STAKEHOLDERS PERCEPTION TOWARDS ABOLITION OF RANKING OF STUDENTS AND SCHOOLS IN NATIONAL EXAMINATIONS IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN KENYA: A CASE OF WEST POKOT COUNTY

Joyline Limangura, Lelan Joseph K., Kyalo Benjamin Wambua

Abstract


The government of Kenya abolished ranking among schools in the year 2014, which took effect from the year 2015. This was put in place in order to eliminate cut-throat competition among institutions and to end unethical practices by teachers in the rush for top positions. Abolition of ranking in West Pokot drew different reactions and perspectives from different stakeholders of education. The study examined stakeholders’ perception towards abolition of ranking on students and schools in national examination in Secondary schools in Kenya. The objectives of the study were; to determine stakeholders’ perception on ranking of schools, to determine how ranking of school affected students’ commitment to academic performance, the impact of secondary school ranking on the parental commitment on students’ academic matters and how ranking of schools influenced ministry of education officials and county officials’ commitment to academic activities. The research design adopted in this study was cross sectional descriptive survey. Cluster sampling (probability sampling) and non-probability (purposive sampling) techniques were adopted to determine sample size. Questionnaire and interview guides were employed in data collection. Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics (chi-square) were adopted for quantitative data analysis. Qualitative data were categorized and analysed according to themes. Theoretical framework was based and guided by Talcott Persons Structural Functionalism Theory. In the conceptual framework, the independent variable in this research is the stakeholders’ perception, while the dependent is the result of abolition. Findings from the study indicated that abolition of ranking had a lot of negative outcomes compared to positive effects and the decision be reverted for better results in our schools. The study concluded that, ranking motivates teachers to cover syllabus, change institutional practices, makes them focus their teaching activities towards examination neglecting other aspects of education but has no impact on their self-esteem. It also encourages completion among departments but can lead to unhealthy competition among different categories of schools. However, ranking leads to narrowing of curriculum and encourage malpractices in national examination. On students’ commitment on academic performance, ranking acts as motivating factor to performing students but might destroy morale to underperforming ones. Students however become less concerned with performance when ranking is abolished. Abolition of ranking influences parents to buy extra teaching and learning materials. It also impacts negatively on parental involvement on school academic programs but does not influence parental support for homework. Abolition of ranking impacts negatively on ministry of education officials’ commitment of academic matters at it affects their involvement in issues like resource allocations. The study recommends that; the decision of abolishing of ranking by government should be reverted or should be practiced by schools at different levels, it should also be done continuously throughout the academic year to get trends of performance and schools should provide psychological support to all students’ especially underperforming ones. Education stakeholders should define measures to curb malpractices in examination among students and students and not to just abolish ranking.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

Keywords


ranking, examinations, performance, perception, abolition

References


Amunga J., Maurice A., and Maiyo K. (2010); Ranking of schools and students in National Examinations: The perception of teacher and students; Problems of education in the 21st century journal, volume 20, 2010.

Andy, F. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Brown G., Gardner, J., Oswald, A. and Qian, J. (2008). Does Wage Rank Affect Employee’s Well-being? Industrial Relations, 47(3), pp. 355-389.

Burgess, S., Propper, C. & Wilson D. (2002). Will more choice improve outcomes in education and Health care? Evidence from Economic Research. Bristol.

Bray, M. (2003). Adverse effects of private supplementary tutoring: Dimensions, Implications and Government Responses. Paris: UNESCO.

Burgess, S., Propper, C. & Wilson D. (2002). Will more choice improve outcomes in education and Health care? Evidence from Economic Research. Bristol.

Chapman, D. W. & Synder, C. W. (2000). Can High Stakes National Testing Improve Instruction? Re-examining Conventional Wisdom. International Journal of Educational Development 20, 457–474.

Card, D., Mas, M., Moretti, E., and Saez, E. (2012). Inequality at Work: The Effect of Peer Salaries on Job Satisfaction, American Economic Review, 102(6), pp.2981-3003.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A single guide and reference 11.0 update (4th). Boston, Allyn & Bacon.

Hickman, J., Hen¬rick, C. J. & Smith, J. (2002). The Performance of Performance Standards.

Journal of Human Resources, 37(4), 778–881. Institu¬te of Policy Analysis and Research (IPAR, 2004). The sociology of Private Tuition, 10 (7).

International Journal of Educational Development 21, 361–374. Board of Studies; NSW (2008).

Studying for New South Wales Higher School Certificate: An Information Booklet

for Year 10 students. Sydney: Board of Studies; NSW.

Kellaghan, T. and Gre¬aney, V. (2001 b).Using Assessment to Improve the Quality of Education, 929. Paris: In¬ternational Institute for Educational Planning.

Kerlinger, F. N. (2004). Foundation of Behaviour Research; New Delhi: Sarbjeet Publications.

Mugenda, O.M. and Mugenda A.G. (1999). Research Methods: Nairobi: Kenya, Act press.

Marenya, G. (2007, March 13). Needed is an Education System that Rewards and Values all. The Daily Nation, p. 6.

McMakin, R. (2000). Competition, Parental Involvement and Public School Performance. Toronto: National Tax Association Proce¬e¬dings.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejsss.v0i0.179

Copyright (c) 2018 Joyline Limangura, Lelan Joseph K., Kyalo Benjamin Wambua

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The research works published in this journal are free to be accessed. They can be shared (copied and redistributed in any medium or format) and\or adapted (remixed, transformed, and built upon the material for any purpose, commercially and\or not commercially) under the following terms: attribution (appropriate credit must be given indicating original authors, research work name and publication name mentioning if changes were made) and without adding additional restrictions (without restricting others from doing anything the actual license permits). Authors retain the full copyright of their published research works and cannot revoke these freedoms as long as the license terms are followed.

Copyright © 2015 - 2018. European Journal Of Social Sciences Studies (ISSN 2501-8590) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library. All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and standards formulated by Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003) and  Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Copyrights of the published research works are retained by authors.


 

Hit counter