Educational Research (ISSN: 2141-5161) Vol. 2(7) pp. 1281-1298 July 2011
Available online@http://www.interesjournals.org/ER
Copyright © 2011 International Research Journals
Department of Educational Management and Foundations, Maseno University
Accepted 05 July, 2011
The Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards is charged with the responsibility of improving and maintaining the quality of education in Kakamega central district. However, since 2003 Kenya
Certificate of Secondary Education examination analysis in Kakamega central district has continued to indicate that the quality of education is low with most schools showing stagnant or downward trends. The purpose of this study was to investigate the opportunities and challenges for the
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards in its endeavor to ensure quality education in secondary school education in Kakamega central district. This study was based on a conceptual framework showing opportunities and challenges for the Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards in the enhancement of quality education in secondary education. This study used descriptive survey design. The study population consisted of one District Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer, 33 Head teachers and 330 Heads of departments. Face validity of the instruments was ascertained by experts in the Department of Educational Management and Foundations at
Maseno University. Reliability of the instruments was established through piloting in three schools that were not part of the study sample. Quantitative data obtained from closed ended questionnaire items was analyzed using descriptive statistics in the form of percentages and frequency counts.
Qualitative data obtained from open ended questions in the questionnaires, in-depth interviews and document analysis guide was analyzed on an ongoing process as themes and sub themes emerged.
The study established that only 12 (40%) schools were assessed between 2005 and 2009. The
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards had many opportunities such as financial records and observation of teachers in class to enhance quality education. The challenges faced in enhancing quality education included lack of co-operation from some teachers and incidents of unavailability of finance records. The study concluded that schools were not assessed as many times as required although the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards had many opportunities. Many challenges were faced in the process of assessing schools and the coping strategies included adherence to professional ethics. The study recommended that schools should be assessed at least once in every three years. The findings of this study will be useful to education policy makers, planners, Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards, and school administrators in promoting the quality of education.
Keywords: Quality education, secondary schools, challenges, opportunities, strategies Kakamega central district, Kenya.
INTRODUCTION
At independence in 1963, the Kenya government recognized education as a basic human right and a
*Corresponding Author E-mail: simatwae@yahoo.com
powerful tool for human resource and national development. Since then, policy documents have reiterated the importance of education in eliminating poverty, disease and ignorance (Republic of Kenya,
1964). Ministry of Education (2005) states that the

1282 Educ. Res. government is fully committed to an education system that guarantees the right of every learner to quality and relevant education. However in most countries there is a feeling that the rapid expansion if not mass production of education has led to the deterioration of quality.
Chapman and Carrier (1990) emphasized that particular attention should be given to the issues concerning educational quality and improvement strategies in the developing world. It is in this light that the Ministry of
Education deemed it necessary to improve its inspection wing by restructuring it and changing its name from The
Inspectorate in 2004 to the Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards (Ministry of Education Science and Technology, 2004). In the restructuring there was the creation of the Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards at the National, provincial, district and divisional levels. At all levels the incumbent Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards constitutes the
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards for school quality and standards assessment. At school level principals and deputy principals are the designated internal quality assurance officers and at departmental level the heads of departments are the designated quality assurance and standards officers (Ministry of Education
Science and Technology, 2004). School prefects are mandated to assist school administrators in carrying out duties and responsibilities that enhance quality of education in Kenya. These duties and responsibilities include supervision of curricular activities such as preps and co- curricular activities such as drama, music and subject based clubs (Ministry of Education, 1979). The functions of Quality Assurance and Standards Officers include having regular reporting on the general quality of education, identifying educational institutional needs for improvement, ensuring that quality teaching is taking place in the institutions, monitoring the performance of teachers and educational institutions in accordance with all round standard performance indicators, ensuring equitable distribution of teachers by working out the curriculum based establishment, carrying out regular assessment of all educational institutions , advising on the provision of proper and adequate facilities in educational institutions, ensuring that the appropriate curriculum is implemented in educational institutions, encouraging a collaborative and corporate approach to educational institutional management among the various stakeholders, and organizing and administering cocurricular activities with a view to developing all round learners (Republic of Kenya, 1980 & Wasanga, 2004).
Since the inception of the Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards in Kakamega Central District the desired quality results were yet to be achieved as indicated by Kenya Certificate of Secondary Examination analysis. Thus the mean grades were 4.552 (C Minus) in
2003, 5.0335 (C plain) in 2004, 4.6751 (C minus) in 2005,
4.4556 (D plus) in 2006 and 4.4477 (D plus) in 2007
(District Education Officer’s Office Kakamega Central
District, 2007). The Ministry of Education Science and
Technology report (2004) also indicated that performance in the District was wanting. It observed that most of the schools had shown stagnant or downward trends over the years (Ministry of Education Science and Technology,
2004). Therefore there was a need to conduct a study on the opportunities, challenges and strategies for quality assurance and standards in Kakamega Central District.
Research Questions
1.
What is the frequency of the various types of assessment carried out by the Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer when they visit schools in Kakamega
Central District?
2.
What opportunities and challenges are available for quality assurance and standards officers in the enhancement of curriculum implementation in secondary schools in Kakamea Central district?
3.
What challenges do quality assurance and standards officers face in the enhancement of prefects body involvement in management of secondary schools in
Kakamega Central District?
4.
What opportunities and challenges do the quality assurance and standards officers face in the process of ensuring prudent management of secondary school finances in Kakamega Central District?
5.
What are the coping strategies for the challenges faced by the directorate of quality assurance and standards in the enhancement of quality education in
Kakamega Central District?
Conceptual Framework
It is apparent that several interrelated factors including frequency of assessment, quality of assessment, curriculum implementation, and financial management influence the quality of education in secondary schools.
The availability, utilization and sufficiency of these variables presented challenges and opportunities to the directorate of quality assurance and standards in its attempt to ensure that quality education was provided in secondary schools in Kakamega Central District. The relationship between quality education (dependant variable) and frequency of assessment, quality of assessment, curriculum implementation and financial management (independent variables) are as indicated in figure 1.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards is charged with the responsibility of improving and maintaining the quality of education in Kakamega Central

Watsulu and Simatwa 1283
Curriculum implementation:
Opportunities
-Visits schools
-Meet stakeholders
Challenges
-Lack of effective communication
-Lack of administrator’s support
-Negative attitude
-Limited time
Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards
Quality Education
Assurance in Secondary
Schools:
•
High discipline
• Sound financial management
• Optimum curriculum implementation
•
Good administration
Types and
Frequency of assessment:
Types
-Panel assessment
-Mass assessment
-Follow up assessment
Frequency
- How often
Prefects’ body involvement:
Opportunities
Establishment of prefects
Job descriptions
Challenges
Apprehension
Lack of time
Execution of unpopular rules
Lack of cooperation
Financial Management:
Opportunities
Presence financial records
Qualified bursars and accounts clerks
Good administration
Challenges
Limited staff
Limited time for supervision
Quality assessment:
Opportunities
-Qualified staff
-Time
-Adequate staff
Challenges
-Inadequate budgetary allocation
-Lack of time
Figure 1: Conceptual framework showing the Headteachers, Heads of Departments and the
District Quality Assurance and standards face in the enhancement of Quality Secondary
Education
District. However, since 2003 Kenya Certificate of
Secondary Education examination analysis in Kakamega
Central District has continued to indicate that the quality of education is low with most schools showing stagnant or downward trends. The purpose of this study was to investigate the opportunities and challenges for the
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards in its endeavor to ensure quality education in secondary school education in Kakamega Central District. The objectives of the study were to: establish the types and frequency of the various types of schools standards assessments carried out by the Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards in enhancement of quality education; find out the opportunities and challenges for the Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards in enhancement of curriculum implementation; investigate challenges for
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards in prefects involvement in management in schools; find out the opportunities and challenges for Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards in ensuring prudent financial management in providing quality education and find out the coping strategies for the challenges faced by
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards in its endeavor to enhance quality education in Kakamega
Central District. This study was based on a conceptual framework showing opportunities and challenges for the
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards in the enhancement of quality education in secondary education. This study used descriptive survey design.
The study population consisted of one District Quality
Assurance and Standards Officer, 33 Head teachers and
330 Heads of departments. Saturated sampling technique was used to select one Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards officer, 30 head teachers and
300 heads of departments. Questionnaires, in- depth interviews, and document analysis guide were used to collect data. Face validity of the instruments was ascertained by experts in the Department of Educational
Management and Foundations at Maseno University.
Reliability of the instruments was established through piloting in three schools that were not part of the study sample. Quantitative data obtained from closed ended questionnaire items was analyzed using descriptive statistics in form of percentages and frequency counts.
Qualitative data obtained from open ended questions in the questionnaires, in-depth interviews and document analysis guide was analyzed on an ongoing process as themes and sub themes emerged.
RESULTS
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
The respondents in this study included the Headteachers,
Heads of Departments and the District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer whose demographic characteristics were as shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Twenty one (70%) were male headteachers while 9
(30%) were female headteachers. Most of the headteachers, that is, 22 (73.3%) had B.ED degree certificates and 5 (16.7%) had M.ED certificates and 3
(10%) were ATS. In terms of experience most headteachers, 19 (63.3%) had an experience of less than
5 years, 5(26.7%) had an experience of 6 to 10 years and
3 (10%) had an experience of more than 11 years. This

1284 Educ. Res.
Table 1: Gender, Professional Qualifications and Headship Experience as indicated by Headteachers (n=30)
Demographic characteristics Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
Gender
Male
Female
Professional Qualifications
ATS
21
9
3
70.0
30.0
10.0
B.ED
M.ED
Headship experience
0-5 years
6-10 years
11 and above
22
5
19
5
3
73.3
16.7
63.3
26.7
10.0
KEY: ATS – Approved Teachers Status, BED -Bachelor of Education, MED -
Master of Education
Table 2: Gender, Professional Qualifications, Teaching Experience, and Nature of Appointment of Heads of Departments as indicated by Heads of Departments (n=300)
Demographic characteristics Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
Gender
Male 196 65.3
Female 104 34.7
Professional Qualifications
B.ED 229 76.3
Dip. ED 37 12.3
M.ED 18 6.0
ATS 15 5.0
No professional qualification
UT(KCSE) 1 0.3
Teachers experience
0-5 years 49 16.3
6-10 years 51 17.0
11 and above years 200 66.7
Nature of appointment as head of department
T.S.C appointment 142 47.3
School appointment 139 46.3
Voluntary 19 6.3
KEY: ATS - Approved Teachers Status, BED -Bachelor of Education, Dip. ED - Diploma in Education, UT - Untrained teacher, MED - Master of Education, KCSE - Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education, T.S.C Teachers Service
Commission implied that most head teachers were not highly experienced.
One hundred and ninety-six (65.3%) of the heads of departments were male and 104 (34.7%) were female.
Most Heads of departments were Bachelor of Education degree holders, that is, 229 (76.3%), 37 (12.3%) Diploma in Education holders, 18(6.0%) were Master in Education degree holders, 15(5.0%) were Approved Teachers
Status and 1(0.3%) Kenya Certificate of Secondary
Education holder was not a qualified teacher. Most heads of departments 200(66.7%) had a teaching experience of
11 years and above 51(17.5%) had a teaching experience of 6 to 10 years and 49(16.3%) and a teaching experience of below 5 years. In terms of appointments as heads of departments, 142(47.3%) were
Teachers service Commission appointees 139(46.3%) were school appointees and 19(6.3%) and volunteered to head departments.
From Table 2 majority of head of departments were male showing a gender imbalance. In terms of

Watsulu and Simatwa 1285
Table 3: Types and Frequency of various Types of Schools Standards Assessment for Quality Assurance and
Standards between School 2005-2009 as indicated by Headteachers (n=30)
Types of standards Assessment Frequency (F) Number of schools Percentage (%)
Panel
Panel
Educational Institutions registration
Educational Institutions registration
Subject based
Subject based
Mass
Block
Block
Block
Follow-up
Follow-up
Follow-up
Twice
Thrice professional qualifications, majority were first Degree holders, meaning they were highly qualified to provide quality education in secondary schools. Most of the heads of departments had higher teaching experience which implied that they were better placed to provide better instructional leadership that could yield high quality secondary school education in the district. Most heads of departments were not Teachers Service Commission appointees because most schools are relatively young with small enrolments that called for fewer Teachers
Service Commission head of department appointments.
The District Quality Assurance and Standards Officer had served in the district for less than two years and had less teaching experience than most heads of departments. Notwithstanding his short teaching experience, was well versed in matters of schools standards assessment as stipulated in the guidelines.
A notable demographic characteristic of headteachers in Kakamega Central District was that headteachers had generally less headship experiences. Most heads of departments had high teaching experience. This implies that unless the headteachers were assertive and well inserviced they could easily suffer from inferiority complex. This could make them less effective in providing instructional leadership that is vital in the enhancement of quality secondary education because they were managing well experienced heads of departments.
The other notable demographic characteristic was the gender imbalance. The academic leadership was male dominated. Generally, male dominated leadership is characterized by dictatorship. This autocratic leadership enhances quality of education in situations where the leaders are benevolent autocrats. Nevertheless, it was generally observed that there were very little elements of benevolences in autocratic instructional leadership.
Apathy was visible in a number of schools as was inferred from the teachers’ reaction and actions during once
Twice
Once
Twice
Once
Twice
Once
Once
Twice
Four times
Once
2
4
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
6
10
2
7
6.6
13.2
3.3
10
3.3
3.3
33.3
6.6
23.3
3.3
10
10
20 the period of data collection.
Question 1: What is the frequency of the various types of assessment carried out by the Quality assurance and standards officers when they visit schools in Kakamega Central District?
The responses to these research question were as shown in Table 3.
From Table 3 for school year period 2005-2009 only a few schools had been assessed. Thus in the school year period of five years, panel assessment had been carried out once in 10 (33.3%) schools and twice in 2 (6.6%) schools; education institutions registration assessment had been carried out once in 7 (23.3%) schools and twice in (3.3%) in one school; subjects based assessment had been carried out once in 3 (10%) schools and twice in
3(10%) schools; mass assessment had been carried out once in 6 (20%) in schools: block assessment had been carried out once in 2 (6.6%) schools, twice in 4 (13.2%) schools and four times in 1 (3.3%) school; follow-up assessment had been carried out once in 3 (10%) schools, twice in one (3.3.%) school and thrice (3.3%) in one school.
Question 2: What opportunities and challenges are available for Quality Assurance and Standards
Officers in the enhancement of curriculum implementation in secondary schools in Kakamega
Central District?
Headteachers and Heads of Departments were asked to indicate and explain the opportunities and challenges the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards faced in the enhancement of curriculum implementation.

1286 Educ. Res.
Table 4: Opportunities for Quality Assurance and Standards Officers in
Enhancement of Curriculum Implementation as indicated by Headteachers
(n=30) and Heads of Departments (n=300).
Opportunities Headteachers
F % F
HOD
%
Observation of teachers in class 25
Scrutiny of lesson plans 30
Scrutiny of Schemes of work
Evaluation of records
29
30
Finance records
Previous Assessment Reports
Admission Records
Administration facilities
30
30
30
30
Tuition Facilities and resources 30
Boarding Facilities 15
School Routine
Teaching Time Table
20
30
83.3
100
96.6
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
66.6
100
290 96.6
300 100
280 93.3
300 100
300 100
280 100
300 100
300 100
300 100
200 66.6
190 63.3
2 66.6
Support Staff records 20 66.6 150 50
KEY: HOD- Head of Department, F- Frequency , %- Percentage
Table 5: Challenges for Quality Assurance and Standards in enhancement of Curriculum Implementation as indicated by Headteachers (n=30) and Heads of Departments (n=300).
Challenges
Their responses were as shown in Tables 4 and 5.
As indicated in Table 4, it was found out that
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards had a number of opportunities to enhance curriculum implementation in Kakamega Central District.
Observations of teachers in class were indicated by 25
(83.3%) headteachers and 290 (96.6%) heads of departments; scrutiny of lesson plans by 30 (100%) headteachers and 300 (100%)heads of departments; scrutiny of schemes of work by 290 (96.6%) headteachers and 280 (93.3%) heads of departments;
Evaluation of records, finance records, Admission records finance records, Administration facilities and
Tuition facilities and resources by 30 (100%) headteachers and 300 (100%) headteachers and 280
(93.3%) heads of departments; Boarding facilities by 15
(100%) headteachers and 200 (66.6%)heads of departments; school routine by 20 (66.6%) headteachers and 190 (63.3%) heads of departments; teaching time table by 30 (100%) headteachers and 200(66.6%) heads
Headteachers
F %
Delay in providing feedback
Lack of follow-up
Ineffective regulations governing operations of Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards
30
30
Inadequate Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards Staff 30
Lack of vehicles for transport 28
25
Negative attitudes Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards personnel towards schools standards assessment 20
100
100
100
93.3
83.3
66.6
F
HOD
%
300 100
300 100
300 100
100 33.3
150 50
190 63.3 of departments and support staff records by 20(66.6%) headteachers and150 (50%) heads of departments.
As indicated in Table 5, it was found out that
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards had challenges that it faced in its endeavors in the enhancement of curriculum implementation in Kakamega
Central District. These challenges included; Lack of cooperation from teachers as was cited by 25 (83.3%) headteachers and 200 (66.6%) heads of departments; unavailability of lesson plans was noted by 28(93.3%) headteachers and 280(93.3%) heads of departments; inadequate time for all aspects of assessment by 30
(100%) headteachers and 290 (96.6%)heads of departments, unproductive discussions with teachers during assessment by 25 (83.3%) headteachers and
250(83.3%) heads of departments, poor infrastructure inhibiting mobility by 28(93.3%) headteachers and 280
(93.3%) heads of departments; setting targets by 28
(93.3%) headteachers and 290 (96.6%) heads of departments; delay in providing feedback by 30 (100%)

Watsulu and Simatwa 1287
Table 6: Challenges faced by Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards in its endeavors to enhance Prefects Body involvement in Management of Secondary Schools as indicated by
Headteachers (n=30) and Heads of Departments (n=300)
Challenge Headteachers
F % F
HOD
%
Apprehension of prefects 25
Lack of co-operation from school administration 28
83.3
93.3
280 93.3
150 50
Ceiling effect 20 66.6 100 33.3
KEY: HOD- Head of Department, F- Frequency, %- Percentage headteachers and 300 (100%) heads of departments; Question 4: What opportunities and challenges do the Quality Assurance and Standards Officers face in lack of follow up by 30 (100%) headteachers and 300
(100%) heads of departments; inadequate Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards staff by 30 (100%) headteachers and 300 (100%) heads of departments; lack of vehicles for transport by 28 (83.3%) headteachers the process of ensuring prudent management of secondary school finances in Kakamega Central
District? and 100 (33.3%) heads of departments; ineffective regulations governing operations of Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards 25 (83.3%) headteachers and
150 (50%) heads of departments; negative attitude by
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards personnel towards schools standards assessments 20
(66.6%) headteachers and 190 (63.3%) heads of departments
Question 3: What challenges do Quality Assurance and Standards Officers face in the enhancement of prefects body involvement in management of secondary schools in Kakamega Central District?
Headteachers and heads of departments were asked to indicate the challenges Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards faced in its endeavors to enhance prefect body involvement in the management of students in secondary schools. Their responses were as shown in
Table 6.
As indicated in Table 6, it was found out that challenges faced by Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards in enhancing prefects body involvement in management of students to enhance quality education included apprehension of prefects cited by 25 (83.3%) headteachers and 280 (93%) heads of departments, lack of co-operation from school administrators cited by 28
(93.3%) headteachers and 150 (50%) heads of departments, ceiling effect was cited by 20(66.6%) headteachers and 100 (33.3%) heads of departments.
The responses to this research question were as shown in Tables 7 and 8.
From Table 8 it can be noted that fees structure was cited by 30 (100%) headteachers and 200(66.6%) Heads of Departments as an opportunity for the Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards to enhance quality education. The other opportunities included annual budget registers by 30 (100%) headteachers and
180(60%) heads of departments; books of accounts by
30 (100%) headteachers and 250(83.3%) heads of departments; audit reports by 30(100%) headteachers and 200(66.6%) heads of departments; trial balances by
30(100%) headteachers and 250 (83.3%) heads of departments; school/bank accounts by 30(100%) headteachers and 180(60%) heads of departments; staff establishment by 25(83.3%) headteachers and
80(26.6%) heads of departments; court cases by10(33.3%) headteachers and 10(3.3%) heads of departments; tender committee by 30(100%) headteachers and 105(35%) heads of departments;
Parents Teachers Association projects by 28(93.3%) headteachers and 90 (30%) heads of departments; stores ledgers by 20 (66.6%) headteachers and 50
(16.6%) heads of departments and income generating projects records by 20(66.6%) headteachers and
80(26.6%) heads of departments.
From Table 9, it can be noted that the Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards faced the following challenges in the process of ensuring prudent management of secondary school finances: lack of time to scrutinize financial documents as cited by 28(93.3%)

1288 Educ. Res.
Table 7: Opportunities for Quality Assurance and Standards in ensuring
Prudent Management of Secondary School Finances as cited by
Headteachers (n=30) and Heads of Departments (n=300)
Opportunity
Fees structure
Annual Budget Registers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fees
Counterfoil receipt books
Postage
Money order
Cheque
Imprest
Telephone
Debtors
Creditors
Rent
•
Commitment
Books of accounts
Audit reports
•
Tuition cash books
•
•
Operation cashbooks
School fund
Trial balances
School/Bank accounts
•
•
Tuition Account
Operation Account
•
School fund account
Staff establishment
Court cases records
Tender committee
PTA projects records
Stores ledger
Income generating projects records
Headteachers
(F) (%)
30
30
100
100
30
30
30
30
25
10
30
28
20
22
20
100
100
100
100
83.3
33.3
100
93.3
66.6
73.3
66.6
KEY: HOD - Head of Department, F- frequency , % - Percentage
HOD
(F) (%)
200 66.6
180 60
250 83.3
200 66.6
250 83.3
180 60
80 26.6
10 3.3
105 35
90 30
50 16.6
40 13.3
80 26.6
Table 9: Challenges for Quality Assurance and Standards in Ensuring Prudent Management of Secondary
School Finances as cited by Headteachers (n=30) Heads of Departments (n=300)
Challenges Headteachers
(F) (%)
Lack of time to scrutinize financial documents 28
Shortage of auditors
Incomplete financial accounting document like payment vouchers
30
93.3
100
Use of unqualified accounts personnel in schools
Delays in submitting books of accounts for auditing and getting feedback
Lack of cooperation from some headteachers
25
20
25
20
83.3
66.6
83.3
66.6
KEY: HOD - Head of Department, F- frequency , % - Percentage
HOD
(F) (%)
100 33.3
80 26.6
20 6.6
202 67.3
10 3.3
30 10

Watsulu and Simatwa 1289
Table 10: Strategies for coping with challenges faced by Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards in its endeavors to enhance the Quality of Secondary Education as indicated by Headteachers (n=30) and heads of departments (n=300)
Strategies Headteachers
(F) (%)
HOD
(F) (%)
Hire more Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards Personnel 30
In service Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards Personnel 20
Review regulations governing operations
Avail adequate transport for Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards personnel
30
30
Change of attitude of Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards 30
100
66.6
100
100
300 100
250 83.3
300 100
300 100
100 300 100
Change of attitude of headteachers and teachers 30 100 300 100
Development of staff capacity building policy 25 83.3 200 66.6
KEY: HOD - Head of Department, F- frequency , % - Percentage headteachers and 100(33.3%)heads of departments; shortage of auditors by 30(100%) headteachers and
80(26.6%) heads of departments; incomplete financial accounting documents by 25(83.3%) headteachers and
20(6.6%) heads of departments; use of unqualified accounts personnel by 20 (66.6%) headteachers and
202(67.3%) heads of departments; delays in submitting books of accounts for auditing by 25(83.3%) headteachers and 10(3.3%) heads of departments; lack of co-operation from some headteachers by20(66.6%) headteachers and 30(10%) heads of departments; delayed reports on audited accounts by 30(100%) headteachers and 10(3.3%) heads of departments.
Question 5: What are the coping strategies for the challenges faced by the Directorate of Quality teachers by30(100%) headteachers and 300(100%) heads of departments; development of staff capacity building policy by 25(83.3%) headteachers and
200(66.6%) heads of departments.
DISCUSSION
Panel assessment involved full diagnostic and situational analysis of the schools. Assessment is an important part of the provision of quality education as it is one of the essential functions for the operation of good schools. The headteachers 12 (39.9%) whose schools had undergone panel assessment explained that the assessments had been carried out with a view to examining the strengths and weaknesses of the schools and suggesting
Assurance and Standards in the enhancement of quality education in Kakamega Central District?
The responses to this question were as shown in Table
10.
As shown in Table 10, the following strategies for interventions that were to be administered for the improvement of educational standards. This finding is consistent with what is laid out in the handbook for inspection of educational Institutions (Republic of Kenya,
2000). They indicated further that the panels usually consisted of the Provincial Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer, Directorate of Quality Assurance and coping with challenges faced by Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards in its endeavors to enhance quality of secondary education were cited; Hire more
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards personnel by 30 (100%) headteachers and 300(100%) heads of departments; inservice Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards Personnel by 20(66.6%) headteachers and 250(83.3%) heads of departments; review regulations governing operations 30(100%) headteachers and 300(100%) heads of departments; avail adequate transport for Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards by 30(100%) headteachers and 300(100%) heads of departments; change of attitude of Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards by
30(100%) headteachers and 300(100%) heads of departments; change of attitude of headteachers and
Standards, Zonal Quality Assurance and Standard Officer and Provincial Auditor from the provincial director of education’s office and district auditor from the district education office. This finding is consistent with the requirement that a good panel should be composed of a team of specialists that is subject specialists, Quality
Assurance Officers, auditors among others (Republic of
Kenya, 2000). It was also noted that notices were not given, hence most headteachers and teachers were caught unawares. Such assessments cannot be more meaningful and moreover were carried out in one day, when the durations should have been at least two days as recommended (Republic of Kenya, 2000). Whereas this is the main type of assessment that should be carried out after every three years, as pointed out by all
30(100%) headteachers during interviews, only 2(6.6%)

1290 Educ. Res. of the headteachers indicated that this condition had been fulfilled, though no secondary school had been assessed three times. Panel assessment can enhance quality education if it is conducted meaningfully. Lack of it may be one of the factors that have affected adversely the quality of secondary school education in Kakamega
Central District as indicated by poor Kenya Certificate of
Secondary Education results for the same school year period 2005-2009.
Educational Institutions Registration Assessments were carried out on the requests of Board of Governor’s through the District Education Board. The headteachers
8(26.4%) whose schools had undergone educational institutions registration assessments indicated that assessment was meant for new schools that sought registration and old schools that required re-registration for change of status. During the interview, Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards pointed out that “most secondary schools in practice change status without seeking re-registration’ they attributed this to the schools’ inability to meet the required standards. This happens unnoticed because the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards is not efficient and effective. Situational analysis based on Kenya Certificate of Secondary
Education. results indicated that laxity in educational institutions registration assessment may be a contributor to poor quality secondary education in Kakamega
Central. Thus some schools which were by registration single streams were found to be double streams or even three streams instead of two streams. Such schools were found to be poorly staffed and lacked the required infrastructure and teaching-learning resource. In fact 10
(33.3%) schools had unofficial boarding status for students who wished to board.
Subject based Assessments are specialized assessments carried out by subject Quality Assurance
Officers in their area of specialization. For the school year period of 2005-2009 only 3 (10%) of the schools had undergone subject based assessment which is vital in curriculum implementation and particularly where performance trends are not impressive. Kakamega
Central District having been one such district with poor performance trend (District Education Officer’s Office
Kakamega Central District, 2007). One of the headteachers asserted during the interview that ‘In fact reflecting on factors that prompt subject based assessment, all schools should have been assessed at least once in the last five school years.’ Mass
Assessment is general assessment whose members are derived from the Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards and other interested parties. Mass
Assessment carried out in the district involved only
6(20%) schools for purposes of school awards including infrastructure improvement funds and Foreign Donations awards. Mass assessment should have been carried in all secondary schools so as to identify objectively needy schools. This would contribute to quality education as school needs would be addressed accordingly.
Block Assessments are useful in sampling standards at district levels. Seven (23.3%) Headteachers whose schools were involved in block assessment emphasized during interviews that it was not of direct benefits to their schools. Notwithstanding the purposes of this type of assessment, these assessments are worthwhile since they provide candid information on factors that affect the quality of education. Follow-up Assessments are carried out as a follow-up of an earlier assessment, usually panel assessment, to determine to what extent recommendations have been implemented. The 5
(16.6%) of the headteachers whose schools had had follow-up assessments done stated that these assessments are undertaken until the schools met the
Ministry of Education’s benchmarks. Indeed, follow-up assessments should be mandatory to enhance the quality of education particularly in districts like Kakamega
Central where most physical facilities in most schools were in a state of dilapidation.
Observation of teachers in class was a vital opportunity for Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards to enhance curriculum implementation. Headteachers and heads of departments explained that it involves observation in class in which case the Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards has a chance to focus on the strengths and weakness of the professionally trained teachers with a view to assisting them on quality lesson presentations. A Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer is expected to observe classes and hold conferences with the teachers about possible ways that may strengthen their teaching. Essentially this is a practical and professional approach to the enhancement of curriculum implementation. Scrutiny of lesson plans by the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards was an important opportunity in the realm of quality curriculum implementation. Headteachers and heads of departments asserted that lesson plans help to guide the teacher in lesson notes preparation in terms of content, delivery skills and the required teaching learning resources for quality education. Quality lesson plans somewhat guarantee quality curriculum implementation and this enhances quality of education as evidenced in high academic achievements by students. Scrutiny of schemes of work was equally an important opportunity for
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards to enhance quality curriculum implementation.
Headteachers and heads of departments explained that
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards can use it to help teachers develop and execute quality outlines in all the subjects. Lesson plans are based on schemes of work and hence quality lesson plans. Teachers find them useful in enhancing good syllabus coverage which is in an indicator of quality education. Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards could use evaluation records by advising teachers on how to use them properly. Hence evaluation of records including quality of tests given,

mode of correction and provision of feedback can enhance provision of quality education in Kakamega
Central District. One of the headteachers during the interview stated that interactive discussions between
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards and teachers on evaluation records can enhance the quality of education in the district. Heads of departments also indicated that evaluation records provide invaluable opportunities for Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards to enhance quality of education.
Headteachers and heads of departments were emphatic on proper financial management records as a vital opportunity for the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards in the enhancement of quality education in
Kakamega Central District. The exercise which includes scrutiny of receipt books, budget, fees structure, stores ledgers and commitment registers was cited by 30(100%)
Head teachers and 300(100%) heads of departments as an exercise carried out during the assessment exercise.
Ministry of Education Science and Technology (2004) underscores this by saying that to enhance quality education the Quality Assurance and Standard Office should set out to ensure efficient management of the financial resources and its contribution to education standards. Headteachers and heads of departments indicated that previous assessment records were invaluable opportunities for the Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards Officers in their endeavors to enhance quality education. It involves scrutiny of previous assessment records noting various recommendations made and ascertaining whether these have been adhered to. In the interview with the Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards it was clear that it helps as a build up on performance and ensures continuity towards achieving quality education. The head teachers interviewed confirmed that these reports were vital for internal benchmarking. However many schools are denied this opportunity as indicated in Table 3 with many schools being visited only once or not at all by the directorate in 5years.Headteachers and heads of departments pointed out those administrative facilities were opportunities for Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards to enhance quality in education. These are physical facilities from which preparation, teaching and evaluation of students work takes place. They include office space and furniture. The Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards agreed that this helps to promote the quality of education, but was quick to add that a number of schools in the district had posted improved results with meager resources. The headteachers reiterated that it was unfair to have a school with all it needs and more to competing with an upcoming school which does not even have offices and staffrooms.
This opportunity was explained by headteachers and heads of departments as one that helps the Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards focus on the presence
Watsulu and Simatwa 1291 and use of relevant facilities that enhance quality of education. Text book ratio should be 1 to 2 to ensure that all students access the books. Classrooms according to government recommendations should be 7m by 9.5m to accommodate 40 students build upwind from the laboratories (Republic of Kenya, 2001). The laboratories should have their double doors opening outward; have fire extinguishers and all buildings painted in bright colors to enhance vision. The pit latrines should be securely constructed at least 60 feet deep, with 7 closets for every
50 students. Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards agreed that this is an opportunity in which guidance to improve quality of education can be given.
These facilities which include the dormitories, abolition block and dinning hall were indicated as opportunities for the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards in the enhancement of quality education. The Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards can use this opportunity to advise on how best these facilities can be used to provide quality education. This finding is consistent with the views of Nero (1995) who states that space and equipment are indicators of a quality school.
School routine was viewed by headteachers and heads of departments as an important opportunity for
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards in the enhancement of quality education. This involves the set routine that indicates what should be done, at what time and by whom. If well blended, class work and co- curricular activities energize the students and improve their level of understanding. This opportunity if well utilized as advised by Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards Officers can help enhance the quality of education in the district. Headteachers and heads of departments indicated that a teaching timetable was an important opportunity for Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards to enhance quality education. The school timetable contains the academic and co-curricular activities carried out in a day. The Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards can use a teaching timetable to advise teachers on how to ensure that lessons start and end at the right time and that timetables are student friendly. Headteachers and heads of departments noted that these records provide an important opportunity for
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards to advice on suitability of support staff in the enhancement of quality education. These records include employees, duties assigned to each, worker student ratio. During the interviews most of the headteachers agreed that the role of the non-teaching staff cannot be overemphasized. The
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards saw this as an opportunity because he noted that schools where the administration co-ordinates well with the non-teaching staff good results are realized. Indeed assessment brings about improvement in the institutions by working with people who work with the students.
Lack of co-operation from the teachers was seen as a challenge by the headteachers a nd Heads of depart-

1292 Educ. Res. ments. During the interviews, the Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards cited this challenge noting that many teachers still perceived the Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards as faultfinding and were therefore unwilling to share information with them. The headteachers who were interviewed revealed that though the trend was gradually changing many Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards still used the authoritarian mode to access the teachers thus creating fear and unwillingness to co-operate. This indicates that even with the change to the directorate of quality assurance and standards a lot is yet to be done to improve this relationship. Unavailability of lesson plans which involves the subject teacher doing a detailed layout of how exactly the lesson will go and giving details on content was noted to be very unpopular among the teachers. The headteachers who were interviewed revealed that many teachers saw them as repetitive and unnecessary paper work. The Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards in agreement noted that most teachers argued that the lesson notes would suffice.
Notwithstanding, the views of headteachers and heads of departments on lesson plans are important as they require the teachers to prepare their lessons well based on the objectives of each lesson and be able to evaluate them. Unproductive discussions with the teachers during assessment were observed by headteachers and heads of departments as a challenge. Two of the headteachers who were interviewed pointed out categorically that:
‘Often these discussions were unproductive because some of their recommendations were unreasonable. For instance the need to have both lesson plans and lesson notes which were contested by most teachers.’ The
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards on the other hand blamed this on the teachers’ status quo and unwillingness to accept change. Poor infrastructure inhibiting mobility was viewed by headteachers and heads of departments as a major challenge. Most of the schools were new and inaccessible making it difficult for the assessment to be carried out by the Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards in the enhancement of quality education. The Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards Officers said that the bad roads coupled with lack of transport makes it very difficult for them to visit schools as they should. The Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards stated clearly that ‘there is no vehicle designated to them.’
Target setting was considered by headteachers and heads of departments as a challenge faced by the
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards in the enhancement of quality education. The interview with the
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards revealed that many schools shy away from setting targets in fear of being held accountable. He said that stakeholders seem to shift blame about who should be held accountable. The headteachers added that there were many players and as much as targets are set failure by one team gives negative results. Therefore it was difficult for Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards to convince teachers to set targets. One Head of department categorically stated that; ‘Teachers feel this would lead to self victimization when the targets were not met.’ In the interview with the Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards it was noted that it takes long to give feedback to schools because of a minimal number of officers with overwhelming work load. Red tape was cited as another cause of these delays. This was confirmed by the headteachers who agreed that lack of impact on the quality of education could be related to lack of attention given to the follow up of supervision.
Inadequate Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards staff was cited by headteachers and heads of departments as a challenge for Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards in the enhancement of quality education. The district is understaffed and unable to run efficiently. The number of Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards has not grown as fast as that of schools leaving one Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards with 33 secondary schools thus slowing the assessment process. Infact the practice was that
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards were out sourced from the neighboring districts to carry out the assessment in the district.
Lack of vehicles for transport was cited by headteachers and heads of departments as a serious predicament to Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards operations. Transport for the Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards was inadequate as indicated by 28 (93.3%) headteachers and 100 (33.3%) heads of departments. Often the Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards have to rely on schools, other departments in the Ministry of Education, other Ministries or public vehicles for transport. This is prohibitive and inconveniencing thus restricting frequent supervisory visits. The policy that Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards can visit a school without notice was cited by headteachers and heads of departments as a challenge for Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards in the enhancement of quality education. The
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards concurred with the views of the headteachers and heads of departments noting the presence of regulations governing their operations and emphasized the expectations that all officers should operate within them.
He added though that because of irregular or delayed inservicing a few may deviate from the norm. This finding is consistent with Hogwood and Gunn (1984) who state that the success of educational policies depends on their strategic formulation and implementation. The headteachers agreed that a number of these regulations are flawed with officers ambushing schools in the name of a supervision exercise. Many they noted come to the school with an already formed attitude. This challenge was cited by headteachers and heads of departments.

They explained that this was because the Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards never considered the value of assessment as the follow up was very poor or hardly done. Moreover there were many intervening factors that hindered the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards from realizing reasonable achievement. It was felt that there has been mere change of name but what the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards hold in view in terms of previous practices still stands.
This finding is consistent with views of Education For All
(2005) that a new post description is by far not sufficient to change the culture of service assessors who always have exercised control and have seen such control as a form of power. They cannot easily be transformed into actors offering collegial support to teachers. This is simply to change structure and terminology other than transform ingrained cultures and traditions.
Prefects are charged with the responsibility of supervising the students under the guidance of the teachers to ensure that school rules are adhered to.
During the interview the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards cited that in many schools prefects were the administration’s pets with a lot of powers and priviledges. Often, he added, they are used as spies by the teacher. They are therefore not willing to say what may be considered derogatory about their teachers or schools. Daily Nation (29 th
July 2001) underscores this by noting that teachers are too preoccupied with other things and increasingly delegating plenty of routine supervisory work to prefects. If taken too, far this trend can be dangerous. In their responses, the headteachers said that prefects are always treated as suspect by other students and even some teachers making it impossible for them to show willingness to work effectively especially with strangers. As such Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards find it difficult to solicit any information that would help it to offer useful advice to enhance prefects’ involvement in management of secondary schools. On being interviewed the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards revealed that because of the close link with some of the school administrators, the students feel a sense of loyalty towards them and in response to their sharing with Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards will only say what is expected of a head teacher. The headteachers felt that some prefects may respond as expected to questions that may seem tailored by the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards to solicit given responses. Such information cannot help the
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards to assist prefect involvement in school management for enhancement of quality education. The Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards explained that many headteachers were fearful of allowing sufficient interaction between the officers and the prefects lest information considered classified is revealed. The headteachers on the other hand insisted that the prefects were free to interact with the Directorate of Quality
Watsulu and Simatwa 1293
Assurance and Standards but only found it difficult to share with total strangers. Unfortunately the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards fail to get a chance to offer advice that could help in the enhancement of quality education.
Fee structures are documents outlining the fees per student in the year reflected against all the vote heads.
According to 30 (100%) headteachers and 200 (66.6%) heads of departments this is an opportunity of ensuring prudent management of finances. According to the
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards, this opportunity enables them to discuss with the administrators ways of ensuring that the fees is well collected, banked and put to good use. The headteachers concurred with this line of thought and emphasized that this is a vital process to ensure that funds purposed to enhance quality education are available. Annual budgets are documents showing the anticipated income and expenditure in a school in a given year.30 (100%) headteachers and 200(66.6%) heads of departments agreed with this. On visiting the school the Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards have an opportunity to discuss the budget with efforts to channeling most funds to the provision of quality education. The headteachers agreed with this line of thought during the interview.
Heads of departments also concurred with the views of the headteachers and Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards. Attendance registers are the documents holding names of all the students in a given school per class. The daily attendance register helps to monitor students’ presence in schools. Availability in school is paramount to provision of quality education. The monitoring of this availability helps the school address issues of absence from school. Registers provide an opportunity for Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards to give informed opinion on the school population and income and how they can be used to the student’s benefit.
Books of accounts are the various documents used to record income and expenditure. The purpose is to ensure that any such funds are channeled towards the provision of quality education. This is in line with Ministry of
Education Science and Technology (2004) that states that to enhance quality education the Quality Assurance and Standard Officer should set out to ensure efficient management of the financial resources and its contribution to education standards. The Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards emphasized the importance of scrutinizing these documents during visits saying it gives the headteachers especially those new in this field to implement advice given to enhance quality education. The headteachers commended this stating that most headteachers have minimal knowledge of accounts and this helps them improve the quality of education. Audit reports are financial reports given by government auditors after the scrutiny of all the financial documents of a given school. They give a detailed

1294 Educ. Res. account of how the monies collected in a school have been spent and advise accordingly. Ministry of Education
Science and Technology (2004) emphasizes the need to access whether all the key record keeping functions are covered by the methods that the schools are expected to use. The Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards agreed that the scrutiny of the reports is an opportunity for them to give proper guidance on how best to use the funds to achieve quality education. The headteachers in the interview agreed that this opportunity offers a valuable learning process. Heads of departments similarly indicated that audit reports are invaluable opportunities for Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards to enhance optimum utilization of funds to enhance quality education. Trial balances are the profit and loss sheets. They enable the school’s management to follow expenditure on various voteheads and ensure that funds intended for the improvement of quality education are not spent on any other vote head. The
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards use this opportunity to advice accordingly. The headteachers see this as an opportunity that gives quality guidance to headteachers for prudent financial management that leads to the provision of quality education. All schools are expected to open the following bank accounts; Tuition,
Operations and school fund to ensure that funds meant for a given vote head are spent as proposed. This opportunity enables Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards to identify and discuss areas of concern. The headteachers agree that this opportunity cannot be overemphasized because lack of knowledge of financial issues is detrimental to the provision of quality education.
Records showing staff establishment are vital opportunities for Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards to advice on how best to use the staff in the enhancement of quality education. Headteachers, heads of departments and the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards asserted that they are noble opportunities as staff are major players in the provision of quality education. These are important opportunities because there is a common shortage of staff in schools, and schools have limited finances to hire such staff. The school creditors and other service providers may feel disgruntled and take a school to court. While doing an assessment the Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards noted that the scrutiny of such documents is vital in terms of advising the school against panic and thus spending funds meant for other activities intended to improve the quality of education. The headteachers pointed out this as a crucial opportunity to guide schools on legal issues that would otherwise cost the school a lot of money which would otherwise be used to improve the quality of education. The tender committee of a school is charged with the responsibility of identifying the right commodities at the best price possible for consumption at the school. The Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards confirmed that the knowledge of the tender committee reports provided an opportunity to them for matters pertaining to tender board regulations headteachers and heads of departments noted that many times these regulations are abused costing the school a lot of money that would otherwise have been used for the provision of quality education on the Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards advice. The Parents
Teachers Association has the responsibility to prioritize the school projects with focus on the provision of quality education. Republic of Education (2004) states that the quality assurance and standards officers should ensure proper management of finances by ascertaining that school improvement programmes are in place. This opportunity gives a chance to the Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards Officers to find a forum in which projects are identified with purpose to enhance quality education. If this is not done there can be tendencies to pursue projects that have no or very minimal impact on the provision of quality education. The headteachers and heads of departments noted that this opportunity if well utilized can help ensure that schools focus on projects that enhance the quality of education.
The idea of schools becoming self reliant without overburdening parents cannot be overemphasized. This can then give the school extra funds to pump into the provision of quality education. Income generating projects records are a vital opportunity for Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards to advice on how to improve on them with the view to enhancing quality education.
Headteachers and heads of departments concurred that these opportunities are invaluable. Overally, the many discussed opportunities for Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards in the prudent financial management of school funds are fundamental to quality education. An omission of any of these opportunities can adversely affect the quality of education in schools. No matter how knowledgeable and skilled the school managers may be, failure to identify, seize and utilize these opportunities can only be detrimental to the provision of quality education.
During the interview with the Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards, lack of time to scrutinize
Financial Documents was cited as a challenge. According to Education For All (2005) assessors cannot spend much time in schools because of their administrative tasks. Some are local
Representatives of Ministry of Education and have other duties few of which have anything to do with their mandate. The Headteachers complained that it was difficult to do a thorough and holistic scrutiny of schools financial documents in such a short time. Many times the auditors gave superficial reports. The headteachers blatantly stated that the time set aside for this important duty was minimal forcing some officers to simply pick out mistakes and use those to form an opinion. The
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards agreed that many times they visited a school in the company of

only one auditor, making it difficult for him to do a proper scrutiny of the finance documents. The headteachers and heads of departments emphasized the fact that auditors are inadequate for a useful exercise. Headteachers added that even in normal auditing the books of accounts take too long to be audited. The Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards noted that despite the inadequate time, many times the auditors got to schools only to find missing or incomplete financial documents.
This makes it very difficult for the officers to effectively evaluate these records and advice accordingly. In this respect Hughes and Ubben (1990) emphasized need to increase the degree of accountability of schools towards the stakeholders. The headteachers consented insisting that this was a very important docket that required alert accounts officers who are rare to find in schools. The
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards said that many schools used personnel who were under qualified and thus unable to provide the expected services. These officers are not able to advise the school administrators well towards proper utilization of funds to provide quality education. One headteacher categorically acknowledged this challenge noting that often they are forced to double up as financial officers despite their many duties and responsibilities to ensure provision of adequate records.
They cited under qualified accounts officers as a stumbling block in the provision of adequate services for quality education.
The Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards
Officer said that often schools took as many as 5 years to submit books of accounts for auditing. At this time a lot of financial mistakes will have been made making it a real challenge to amend the situation. Two of the headteachers agreed with this challenge but said that even after the books are submitted for auditing it takes a long time before feedback is received. Many a times it is overtaken by events.
The Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards
Officer noted as a challenge the unwillingness of some headteachers to give information vital to necessitate adequate advice in fear of being victimized. He said that evaluation recommendations always have an impact on the position and power of different actors and those who feel that their authority is under threat will unavoidably oppose reforms. On interviewing them one headteacher interviewed wondered how one can judge the performance of a school on the basis of a single visit.
They said that some auditors took to the auditing exercise with preconceived ideas and very little could be done to change these opinions. They argued that there is a lot of suspicion in the exercise creating a lot of discomfort. Because of the overwhelming work load, and the fact that some recommendations demand action from other authorities in the ministry, the Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards Officer agreed that it often takes a long time, up to a year to give the said feedback.
Many times this is overtaken by events with damage
Watsulu and Simatwa 1295 already done.
Overally these challenges deny schools an opportunity to receive the well deserved assessment from the
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards that would drastically improve the quality of education in the district Headteachers emphasized that there is need to hire more personnel. There has been an increase in the number of schools and teachers which is not accompanied by an equal number in expansion of the supervisors. This makes the supervisors have too many schools under their jurisdiction thus inability to offer quality supervision. Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards Officers require inservice to help with the ever changing curriculum and use appropriate approaches and skill. Normally, Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards are simply appointed from among practicing teachers who actually are ill prepared to serve in
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards in all cases they are simply given guidelines and inducted by the experienced members of Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards. One of the headteachers remarked that ‘one of my teachers was appointed to serve as Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards when he actually was not a performer’. The heads of departments concurred with the headteachers views.
Regulations governing operations of the directorate of quality assurance and standards should be improved to enable the Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer give beneficial supervision. Currently they are still using guidelines and policies of education
Act cap 211which were meant for the defunct inspectorate. Moreover, some of the officers have only changed the title. Arrangements should be made to ensure that the Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards Officers have reliable and sufficient means of transport to facilitate assessment trips. As the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards stated, lack of transport is a major hindrance in the provision of this important service. This would boost their morale and motivate them to operate well. This would enable them cover more schools and strive to meet their standards.
A new post description is by far not sufficient to change the culture of a service provider. There is need to inservice the Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer and help change the power culture ingrained in them to a more collegial approach to assessment. The Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards Officer on being interviewed expressed concern over the authoritarian approach of some of the
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards Officers which he said waters down the efforts of the other officers. For the Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards Officers to be effective, they need to realize that prior to appointment they were classroom teachers and teachers expect them to be friendly but firm, visionary and vibrant. For a long time, the headteachers and other teachers have perceived the Directorate of

1296 Educ. Res.
Quality Assurance and Standards Officer as fault finders.
Two headteachers said that almost always the
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards seem to derive a lot of joy in embarrassing the teachers and specifically the headteachers when they are pointing out mistakes. The teachers require change of attitude to enhance beneficial teamwork since they must work together. Teachers should not view them as non performers prior to their appointments as Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards Officers. They should rather view them as custodians of standards. Staff require in servicing to acquire new skills vital to enable them provide the teachers with quality guidance. A number of things have changed in the teaching profession including new subjects, new teaching methodologies and the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards Officer need to be well prepared to give the teachers sufficient guidance to the provision of quality education. If they are properly trained as noted by two of the heads of departments then they will earn respect and will fit in well in their new capacities. One headteacher recommended that they need one year training in which practicum should be inbuilt. Overally these strategies if put in place would make Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards a classic profession with a uniform approach that would be respected and appreciated by all the stakeholders in education.
CONCLUSION
In the period between 2005 and 2009 the Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards Officers carried out the following forms of assessment in Kakamega Central
District; Panel assessment, educational institutional registration assessment, subject based assessment, mass assessment, block assessment and follow-up assessment. In this period 2005= 2009, 44 assessments were carried out. However more than 67% of the schools were not assessed at all 44 times.
There were many opportunities for Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards such as observation of teachers in class, scrutiny of lesson plans and scrutiny of schemes of work, finance records, tuition facilities and staff establishment records to enhance quality of secondary education. These opportunities were used in the schools that had been assessed. However the schools that had not been assessed did not benefit from these opportunities.
The Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards faced many challenges such as unavailability of lesson plans and poor infrastructure inhibiting mobility, lack of vehicles for transport, lack of time to scrutinize financial documents, shortage of auditors, incomplete financial accounts documents, use of unqualified accounts personnel in schools, delays in submitting books of accounts for audit and lack of co-operation by some headteachers in the process of school standards assessments. The limited school assessments to
12(40%) schools for the period 2005-2009 may be attributed to these challenges.
Hiring more Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards Officers, inservicing Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards personnel, reviewing regulations governing operations, availing adequate transport for Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards personnel, change of attitude of Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards, change of attitude for teachers and headteachers and developing capacity building policy were the coping strategies suggested for the enhancement of quality secondary education. If implemented these strategies would improve the quality of assessment process in schools.
RECOMMENDATIONS
With regard to types and frequency of various types of assessment in schools:
The Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards should ensure that panel assessment is carried out in every school at least once in every 3 years and there should be a follow up assessment within a year to ascertain that all recommendations have been adhered to.
The Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards should ensure that subject based standards assessment is carried out more frequently in every school to enhance academic performance.
With regard to opportunities for Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards in enhancing curriculum implementation to promote quality education in
Kakamega Central District:
The Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards should spend more quality time in schools to ensure that all the relevant documents including lesson plans, records of work covered and financial documents are thoroughly scrutinized so that they could be able to give sufficient advice.
The headteachers should put to optimum use administration facilities, tuition facilities and resources and boarding facilities.
On challenges for Quality Assurance and Standards in the enhancement of Quality Secondary Education in
Kakamega Central District:
Teachers and headteachers should be inserviced to change their attitudes towards the Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards and see them as custodians of quality education with whom they have to team up to improve results in the district.
Headteachers should ensure that teachers implement the curriculum as per the government expectations and prepare and use lesson plans, set targets and keep records of work.

The government should ensure that all the schools in the district are accessible and provide the Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards with sufficient means of transport to enable them access the schools.
Quality assurance and standards officers should be more effective in carrying out their duties in schools by giving feedback on time and using a collegial approach in their sharing with the teachers.
With regard to the opportunities for quality assurance and standards in ensuring prudent management of secondary schools finances:
Headteachers should adhere to government policies as required and ensure that all the relevant financial documents are in school and are availed on demand.
School management boards should ensure that all committees in schools are constituted as per the requirements of the Ministry of Education including tender board and the parents’ teachers associations; and inducted into the skills of proper utilization of funds.
The government should ensure that the district has a state council who will give legal advice to the school to save them from exorbitant fees charged by advocates in court cases.
With regard to the challenges for quality assurance and standards in ensuring prudent management of finances in schools:
The Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards should allocate sufficient time to enable proper scrutiny of all financial documents to enable them give meaningful advice.
The government should recruit and in-service more
Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards Officers to meet the demands of the ever increasing number of secondary schools.
The Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards should work expeditiously to give feedback within a year so that their advice remains relevant to the schools concerned.
The Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards need to be inserviced to change their assessment approach in dealing with uncooperative headteachers and view headteachers as members of a team geared towards improving the quality of education in the district through prudent financial management.
With regard to the strategies for coping with the challenges for quality assurance and Standards in order to enhance the quality of secondary education in
Kakamega Central District:
The Ministry of Education should hire and inservice more Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards
Officers in the tasks of quality assurance and standards.
The Ministry of Education should review regulations governing operations of the Directorate of Quality
Assurance and Standards to suit the changing times.
The Ministry of Education should assign the Directorate of Quality Assurance and Standards sufficient transport to facilitate the assessment programmes.
Watsulu and Simatwa 1297
The headteachers and teachers should change their attitude towards Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards Oficer’s and view them as partners in enhancement of quality education.
The headteachers should facilitate school standards assessments by providing vehicles for transport and also providing complete financial support.
REFERENCES
Achoka JS (1990). The role of the Secondary school principal in
Quebec English schools. Unpublished Master of Arts Dissertation.
Montreal: Quebec University.
Ary D Jacobs LC, Razavieh A (1996). Introduction to Research in
Education (5 th
ED), Fort Harcort: Bruce Publishers.
Chapman DW, Carrier CA (1990). Improving Educational Quality: A
Global Perspective. New York: GreenWood Press.
District Education Officer (2007). Kenya Certificate of Secondary
Education Examinations Analysis for Kakamega Central District.
Kakamega: Kakamega Central District Education Office.
Dull WI (1981). Supervision: School leadership handbook. Ohio:
Charles E. Merill Publishing Company.
Education For All (2005). Education For All- The Quality Imperative.
Online hppt//www.unesco.org. retrieved on 5 th
August 2009 9 am.
Fullan GM (1991). What is worth of fighting for in principalship: strategies for taking change in the elementary school’s principalship.
Toronto: Teachers’ Federation.
Glickman CD (1990). Supervision of instruction. A developmental approach. 2nd.ed. Massachusetts 160 Gould street: Needem heights.
Harris MB (1990). Supervisory behaviour in education 3rd. ed. New
Jersey: Prentice hall Inc.
Hoogwood J, Gunn R (1984). Policy Analysis for the Real World.
London: Oxford University press.
Hughes W L, Ubben CG (1990). The elementary principal’s handbook a guide for effective action 3rd . ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Maranya MJ (2001).The supervisory role of secondary school headteachers in curriculum implementation in Machakos district.
Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy thesis. Moi University.
Ministry of Education (1979). A Manual for Heads of Secondary Schools in Kenya. Nairobi: Government Printer.
Ministry of Education (2000). Handbook for inspection of education institutions. Nairobi: Government printer.
Ministry of Education Science and Technology (2004). Directorate of
Quality Assurance and Standards. Nairobi: Government printer.
Ministry of Education (2005). Directorate of Quality Assurance and
Standards. Nairobi: Government printer.
Ministry of Education (2007). A newsletter of the Ministry of Education,
Elimu news Issue No. 1. Nairobi: Government printer.
Ministry of Education(2007). Prize and trophy presentation day
Kakamega East Central and South districts. Kakamega: District
Education Office.
Mobegi FO (2007). Quality Assurance in public secondary schools: challenges and opportunities for headteachers in Gucha district.
Unpublished Master of Education thesis. Maseno University.
Mutai KB (2000). How to Write Quality Research proposal: Complete
Simplified Recipe. New Delhi: Thelley Publications.
Mwiria K (1985). ‘The Harambee School Movement: A historical perspective.’ Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis. University of
Wisconsin.
Nero D (1995).School based evaluation. A dialogue for school improvement. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Okumbe JA (1998). Education Management: Theory and Practice.
Nairobi:University Press.
Okumbe JA (1987). “Effectiveness of Supervision and Inspection in
Selected Secondary Schools in Kiambu District”. Unpublished Master of Education Thesis, Kenyatta University
Olembo JO (1992). Major functions of school supervision in Kenya

1298 Educ. Res. schools. A paper presented in education forum, Kenyatta University.
Oliva FP, Pawlas G E (2004). Supervision for today’s schools.
7th.ed.Wiley: Wiley publishing inc.
Republic of Kenya (1964). The Kenya Education Commission Report.
Nairobi: Government printer.
Republic of Kenya (1980). The Education Act. Nairobi: Government printer.
Republic of Kenya (2000). Ministry of Education Science and
Technology, Handbook for Inspection of Educational Institutions.
Nairobi Government Printer.
Republic of Kenya (2001). Ministry of Education circular No/G9/01/169 of 10 th
April 2001. Nairobi: Ministry of Education.
Sergiovanni TJ (2000). Supervision A redefinition 5th. ed. Toronto: Mc
Grow Hill Inc.
Sergiovanni TJ (1989). The Principalship. A reflective Practice
Perspective (3rd Ed.), San Antonio: Trinity University.
Simatwa EMW (2007). Management of students discipline in secondary schools in Bungoma District Kenya: unpublished Doctor of
Philosophy thesis in Education administration. Maseno University.
Tuckman BW (1994). Conducting Educational Research. 4 th
ed.
Florida: Harcount Brace College publishers.
Wasanga PM (2004). Quality Standards and Quality Assurance in Basic
Education. Nairobi: United Nations complex.