Perception of Head Teachers about current practices of Monitoring and Evaluation at the Public Secondary School Level in District Nawabshah
Keywords:
Monitoring, Evaluation, Perception, current Practices and Secondary SchoolAbstract
The objective of the study was to know the perceptions of head teachers about the current practices of monitoring and evaluation at the Public Secondary school level in District Nawabshah. This was a quantitative study. The nature of the study was descriptive type and survey method. This population consists of Head teachers, DEOs, and Regional Director of the Public Secondary School Level of 91 Public Secondary Schools in District Nawabshah. There are a total of 27 girls’. 27 boys’ and 38 mixed Public secondary schools in Nawabshah. Pilot testing was conducted in 10 out of 91 Public Secondary schools. A research instrument was the questionnaire. The study's most crucial component is the tool creation process. To build the instrument, professionals were contacted throughout the process, and pertinent literature and earlier studies were examined. The questionnaire is employed as a data gathering instrument. A five-point rating scale such as strongly agree, disagree, not sure, agree and strongly disagree was used for data collection. It was refined through consultation with field experts and pilot testing by head teachers at secondary schools. The reliability of these tools was calculated using SPSS. After finalization and pilot testing, the questionnaire was distributed to the respondents for data collection. Questionnaires were presented to the respondents by TCS, online, and face-to-face meeting by the researcher. The questionnaire was investigated for errors and omissions, ambiguity, and relevance. Reliability was calculated by SPSS (version, 24) using Cronbach's alpha. Data gained using questionnaires and observations were interpreted and analyzed by applying chi-square, percentage, and mean.
References
Monitoring and Evaluation of Universal Education for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Sindh September 2020 Malik Mehmood Abdul Hafeez Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Institute of Science and Technology
Bashagi, W. (2000). Rufiji Environment Management Project Environmental Management and Biodiversity Conservation of the forest, woodlands and Wetlands of the Rufiji Delta and Floodplain. Report on the Design of Monitoring and Evaluation
Samera Batao Ibay1 & Mark Anthony Cenas Pa-alisbo1. (2020). An Assessment of the Managerial Skills and Professional Development Needs of Private Catholic Secondary School Administrators in Bangkok, Thailand. World Journal of Education, 10(1), 149. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v10n1p149Shad, D.2009). Monitoring the Quality of Secondary Education in Context of Decentralization in Pakistan. Lahore: Bulletin of Education and Research, 31(1), 1-25.
Shami, P. (2009). Educational Leadership and Institutional Management. Islamabad: Islamabad: AEPM, MOE.UNDP. (2009). Planning Monitoring and Evaluation for development results. United States of America.
World: Why is education essential for development”. Washington, D.C. CGD. EFAGMR (The Education For
All Global Monitoring Report team) (2013) “Proposed post-2015 education goals: Emphasizing equity, measurability, and finance” Paris: UNESCO.
The Society for the Advancement of Education (SAHE), (2014). “Education Monitor: Reviewing the quality of key education inputs in Pakistan”. Accessed from: www.sahe.org.pk/images/Education_Monitor.pdf Teacher’s Resource Center (TRC), (2004). “A story of school improvement”. Accessed from: http://trconline.org/category/research-studies
Wertheim, E. (2007) Historical Background of Organizational Behavior. http://we.cba.neu.edu/ewerteim/introd/history. HTML.# Theory. Accessed on 6th February,2015.
Walter and Yallow (1996) Impact of inspection and Supervision on quality of services given by School Managers, New York: McGraw-Hill.
ABD, World Bank. (2004). Devolution in Pakistan - an assessment and recommendation for action.
. Abu-Duhou, I. (1999). School-Based Management. Paris: UNESCO. International Institute for Educational Planning.
Ahmad, E. (2018). Local service provision in selected OECD countries: Do decentralized operations work better? IMP Working Paper (WP/08/67). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
. Brauckmann, A. and Pashiardis, B., (2019). Decision-Making Process in the Decentralized Educational System’ Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 37–42.
. Borman, G., Hewes, G., Overman, L., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125.
. O'Mahon, K. M., & Garavan, S. R. (2012). Finding, supporting, and keeping the role of the principal in the teacher. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 8(1), 37 -63.
