for the improvement of Instruction or not.
Accordingly, teachers with the (X =3.79, SD=1.442) were high problem and school leaders
with the (X=3.64, SD=1.082) were high problem with the issue. The overall mean 3.72 shows
high problem of the total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean,
instructional leadership had high challenge to courage take risks, at time for the improvement
of Instruction. The significance level (p=0.703) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is
no significant difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result
of the study illustrates that instructional leaders were challenged of courage to take risks, at
time for the improvement of Instruction.

86
Regarding item 2 of Table 14 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders
unwillingness to devote more time for instructional issues or not. Accordingly, teachers with
the (X= 4.01, SD= .898) were low problem and school leaders with the(X=3.93, SD=0.616)
were high problem with the point. The overall mean 3.97 shows, the high problem of the total
respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, instructional leadership had
moderate problem regard to unwillingness to devote more time for instructional issues. The
significance level (p=0.750) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of the study
illustrates that instructional leaders were high problem toward willingness to devote more time
for instructional issues.

Regarding item 3 of Table 14 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders lack of
adequate knowledge base of instruction leadership or not. Accordingly, teachers with the
(X=3.82, SD=1.447) were high problem and school leaders with the(X=3.71, SD=0.994) were
high problem with the issue. The overall mean 3.77 shows, high problem of the total
respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, instructional leadership had
Lack of adequate knowledge base of instruction leadership. The significance level (p=0.799) is
greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the opinions of
instructional leaders and teachers. The results of the study illustrate that most of instructional
leaders had lack of adequate knowledge base of instruction leadership.

Regarding item 4 of Table 14 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders Lack of
organizing the school community for leadership work or not. Accordingly, teachers with the
(X=3.80, SD=1.327) were high problem and school leaders with the (X=3.57, SD= 0.756)
were high problem with the issue. The overall mean 3.69 shows high problem of the total
respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, instructional leadership had
high problem toward organizing the school community for leadership work. The significance
level (p=0.525 ) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant difference
between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The results of the study illustrates
that instructional leaders had high challenge to organize the school community for leadership
work.

87
Regarding item 5 of Table 14 respondents were asked whether instructional leaders
unwillingness to assess staff and school capacity for leadership or not. Accordingly, teachers
with the (X=2.50, SD=1.073) were low problem and school leaders with the (X= 2.50,
SD=0.760) were low problem with the issue. The overall mean 2.50 shows low problem of the
total respondents with the point. As can be seen from the overall mean, instructional leaders
had low problem toward unwillingness to assess staff and school capacity for leadership. The
significance level (p=0.990) is greater than 0.05, this indicates that there is no significant
difference between the opinions of instructional leaders and teachers. The result of the study
illustrates that instructional leaders did not have unwillingness to assess staff and school
capacity for leadership.

An independent sample t-test was conducted to compare lack of vision, will, and courage for
both instructional leaders and teachers. As a result, they rated all the items in the dimension as
high performance with no statistically significant difference in their responses. All obtained t-
values are less than the critical value (1.96) when tested at alpha level 0.05. So, this implies
the consistency of responses between the groups.

As a whole, the challenges of instructional leaders practice with regard to lack of vision, will
and courage was agreed on. Therefore, it can be said that the challenges of instructional
leaders practice in lack of vision, will and courage among teachers in the school was high
problem.

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter deals with the summary of the major findings, general conclusion drawn on the
bases of the findings and recommendations that the researcher suggests and assumes to be
useful to enhance the practices of instructional leadership in government secondary schools of
West Hararghe Zone in Oromia Regional state.

88
5.1 Summary

The purpose of this study was to investigate the current practices and challenges of
instructional leadership and its implementation in Secondary Schools of West Harerhe Zone,
Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia. In order to address the objectives of the study, to address
this purpose, the following basic research questions were raised:

1. Which of instructional leadership are being practiced in secondary schools of Hararghe

Zone?
2. To what extent do school leaders practice different dimensions of instructional leadership in
secondary Schools of West Hararghe Zone?
3. To what extent do instructional leaders practice the roles of instructional leadership in
West Hararghe Zone secondary Schools?
4. What are the major challenges that faced school leaders in practicing instructional
leadership in West Hararghe Zone secondary schools?
To address these basic questions of the study, descriptive survey research design was
employed. Regarding study population and the sample, from the total 47 government
secondary schools found in the Zone, researcher selected 7 of them randomly as sample
schools. From these sample schools, researcher was selected 7 principals and 7 school
supervisor using purposive sampling technique,156 teachers using through random sampling
technique. Questionnaire was used as main tool of data collection. A total of 170
questionnaires were prepared and distributed for 156 sample teachers and 14 instructional
leaders (principals, vice principals) who were selected as information sources. Almost (91%)
questionnaires that were distributed to the teachers and instructional leaders were filled and
returned to the researcher. The interviews were undertaken with seven (7) supervisors, and
document analysis was used to substantiate the data; mean, and independent sample t-test were
utilized to analyze and interpreted quantitative data gained through the questionnaires. The
qualitative data was gathered through interview and document analysis was analyzed by
narration. Hence, the findings of the study were summarized as follows:
Regarding to sex distribution the findings of the study showed that, number of females in the
teaching profession and the position of school leadership were much lower than males in the
sampled schools. So leadership position and the work environment were male dominated. In

89
age distribution the majority of the respondents were matured enough. So they provided
reliable information with regard to the issue under study. The educational level, the
interviewees were second degree holders or fulfilled the minimum qualification requirement to
serve as supervision in secondary school.

Results from respondents about instructional leadership practices in managing curriculum,

supervising and evaluating the instruction, promoting conducive schools learning climate were
implemented moderately. On the other hand, setting the school vision and developing school
mission, monitoring instructional programs and promoting a conducive school learning
climate in the school was less practice

document analysis also verify that even though each schools had school improvement
program plan, in majority of the schools, there is no any evidence to show the leaders: in
developing specific plan with clearly stated vision and mission, and whether school leaders
facilitate stockholders participation in planning process or not, And also there was no evidence
documents and data to show whether the schools self assessment of school improvement
program or not.

Regarding to instructional leader’s role, on supervision of classroom, directive roles were

performed at lower level, whereas instructional leader’s role on professional skill development
of staff was implemented at moderate level.

In the interviews session, verify that instructional leadership roles were lack of timely open
discussion between teachers and principal, lack of required experience and qualification of
principals for leadership position, high teachers turnover, mist behavior of students, the
instructional leaders in its role of supervision was not taking sufficient time for classroom
observation, instead of this they providing collegial feedback for teachers at different
experience level.

The result of mean ranking of challenges, hindering principals’ instructional leadership

practices lack of resource availability and allocation, lack of vision, will and courage among
teachers and lack of cooperation and commitment for instructional improvement were high

90
problem. Whereas lack of skills and training for both instructional leaders and teachers were
also high problem.

In the interviews session, verify that lack of budget, school leaders were overloaded with
various tasks, shortage of available recourse was among the factors that hinder practicing
instructional leadership

5.2 Conclusion
The first task in school leader's instructional leadership is articulating vision and values.
Having clearly defined vision, mission and goals are important to improve the academic
performance of the school. However the instructional leadership practices of instructional
leaders in the studies school that on setting the school vision and developing school mission
not effectively implemented. document analysis also verified that each schools had school
improvement program plan, but in majority schools there is no any evidence to show the
leaders in developing clear and specific plan, facilitate stockholders participation in planning,
developing simple, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bounded plan, ability to
communicate vision of the plan, implementing status depending on annual planning and
regular staff meeting to discuss about the plan on managing curriculum, supervising and
evaluating the instruction. Therefore, it can be concluded, if the school leaders is incapable to
articulate the school vision, mission, and goals in the right way, the school would not be
having any real goals and objectives to achieve and this could demoralize the teachers (Sarok
& Jihet, 2012).

Successful school leaders manage the instructional program by supervising and evaluating
instruction, coordinating the curriculum and monitoring student progress. The focus of this
dimension is on teaching and learning so principal must have expertise to perform the
functions. (Ayub, 2015). However the instructional leadership practices of instructional
leaders in the studies school that monitoring instructional programs, were not effectively
implemented. As the result, it is possible to conclude that, unless managing the instructional
program, it affect teaching and learning process of the school.

School climate is an important ingredient that relates to the productivity and well-being of
staff members, parents or guardians, and students. The principal, more than any other
individual, is responsible for the climate in the school. As an instructional leader, he is the key
91
figure in promoting an academic learning environment within the school that is conducive to
student learning (Rao & Gezahegn, 2013). However, the result of this study revealed that
promoting, conducive school learning was not fairly employed in the studies school. As the
result, it is possible to conclude that, school leaders emphasized promoting, conducive school
learning to student learning and high expectations for student achievement.

Successful school leaders had responsible for giving chances for staff to increase their
information, skills, and attitude through this program. School staff can utilize reflection and
analysis of their activities as a core discipline for professional growth. Leaders should ensure
that the program meets the individual as well as organizational needs. These leaders should
actively participate in these programs and encourage others to do the same. However, the
result of this study revealed that the instructional leadership practices of instructional leaders
in the studies school that on professional skill development less implemented.

Through effective supervision of instruction, school leaders can reinforce and enhance
teaching practices that will contribute to improved student learning. By skillfully analyzing
performance and appropriate data, school leaders can provide meaningful feedback and
direction to teachers that can have a profound effect on the learning that occurs in each
classroom. However, the research revealed that. Instructional leadership practices on
supervising and evaluating the instruction was implemented at moderate level in west
Hararghe Secondary Schools. As the result, it is possible to conclude that, unless instructional
leaders to supervising and evaluating the instruction, impossible to provide equal access to
quality educational programs for all students,

Concerning about the challenges to instructional leadership effectiveness, lack of cooperation

and commitment for instructional improvement, lack of resource availability and allocation
lack of vision, will, and courage were rated as high challenge for the practice of instructional
leadership effectiveness

The findings of the study showed that, majority of school leaders had lack of skills to build
collaborative cultures and establish a productive working relationship. At the same time,
majority of them did not create supportive atmosphere and good working relationship. As the
result, there was no culture of trust and strong collaboration between school leaders and
teachers. Therefore, there was inadequate participation of teachers in school management and

92
lacked common goal to achieve under the study area. Thus, this may influence the quality and
effectiveness of teaching learning process and have common responsibilities in solving
problems of the school.

5.3 Recommendations

Leadership is the part of influencing people to direct their will, abilities, and efforts towards
the accomplishments of common goals. Accordingly, leadership is a key organizational
function that binds the activities of the work group for the achievements of organizational
objectives. It can be considered as the heart of organizational machinery. An effective leader
should be sharing, facilitating, and guiding decisions about instructional improvement for the
enhancement of students' academic achievement. Instructional leaders should be
knowledgeable and skillful in his/her with related educational background especially in the
field of educational leadership and planning rather than subject area. Therefore on the basis of
the results of this study, the following recommendations are forwarded for the successful
implementation of the practice and challenges of instructional leadership in government
secondary schools of West Hararghe zone in Oromia regional state.

Concerning the instructional leadership practices, instructional leaders should have a vision for
their schools and articulate that vision effectively to others become dedicated to it and their
daily activities are instilled with its meaning and value. Principals should have the skill and
capacity in producing school visions. The principal should involve the staff and make sure that
the school has a clear mission and the mission that is aimed on improving student learning.
principal should be work constantly to articulate and advocate the mission and programs of the
school to employees, students, parents and other stakeholders. The active participation of
stakeholders in school leadership creates conducive atmosphere and development. Thus the
principals should be taking their responsibilities in organizing parents, students, and teachers.

Concerning the teaching learning roles of instructional leaders: the instructional leaders should
be strengthen their relationship with teachers and school community by spending more time in
classroom instructional observation, support teachers by indicating necessarily respect for
each other, by working with woreda education offices nearby to improve the quality of
classroom instructions or teaching learning process as well as others school stakeholders.
Empower their subordinates (schools, principals, teachers, and students). This can be realized
93
through designing sustainable and need based continuous professional development programs
at woreda, zone level. Principals should be actively involved in providing training and
development to their staff with at school level. This may enable principals to develop
empirical and basic instructional leadership skills to perform instructional role effectively

Concerning the challenges to instructional leadership effectiveness that : The woreda

education office should provide supports for the school board such as regular discussion,
holding workshops and conference at school level. These helps them in distributing
instructional materials on time, solving the financial problems, assigning the limitation of man
power, giving clear guidance and directions. Besides, woreda education office, zone
education, and regional education bureau should search for an opportunity to acquaint
secondary schools with required level and standards of human and material resources to
perform instructional practice adequately.

Incentives are among the strategies to implement organizational goal through shaping
individuals and group behavior. This should be done at a regular frequency based on the level
of achievements of shared and communicated goal of school. Thus, woreda education office,
zone education, regional education bureau, and secondary school principals should design
appropriate motivation system to their immediate subordinates. This may lead to maintain
progressive effectiveness of principals in performing instructional activities in courageous and
commitment manner. This in turn may contribute to the very success of the school system at
large.

94
References

Adugna, Amente. (2014). The Practice and Challenges of School Leadership in Secondary
Schools of Ilu Aba Bor Zone, Oromia Region
Ahmad, & Hussain, M (2015). Instructional leadership practices of the excellent school
principals in Aceh, Indonesia: Managing the instructional program. International
Journal of Indonesian studies, 1(2), 81-95.
Alig-Mielcarek (2003). A model of school success: instructional leadership, academic press,
an student achievement. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Ohio State.
Beare, H., Caldwell, B.J. & Millikan, R. H. (1989). Creating an excellent school. USA, New
York, Routledge.
Blasé, J. and Blasé, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers' perspectives on
how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38(2), 130-141.
Burns, J. (1979). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.

Bush, T. (2003). School leadership: Concepts and evidence. London, National College for
School Leadership.
Cann, C. & Hernandez, J. (2012). Dealing with resistant teachers while maintaining the vision:
How novice social justice leaders do instructional leadership. Journal of
Transformative Leadership and Policy Studies, 2(1), 47 – 62.
Cohen, J. & Brown, P. (2013). School climate and adult learning. National School Climate
Center, 341 West 38th Street, New York, NY 10018, United States.
Davies, Davies and Ellison (2005). Success and Sustainability: Developing the strategically-
focused school. National College for School Leadership
Dempster, N., Lovett, S. &Flückiger, B. (2011). Strategies to develop school leadership: A
select literature review. The Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership.
Dong, N.T. & Seong, D.N.F. (2014). Applyinh the Rasch model to investigate Signapor
Principals' instructional leadership. National Institute of Education, Singapore,
Leading & Managing, 20(2), 1-26

95
DuFour,R.,and Mattos,M.(2013). How do principals really improve schools? Educational
Leadership: The Principal ship. 70 (7), 34-40
DuPont, J. P. (2009).Teacher perceptions of the influence of principal instructional leadership
on school culture: A case study of the American Embassy school in New Delhi, India.
(Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). The University of Minnesota,Minnesota.
Eneyew, Tarekegn. (2017). the Roles, Practices and Challenges of School Leadership in
Government Secondary Schools in Kirkos Subcity. Addis Ababa.
Ghavifekr, S., Ibrahim, M.S., Chellapan, K., Sukumaran, K. & Subramaniam (2015).
Instructional leadership practices of principal in vocational and technical college:
Teachers' perception. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management,
3(1), 48-67.
Goldring, E., Porter, A.C., Murphy, J., Elliott, S.N & Cravens,X. (2007). Assessing learning-
centered leadership: Connections to research, professional standards, and current
practices. Learning Science Institute, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee.
Green, R. L. (2010). The four dimensions of principal leadership: A framework for leading
21st century schools. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hallinger, P. & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of
principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-248.
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980 – 1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2) 157 –
191.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional
and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education 33(3), 329-351.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 1–20. Taylor &
Francis Inc.
Hallinger, P. (2010). A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the Principal
Instructional Management Rating Scale: A lens on methodological progress in
educational leadership and management. Paper prepared for presentation at the
annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration, New Orleans
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement:
Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School

96
 Leadership and Management, 30(2), New York, USA, Routledge.
Hallinger, P. (2011). A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the principal
instructional management rating scale: A lens on methodological progress in
educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 271-360.
Hirsh, S. (2006). Assessment inventory measures quality professional development. Journal
of
Staff Development, 27(2), 63-64.
Jago, A. G. (1982). Leadership: Perspectives in theory and research. Management Science, 4
(28), 315-336.
Jun, L.X. (2014). Principals’ instructional leadership: Fostering teacher professional
development. Department of Education Policy and Leadership, Hong Kong Institute
of Education, Honk Kong.
Kaster, G. M. (2010). Principals’ instructional leadership practices: Teachers’ perspectives.
Doctoral dissertation, Edgewood College, Madison.
Keefe, JW. & Jenkins, JM. (2002). Personalized instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 83 (6):440
456.
Killion, J. (2002). What works in the high school result-based staff development. National
Staff Development Council, United States of America.
Krug, S. E. (1993). Leadership craft and the crafting of school leaders. The Phi Delta Kappan.
75(3), 240 – 244.
Kruger, A. G. (2003). Instructional leadership: The impact on the culture of teaching and
learning in two effective secondary schools. South African Journal of Education
23(3) 206 -211.
Lahui-Ako, B. (2001). The instructional leadership behavior of Papua New Guinea high
school Louis, K. S., Wahlstrom, K. L., Michlin, M., Gordon, M., Thomas, E.,
Leithwood, K., Anderson, S.
Makau, N.N & Tanui, E.K. (2014). Instructional leadership: The key to improved academic
achievement in mathematics in KSCE. US Open Educational Research Journal Vol.
1(1), pp1-11.
Mhunpiew, K.S.N. (2014). An Application of the instructional leadership model at schools in
the Kachin area of Myanmar. US-China Education Review, 4(2), 71-76.
Michael, D. E. and Donna, R. M. (2002). A model for instructional leadership. ProQuest

97
 Education Journals, 3(3), 49.
Millar, J. A. (2009). Effective instructional leadership practices teacher self-reflection, and on
enhancing student learning. (Unpublished Master's Thesis), University of Manitoba,
Canada.
MoE ( Minister of Education). 2006. .Decentralized management of education in Ethiopia: A
reference manual. Addis Ababa, Ged Printing and Packaging Plant.
MoE (Minister of Education). 2009.Continuous professional development for primary and
secondary school teachers: Leaders and supervisors in Ethiopia. Unpublished
framework, Addis Ababa.
MoE (Minister of Education). 2010. Education Sector Development Program IV (ESDP-IV):
Program Action Plan, Addis Ababa. Ministry of Education, Education Management
Information Systems (EMIS) Department.
MoE (Minister of Education). 2013. Education Sector Development Program: Annual Report.
Addis Ababa, Ministry of Education.
Moffitt, J. R. (2007). What works: Principal leadership behaviors that positively impact
student achievement in elementary schools. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis), Georgia
Southern University, Georgia. .
Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N. & Goldring, E. (2007). Leaders for productive schools, Vanderbilt
University, Tennessee.
Nguyen, H. T. and Wu, B. (2012). Much ado about many things: Principle functions, analysis
and evaluation of primary principals' instructional leadership in Vietnam.
International Journal of Innovative Management, Information & Production , 3(2),
61 – 73.
Nkoma, E., Taru, J. & Mapfumo, J. (2014). Instructional leadership and student achievement:
A comparative analysis of former group B (S2) secondary schools. in Masvingo
Urban, Zimbabwe. International Journal of Social Relevance & Concern, Vol. 2(5).
Okendu, J. N. (2012). Planned instructional supervision, a bivariate outcome of instructional
leadership and curriculum planning. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences,
2(5), 107 – 114.
Okoth, U.A. (2014). Resource for environment education in secondary schools in Siaya
County, Kenya. US-China Education Review, Vol. 4(9), pp. 634-647.
Onuma, N. (2016). Principals' performance of supervision of instruction in secondary schools

98
 in Nigeria. British Journal of Education, 4(3), 40-52.
Oplatka, I. and Hefer-Antebi, E. (2008). Instructional and moral leadership in early twentieth
century: The story of Yehuda Antebi, a primary school principal in GalIlee. Planning
and Changing, 39( 3&4), 196–212.
Osman, A. (2013). Improving instructional leadership in schools through building principals'
capacity. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(2).
Ovando, M. N. and Ramirez (2007). Principals' instructional leadership within a teacher
performance appraisal system: Enhancing students' academic success. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20, 85 – 110. .
Packard, D. (2011). School size and instructional leadership of elementary school principals.
Doctoral dissertation, University at Albany, Albany.
Pendergrass, J. (2007). Principal's instructional leadership among catholic elementary schools.
Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, North Carolina.
Quah, C.S. (2011). Instructional leadership among principals of secondary schools in
Malaysia. International Research Journals, 2(12), 1784-1800.
Rao, N. V. and Gezahegn, B. (2013). The relationship of principals instructional leadership
roles with community involvement in government secondary schools of SNNPR,
Ethiopia. Journal of Radix International Educational and Research Consortium, 2(1),
1 – 19.
Robinson, V. M. J, Lloyd, C. A. and Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635 – 674.
Sarok, A. & Jihet, R. (2012). The relationship between headmasters instructional leadership
and teachers commitment. Scottish Journal of Arts, Social Science and Scientific
studies, 3(1), 3-26.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership, getting the heart of school improvement. Josses-
Bass Publishers. San Francisco USA.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline’ The art & practice of the learning organization,
Random House, London.
Sim, Q. C. (2011). Instructional leadership among principals of secondary schools in
Malaysia. Educational Research (ISSN: 2141-5161), Vol. 2(12) , 1784-1800.

99
Sparks, D. and Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five Models of Staff Development. Journal of
Staff
Development, 10 (4), National Staff Development Council.
Suleiman, M. (2013). A global context for instructional leadership: Implications for teaching
and teacher preparation. Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(1), 31 – 45.
Tedla, B. A. (2012). Instructional leadership and school climate a case study of a secondary
school in Eritrea. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, 1(1).
The Wallace Foundation (2013). The school principal as a leader: Guiding schools to better
teaching and learning. Retrieved Oct6,2013 from
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowlege-center/ school- leadership documents.
Wayne, M. R. (2011). Visiting classrooms: A design study to support principals’ instructional
leadership. University of California, Berkeley.
Williams, D. (2008). Principals’ professional development: Perceptions of the effect
professional development has on improving student achievement. Doctoral
dissertation, Florida State University, Florida.
Yan, G (2015). Strategies of enhancing instructional leadership competence of principals. US-
China Education Review, 5(2), 109-117.
Yasin, M.M., Pihie, Z.A.L., Fooi, F.S, Basri, R. & Baki, R. (2015). The ideology of
instructional leadership among principals on student academic achievement. Faculty
of Educational Studies, University Putra Malaysia.

100
 APPENDIX A-1
Haramaya University
College of Education and Behavioral Science
Department of Educational Planning and Management
A questionnaire to be filled by Teachers and instructional leaders (Main and Vice
principals )
The main purpose of this questionnaire is to gather information on Instructional Leadership
practice and challenges in Secondary School
It is designed for a study purpose and you have been selected to participate in this study.
Hence, you are kindly requested to give the necessary information on issues related to the
study. The student researcher believes that the success of this study depends on your honest
and genuine response to the question. I want to assure you that your response will be kept
confidential and the information you provide will be used for academic purpose only.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation
Instruction I
1. No need of writing your name
2. Give response by putting (x) in the appropriate box against each closed ended question.
Personal Information
1. Name of the school____________________________Woreda /city________________
2. Sex: A. Male □ B. Female □

101
3. Age: A. 20-25 □ B. 26-30 □ C.31-35 □ D.36-40 □ E. 41 and above □
4. Level of educational or qualification:
A. Diploma □ B. B.A/BED/BSc Degree □ C. M.A/MSc Degree □
6. Total work experience or service year:
A. under 5 years □ B.6-10 □ C.11-15 □ D.16-20 □ E.21 years above□
2. The Teaching Learning Roles of principal vice principal and department heads
Instruction-2: The following statements show the roles of principal vice principal and
Department heads on teaching learning activities in your school. Please indicate the extent to
which each statement characterizes your school by putting tick mark (x ) in one of the boxes
against each item. The numbers indicates: 5=Strongly Agree 4=Agree 3=Undecided
2=Disagree 1=Strongly Disagree

2.1 Professional Skill Development

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements that deal with
professional skill development of school?
Item Response
SA A UD DA SD
Your school leaders .../as a school leader...... 5 4 3 2 1
1 Help to provide short term training at school level by preparing
academic meeting/workshop
2 Develop mechanisms by which competent teachers share their
experiences on teaching methodologies with their colleagues
3 Encourage teachers to collaborate with surrounding schools for
Experience sharing
4 Encourages teachers to review individual professional growth
goals consistent with school goals and priorities
5 Give regularly teachers Feedback as to how they can improve
their teaching

2.2 Instructional leader’s Role in Supervision of Classroom

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the Supervision roles in Classroom of principals
indicated with the following statements?
Item Response
SA A UD DA SD

102
 Your school leaders .../as a school leader...... 5 4 3 2 1
1 School leaders visits the classroom often to ensure
classroom instruction
2 School leaders observes teachers for professional
development instead of evaluation
3 Arrange meeting with teachers to share experience after
supervision
4 School leaders encourages in-built supervisions within
the school

2.3 Directive Roles of Instructional Leaders

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the directive roles of principals stated below?

Item Response
SA A UD DA SD
Your school leaders .../as a school leader...... 5 4 3 2 1
1 Take much of the time when teacher-principals conferences
are held on
2 Closely checks teachers' activities
3 Keep a close check on sign-in time
4 Tell what they do, guide and direct
5 Monitor everything the teachers do

3. The practice of instructional leaders

Instruction -3 below is Tables that consist of questions that show the instructional
leadership practices of your school. Each Table contains five responses. Please indicate the
extent to which each statement represents your school by putting tick mark (x) in one of the
boxes against each item. Every response has to be based on your school context. The numbers
shows: 5=Strongly Agree (SA) 3=Undecided (UD) 1=Strongly Disagree (SD) 4=Agree (A)
2=Disagree (DA)

103
\

3.1 Setting the School Vision and Developing School Mission

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the school leadership practices related to the
vision and mission of your school?

Item Response
SA A UD DA SD
Your school leaders .../as a school leader...... 5 4 3 2 1
1 Well express or communicate the vision to all
stakeholders
2 Allocate adequate resources for the effective
implementation of a school vision and mission
3 Develop missions that are easily understood and used by
teachers in the school
4 Frame the school missions in terms of staff
responsibilities
5 Identify the impediments to achieve missions of the
school and design strategies to address the impediments
in advance
6 Develop a set of annual school-wide goals focused on
student learning
7 Use students performance results to develop the schools'
Missions

104
3.2 Managing Curriculum and Instruction
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following activities of school leaders about
managing curriculum and instruction in your school?
Item Response
SA A UD DA SD
Your school leaders .../as a school leader...... 5 4 3 2 1
1 Coordinate the curriculum evaluation process of the
school to address problems related to the curriculum
2 Check periodically students result in order to ensure the
effective implementation of the curriculum
3 Advice teachers and department heads regarding the
challenges they faced in relation to the implementation of
the curriculum
4 Encourage and provide the necessary support to
departments and teachers to periodically evaluate and
comment for curriculum improvement.
5 Evaluating the effectiveness of instructional program in
achieving school goals
6 Ensure the timely allocation of resources (human,
material and financial) necessary for instructional process

3.3 Supervising and Evaluating the Instruction

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the school leadership practices related to
instructional supervision of your school?
Item Response
SA A UD DA SD
Your school leaders .../as a school leader...... 5 4 3 2 1
1 Make classroom visits for the purpose of improving
instructional process
2 Give adequate time after class visit to discuss the problems
and plan improvement together
3 Hold regular meetings with each department for the purpose
of improving curriculum and instruction
4 Use teaching staff meetings to discuss curricular and
instructional issues
5 Create opportunities for professional discussions among
Teachers
6 Encourage teachers to use different instructional methods

105
 7 Make regular follow-up and feedback to teachers
3.4 Monitoring Instructional Programs
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following activities of school leaders about
the monitoring of instructional programs in your school?

Item Response
SA A UD DA SD
Your school leaders .../as a school leader...... 5 4 3 2 1
1 Encourage teachers to held the school's testing practice
as integral part of the total instructional process than
treating it
as a separate function
2 Inform the school's performance result to teachers in a
report form after effective monitoring of the activities
3 Meet individually with teachers to discuss students
academic
Progress
4 Use test result to assess progress toward school goals

3.5 Promoting a Conducive School Learning Climate

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following activities of school leaders about
creating conducive and healthy environment in your school.
Item Response
SA A UD DA SD
Your school leaders .../as a school leader...... 5 4 3 2 1
1 Establish supportive and motivating atmosphere in
which
staff, parents and students are encouraged to work as a
team
in the school
2 Create positive environment in which good working
relationship exist.
3 Advocate school environment conducive to student
Achievements
4 Provide support in building collaborative cultures
among
teachers.
5 Encourage a culture of trust between school leaders and
teaching staff
6 Establish a productive working relationship with the
Community
7 Are understandable when personal concern causes
teachers

106
 to arrive work late or leave early

4. Challenges of Instructional Leadership Effectiveness

Instruction-4: The following issues are assumed to be the common challenges of schools that
hinder the practices of instructional leadership. The five point scales indicated below reflect
the degree of availability each challenge in your school. Please rate each item, using the (1-5)
scales that best describes the degree to which the challenges are availability in your school.
The numbers indicated: 5=very high 4=high 3=moderate 2=low 1=very low
4.1 Lack of Skills and Training

Item Response
very high moderat low very
high e low
Your school leaders .../as a school 5 4 3 2 1
leader......
1 Lack of qualified instructional leaders in the
area of education
2 Lack of training on instructional leadership
3 Lack of in-service training and teachers
development program
4 Lack of qualified teachers in all subject area

4.2 Lack of Cooperation and Commitment for Instructional Improvement

Item Response
very high moderate low very
high low
Your school leaders .../as a school 5 4 3 2 1
leader......
1 Lack of cooperation of teachers
2 Lack of cooperation of Students
3 Lack of cooperation of School boards
4 Lack of cooperation of School communities
5 Lack of cooperation of Woreda educational
managers

107
4.3 Lack of Resource Availability and Allocation

Item Response
very high moderate low very
high low
Your school leaders .../as a school 5 4 3 2 1
leader......
1 Shortage of time to perform instructional
activities
2 Lack of stationary materials for teaching
3 Lack of student textbook
4 Lack of school furniture
5 Lack of library space and time
6 Lack of recurrent budget support

4.4 Lack of Vision, Will and Courage

Item Response
very high moderate low very
high low
Your school leaders .../as a school 5 4 3 2 1
leader......
1 Lack of courage to take risks, at time for
the improvement of Instruction
2 unwillingness to devote more time for
instructional issues
3 Lack of adequate knowledge base of
instruction leadership
4 Lack of organizing the school community
for leadership work
5 unwillingness to assess staff and school
capacity for leadership

108
 APPENDIX B-1
Haramaya University
College of Education and Behavioral Science
Department of Educational Planning and Management
An Interview Question for Supervisors

Section 1: Personal Information

1. Name of the school ……………………… Woreda /city…………………….

2. Sex: A. Male □ B. Female □
3. Age: A. 20-25 □ B. 26-30 □ C. 31-35 □ D.36-40 □ E. 41 and above □
4. Level of educational or qualification:
A. Diploma □ B. B.A/BED/BSc Degree □ C. M.A/MSc Degree □
5. Area of specialization or field of study:
A. Subject Major □ B. EDPM/ Pedagogical Science □ C. Other □
6. Total work experience or service year:
A. under 5 years □ B.6-10 □ C.11-15 □ D.16-20 □ E.21 years above □
7. Service year in current position:
A. under 5 years □ B.6-10 years □ C.11years and above □

Section 2: Interview Guide Questions

1. Yeroo hojiirra oolmaa hoggansa barnootaa guufuwwan gurguddoo dureewwaniin mudatan
maal faa?
2. Adeemsa baruu barsiisuu milkeessu keessatti yeroo shaalala hoggansa barnoota; qooda
fudhannaan hoggantoota mana barumsa keessani hammami?
3. yeoo deeggarsa ogummaa suparvizhini taasiiftan xiyyeeffannaan dimma barnootaaf gootan
hammami?
4. dureen mana barumsa keessan gahee hoggansa barnoota milkeessani jiru jettani yaadduu?
deebiin keessan lakki yoo ta'e akka hin milkeessine guufuwwan itti ta'an maal faa? eeyyee
yoo ta'e fakkeenya muraasa kennaa?
5. shaakala hojirraa oolmaa dagaagiina ogummaa mana barumsa keessatti, madaalli
keessanin maal jechuu dandeessu?
6. duree fi barsiisooni dhimma adeemsa baruu barsiisu ilaalchise hammam waliin mari'aattu?
7.gochaalee adeemsa baruu barsiisuu keessatti tarkaanfi fooyya'insa barsiisaan agarsiisaa

109
 deemu dhabu isaa akkamitti to'aattu?
8. qajeelfama barnoota adda addaa barsiisaaf yoroo kennitu rakkowwan si qunnaman maal
faa?
9. tooftaalee barnoota itti qajeeljituu maal faa?

110
 APPENDIX B-2
Haramaya University
College of Education and Behavioral Science
Department of Educational Planning and Management
An Interview Question for Supervisors

Section 1: Personal Information

1. Name of the school ……………………… Woreda /city…………………….

2. Sex: A. Male □ B. Female □
3. Age: A. 20-25 □ B. 26-30 □ C. 31-35 □ D.36-40 □ E. 41 and above □
4. Level of educational or qualification:
A. Diploma □ B. B.A/BED/BSc Degree □ C. M.A/MSc Degree □
5. Area of specialization or field of study:
A. Subject Major □ B. EDPM/ Pedagogical Science □ C. Other □
6. Total work experience or service year:
A. under 5 years □ B.6-10 □ C.11-15 □ D.16-20 □ E.21 years above □
7. Service year in current position:
A. under 5 years □ B.6-10 years □ C.11years and above □

Section 2: Interview Guide Questions

1. What are the major challenges that school leaders face during their leader ship?
2. To what extent leadership practice contributed in your school??
3. To what extent you are focusing on instructional issues while giving supervisory support?
4. Do you think that principals effectively undertake their instructional leadership roles? If no,
what factors influence their effectiveness?
5. How do you evaluate the professional skill development practice in schools?
6. How often do you discuss on the teaching-learning process with teachers and school
leaders?
7. How do you monitor the teachers’ progress during teaching-learning activities?
8. What are the obstacles you have met while you are giving instructions to teachers?
9. How systematic are you in giving instructions (what is the procedure of giving
instructions)?

111
 Haramaya University
College of Education and Behavioral Science
Department of Educational Planning and Management
Check List for Document Analysis

1. Do have stated own vision and mission of your school?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
2. Does the schools have school improvement program plan?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
3. Do you have the written report documents on the implement of school improvement
program?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

4. Do you have self assessment of school improvement program documents and data?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.

112
 APROVAL SHEET

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM DIROCTORATE

Instructional Leadership practice and challenges in Secondary School of

West Harerghe Oromia regional state

Submitted by:

________________________ ____________________ _____________________

Name of Student Signature Date

Approved by:

_______________________ ____________________ _____________________

Major Advisor Signature Date

________________________ ____________________ _____________________

Co- Advisor Signature Date

________________________ _____________________ _____________________

Chairman, DGC/SGC Signature Date

________________________ ____________________ _____________________

Dean, SGS Signature Date

113