An Evaluative Study of Decentralization Practices of Head Teachers in District Kech Balochistan
Keywords:Decentralization Practices, Evaluative Study, Head Teacher, Quantitative Research
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the decentralization practices of head teacher at District Kech Balochistan. The nature of the study was quantitative and survey type. The population is comprised of 78 of which 45 Boys and 30 Girls’ Secondary Schools, DEO Male, DOE Female and Divisional Director School. There are total 78 Girls and Boys Secondary School in Kech. Pilot testing was done in 10 schools out of 78. Questionnaire was used as research tool. The questionnaire was comprised of closed-ended questions. The reliability of these tools were calculated through SPSS (Version, 22). After finalizing and pilot testing, the questionnaire was distributed to the respondent for collecting data. The questionnaires were served through postage, email by hand in face-to-face meeting by the researcher to the respondent. The questionnaire was scrutinized for errors and omission, ambiguity and relevance. The reliability was calculated through SPSS (Version, 22). After finalizing and pilot testing from 10 head teachers out of 75, the questionnaire were distributed among respondents for collecting data. After their feedback and views, questionnaires were improved. The data were obtained through questionnaires and analyzed by using, Chi square, percentage and mean.
Ahmad, E., Brosio, G., & Tanzi, V. (2008). Local service provision in selected OECD countries: Do decentralized operations work better? IMP Working Paper (WP/08/67). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund
Androniceanu, A. and Ristea, B., (2014). Decision Making Process in the Decentralized Educational System’ Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 37–42.
Busemeyer, M. (2012). Two decades of decentralization in education governance: Lessons learned and future outlook for local stakeholders. Presentation delivered at the OECD Conference ‘Effective local governance in education’, in Warsaw, 16April 2012.
Brown, K. M., & Wynn, S. R. (2009). Finding, supporting, and keeping the role of the principal in teacher. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), 37 -63.
Cheema, A., A. I. Khwaja & A. Qadir. (2005). Decentralization in Pakistan: Context, Content and Causes. Kennedy School Working Paper Number: RWP05-034.
Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading Schools in Times of Change: Buckingham. Open University Press.
Eskeland, G., & D. Filmer. (2002). Does Decentralization Improve Learning? Autonomy and Parental Participation in Argentine Schools.” Washington, D.C: The World Bank.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School organization, 30(2), 95-110.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Journal of educational administration, 462.
Khaki, J. A. (2009). Effective school leadership practices: Case studies from Pakistan. In J. A., Khaki, & Q.
Khaki, J. A. (2010). Leading Leaders: A school leadership development experience in Pakistan. The S.U. Jour. of Ed. Vol. XXXVIII, 18-32.
Kristiansen, S., & Pratikno, S. (2006). Decentralizing education in Indonesia. International Journal of Educational Development, 26(5), 513–531.
Menon, B., Mutero, J., & Macharia, S. (2008). Decentralization and local governments in Kenya. International Studies Programme working paper 08-32. Georgia State University, Atlanta.
Shah, A. Thompson, T. (2004). Implementing Decentralization Local Governance: A Treacherous Road with Potholes, Detour and Road Closures. World Bank Policy Research Working paper 3353.
Steiner, S. (2007). decentralization and poverty reduction: a conceptual framework for the economic impact- Breaking down the link between decentralization and poverty reduction, GIGA Deutsches Orient-Institut / GIGA German Institute for Middle East Studies, 2007.