STREET LEVEL BUREAUCRACY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF FREE PRIMARY EDUCATION POLICY IN PUBLIC PRIMARY SCHOOLS IN EMBU COUNTY, KENYA
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of street-level bureaucracy on the implementation of free primary education policy in Embu County, Kenya. The study used explanatory research design. The target population for the study was 389 education stakeholders, namely; 384 head teachers, 1 Embu County Director of Education and 4 Sub Counties Directors of Education. The study used census and simple random sampling techniques to select 120 respondents to participate in the study. Questionnaires and interview schedules were used to collect quantitative and qualitative data respectively. The researcher used content experts to establish the validity of the instruments while Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.7 was used to establish the reliability of the questionnaires. The researcher used SPSS version (21.0) to organize quantitative data which then was analyzed using descriptive statistics, namely; percentages, frequencies, mean and standard deviation while multiple regression analysis was used to answer the research questions. Data was presented in tables, bar graphs and pie-charts. The study found that teacher autonomy, financial facilitation, coping mechanism and teaching methods had a positive significant influence on the implementation of FPE policy in Embu County, Kenya. The study found that teacher autonomy empowers teachers, supporting their work satisfaction and professionalism. The text books and other learning materials were adequate. The school was free from both internal and external wrangles, gender stereotype roles within the community affects the uptake of education in my school and teachers work to accommodate each students’ needs, allowing for individual personal growth and discovery amidst collaboration with others. The study concluded that teacher support for autonomy is critical for augmenting appropriate outcomes, and it is deemed as a strong predictor of learners’ particular resources along with their motivational styles and educational achievement. Allocation of funds affected the implementation of the FPE as the amount allocated by the government was not adequate. The major copping mechanism in the implementation of free primary education included hiring of extra teachers paid by parents through school management committees. Proper application of teaching methods helps students achieve their learning goals, increases student engagement in the classroom.
References
Fullan, M. (2015), The NEW meaning of educational change, Teachers College Press, New York.
GoK. (2005). Kenya: Consultative Group Meeting: Joint Donor Statement on Education. Nairobi: Government Printer.
Kadzamira, E., & Rose, P. (2003). Can free primary education meet the needs of the poor? Evidence from Malawi. International Journal of Educational Development, 23, 501-516.
Keller, S. and C. Price (2011), Beyond performance: how great organizations build ultimate competitive advantage, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Kotter, J. (1995), Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail, http://www.gsbcolorado.org/uploads/general/PreSessionReadingLeadingChange-John_Kotter.pdf
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russel Sage.
MOEST. (2003). Report of the Education Sector Review: Ministry of Education. Nairobi: Government Printer.
Mulama, J. (2003). Education-Kenya: Too Much Too Soon? Nairobi: Inter Press Service.
Ngware, M. W., Oketch, M., Ezeh, A. C., & Mudege, N. N. (2009). Do household characteristics matter in schooling decisions in urban Kenya? Equal Opportunities International, 28, 591-608.
Ngware, M. W., Oketch, M., Mutisya, M., & Kodzi, I. (2010). Does teaching style explain differences in learner achievement in low and high performing schools in Kenya? (Working Paper No. 44). Nairobi, Kenya: APHRC.
OECD (2015), Education policy outlook 2015: making reforms happen., OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264225442-en.
Ohba, A. (2009). Does free secondary education enable the poor to gain access? A study from rural Kenya. (Create Pathways to Access, Research Monograph No. 21). Retrieved from http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/PDF/Outputs/ImpAccess_RPC/PTA21.pdf
Oketch, M., Mutisya, M., Ngware, M., & Ezeh, A. C. (2010). Why are there proportionately more poor pupils enrolled in non-state schools in urban Kenya in spite of FPE policy? International Journal of Educational Development, 30, 23-32.
Orodho, A.J. (2009). Elements of Education and Social Science Research Methods: Maseno, Kenya:
Psacharopoulos, G., &Woodhall, M. (1985). Education for Development. An Analysis of Investment
Republic of Kenya 2010b). Child friendly Schools Manual. Ministry of Education. Nairobi.
Republic of Kenya/UNICEF (2012). Education for All (EFA) End of Decade Assessment (2001-2010).
Rice, D., (2013). Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Welfare State: Toward a Micro-Institutionalist Theory of Policy Implementation. Administration & Society, 45(9), pp.1038–1062.
Sifuna, D. N. (2004). Increasing Access and Participation of Pastoralist Communities in Primary Education in Kenya. International Review of Education, 51(5), pp. 499-516.
UNESCO. (2005). Progress for Children. A Report Card on Gender Parity and Primary Education, Number 2. Nairobi: UNESCO
Watkins, K., Al-Samarrai, S., Bella, N., Benavot, A., Boua Liebnitz, P. M. B., Buonomo, M., Varin, S. (2008).EFA global monitoring report: Education for all, 2009.UNESCO. Retrieved fromhttp://www.iemed.org/recursoscompartits/pdfs/Informe%20Seguimiento%20UNESCO%202009%20EN.pdf
World Bank. (2004): World development indicators 2004. /www.worldbank.org.